TheRPGSite

Simply put, I don't like random chargen. I especially loathe 3d6 in order, producing wildly varying stats and giving the player no real choice about what character they might want to play. I'm not interested in debating the merits of that here, or how traditional it is, take that elsewhere.

Something the newer editions have, which any faithful OSR game doesn't, are a range of non-random methods of generating stats. I'm not a big fan of point buy for a range of reasons, but whenever anyone min-maxes it, they tend to basically produce something close to the standard array anyway. Thus my goal here, produce a "standard array" for OSR.

The standard array for 3.x, 4e and 5e is the same: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. In modifiers terms, this translates to +2, +2, +1, +1, 0, -1. The modifiers are slightly different in OD&D, having a wider middle band with no adjustments.

Using the modifiers as a guide, I'd reckon on an "OSR standard array" thus:  16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 8. With an additional 2 points the player can put wherever they like (including into the same ability score).

How does that look?

If I got rid of 3d6 in my B/X game the array would be 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,and 10. The bonuses are not that important and low scores are not that detrimental, so if randomness went I'd go with average.

D&D 3e included what they called the "non-elite" array, which they clarified was based on a normal distribution of results on 3d6 (rather than the elite/PC array which was based on the normal distribution of "4d6 drop the lowest").

The non-elite array was 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.

Hope that helps.

Quote from: KingofElfland;1070684If I got rid of 3d6 in my B/X game the array would be 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,and 10. The bonuses are not that important and low scores are not that detrimental, so if randomness went I'd go with average.

Even if it weren't the case that you get bonus XP with high scores, this entire argument is a nonsense. The character with the higher stat is on average more successful.

As I said, I'm not interested in debating the merits of removing randomness, which is what you're attempting to do in a roundabout way.

Quote from: Chris24601;1070686D&D 3e included what they called the "non-elite" array, which they clarified was based on a normal distribution of results on 3d6 (rather than the elite/PC array which was based on the normal distribution of "4d6 drop the lowest").

The non-elite array was 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.

Hope that helps.

That's +1, +1, 0, 0, -1, -1. So the OD&D equivalent would be something like: 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, 7.

Two alternative arrays is a useful thing to have, thanks for that.

Quote from: Kiero;1070682How does that look?

Looks like you have no idea what the standard array is. It's pretty simple -- it's an approximation of the median array you'd get, if you rolled 4d6 in order a zillion times. When 3.0 came out, someone on Usenet actually generated all possible arrays (6^24), and found that 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 array actually came pretty close to the median or modal array (there was one other that was slightly more common, or something equally minor). That's why it's a reasonable trade off for 4d6 in order. Roll 4d6 in order, risk getting lower or high stats. Or chose the array and have no chance of rolling high, but you're guaranteed the dice won't fail you.

A standard old school array is going to be base 3d6 in order, whether you like or not, because that's the OSR standard. Third edition had the nonelite array (your standard array is actually the elite array) for NPCs classes and generic monsters, which was 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. That's supposed to represent 3d6 in order, but it's not quite as close. The actual array would look more like 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, and 7. Which works out to +1, +1... -1, -1. but the 13 and 8 are just on the border and could be rounded the other way (12 and 9), which brings us back to the nonelite modifiers of +1... -1.

Now if you want an array for your personal purposes, that's fine. But don't pretend it's a standard array. It's just your array.

Quote from: Pat;1070690Looks like you have no idea what the standard array is. It's pretty simple -- it's an approximation of the median array you'd get, if you rolled 4d6 in order a zillion times. When 3.0 came out, someone on Usenet actually generated all possible arrays (6^24), and found that 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 array actually came pretty close to the median or modal array (there was one other that was slightly more common, or something equally minor). That's why it's a reasonable trade off for 4d6 in order. Roll 4d6 in order, risk getting lower or high stats. Or chose the array and have no chance of rolling high, but you're guaranteed the dice won't fail you.

A standard old school array is going to be base 3d6 in order, whether you like or not, because that's the OSR standard. Third edition had the nonelite array (your standard array is actually the elite array) for NPCs classes and generic monsters, which was 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. That's supposed to represent 3d6 in order, but it's not quite as close. The actual array would look more like 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, and 7. Which works out to +1, +1... -1, -1. but the 13 and 8 are just on the border and could be rounded the other way (12 and 9), which brings us back to the nonelite modifiers of +1... -1.

Now if you want an array for your personal purposes, that's fine. But don't pretend it's a standard array. It's just your array.

OK, mine's the elite array (and I've seen that run used interchangeably as elite or standard), and the one you just shared - almost identical to the one I just knocked up in post #4 - is the standard array. Either way, I now have two useful arrays:

Elite: 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 8
Standard: 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, 7

Sigh.

You don't get it, Kiero.

According to a few sources, including AnyDice.

The standard array for 3d6 is...

14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7

But keep in mind that in O and BX D&D you can shuffle points after rolling on a 2 for 1 basis within discrete limits. This allowed players to sacrifice a few points in one stat to bolster another.

What you could do is make up a table with various permutations of the order and have players roll on that.

Partial example

1 = 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7
2 = 7, 12, 11, 10, 9, 14
3 = 12, 14, 11, 10, 9, 7
4 = 10, 11, 14, 7, 9, 12

and so on

The pregens in the Mentzer Basic Red Box are all built off an array. It's rather high as I recall. Late now, I'll see about digging it out tomorrow.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1070694Sigh.

You don't get it, Kiero.

No, I don't give a shit. I couldn't care less how it was done "back in the day" or what the aesthetic is or anything else. I don't care what your anecdotal experience was in your group.

My interest here is solely that OD&D has a neat little core system that runs fast. I'm not interested in any of the baggage that goes with it.

Quote from: Omega;1070700According to a few sources, including AnyDice.

The standard array for 3d6 is...

14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7

But keep in mind that in O and BX D&D you can shuffle points after rolling on a 2 for 1 basis within discrete limits. This allowed players to sacrifice a few points in one stat to bolster another.

What you could do is make up a table with various permutations of the order and have players roll on that.

Partial example

1 = 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7
2 = 7, 12, 11, 10, 9, 14
3 = 12, 14, 11, 10, 9, 7
4 = 10, 11, 14, 7, 9, 12

and so on

Thanks for the additional array. I'm looking at the modifiers, rather than just the scores alone; that seems a better guide than the ability scores alone.

As before, I'm eliminating the randomness on purpose. Replacing one with another doesn't really serve my purpose.

Quote from: S'mon;1070702The pregens in the Mentzer Basic Red Box are all built off an array. It's rather high as I recall. Late now, I'll see about digging it out tomorrow.

More data is always good, thanks.

Kiero can I suggest you play something else?

I'm not trying to be nasty, but really, just...there's plenty of other games that'll do what you want to do without you having to reinvent the wheel.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1070705Kiero can I suggest you play something else?

I'm not trying to be nasty, but really, just...there's plenty of other games that'll do what you want to do without you having to reinvent the wheel.

I've already reinvented the wheel with the reworking of ACKS I did a while back. This is just further evolution of the concept.

It's incredible that for a hobby that prides itself on people hacking things to meet a particular objective, there are so many purists who recoil at the notion of someone changing something as trivial as how ability scores are generated.

Just use whatever you want, I'd say. IMO you could use 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, since the "modern" method of rolling abilities was already popular in the AD&D days IIRC.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1070708Just use whatever you want, I'd say. IMO you could use 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, since the "modern" method of rolling abilities was already popular in the AD&D days IIRC.

I could do, but that won't line up with the modifiers given by later systems, given the wider unmodified range in the middle. That's +1, +1, +1, 0, 0, -1, closer to standard than the elite that represents.

Found it - the humans use 17 16 14 11 9 8. The demi-humans use 16 14 11 9 9 7.

Quote from: S'mon;1070711Found it - the humans use 17 16 14 11 9 8. The demi-humans use 16 14 11 9 9 7.

Which gives me some more potential arrays, thanks.

Quote from: Kiero;1070703My interest here is solely that OD&D has a neat little core system that runs fast. I'm not interested in any of the baggage that goes with it.

   In an overly gloomy and negative mood, I'm not sure this is possible any more.

Quote from: Kiero;1070707It's incredible that for a hobby that prides itself on people hacking things to meet a particular objective, there are so many purists who recoil at the notion of someone changing something as trivial as how ability scores are generated.

   Continuing the above theme, the hobby is dead. All we have now are mutually exclusive and hostile ideological camps and cults.

Looks like you are actually working off Swords & Wizardry or the TSR Boxed sets from the 80s, rather than 1974 D&D Kiero.

D&D 1974

Prime requisite 15: 10% experience bonus
Prime requisite 13-14: 5% experience bonus

Constitution 15: +1 per hit die
Constitution 6: -1 per hit die
Dexterity 12: +1 to missle
Dexterity 9: -1 to missle

Charisma
13-15: +1 loyalty
16-17: +2 Loyalty
18: +4 Loyalty
Loyalty is between 1 and above 19.


Focusing on the modifiers is a skewed way to look at the attribute scores in 1974 D&D.  The scores help the player and DM with the visualization and conceptualization of the character and how that character acts and may act in the world.  Not so much about modifiers.

If you would like a smaller group, which an array creates, just do so, perhaps 1-10 or even 1-6.  NPCs and monsters don't have ability scores remember.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1070715Continuing the above theme, the hobby is dead. All we have now are mutually exclusive and hostile ideological camps and cults.

Jesus fucking christ, the two of you are whiners. There's no baggage. Play, or don't play. Nobody cares. Just stop with all this passive aggressive shit, and stop playing victim. It makes you shitty people, and makes for shitty threads.

Alternative random but balanced system: get 18 playing cards and deal them into six piles of three cards each. For 3d6-level stats get three of each card from 1-6, for higher stats adjust higher.

Your card method would be a nice change to achieve something like an array Daztur.  Cards for ranges can be a fun.

I like 4d6 drop the lowest.  Damn 3d6.  When 10 is supposedly a common normal stat for an everyday NPC on the street, how can a heroic adventurer have a 6 in any stat?  All of my pre gens have a 10 or better in every stat.  It makes them functional.  Why would a character with a low score or two, ever go into a dungeon?  My NPCs usually have a 10 in every stat, unless they are an exceptional NPC.

16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 arrange to taste would be awesome; but 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 is more down to earth, I suppose.

Quote from: Razor 007;1070733I like 4d6 drop the lowest.  Damn 3d6.  When 10 is supposedly a common normal stat for an everyday NPC on the street, how can a heroic adventurer have a 6 in any stat?  All of my pre gens have a 10 or better in every stat.  It makes them functional.  Why would a character with a low score or two, ever go into a dungeon?  My NPCs usually have a 10 in every stat, unless they are an exceptional NPC.

16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 arrange to taste would be awesome; but 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 is more down to earth, I suppose.

I figure those people in those games aren't "heroes" but just people actually dumb enough to risk their life to do stupid things for money instead of just being a farmer.

Best way to get a proper array is to figure out what the bonus required to generally succeed an X amount of time.  Do you want players to win 20-30-40% of the time?  Higher?  50-70%?  With or without magic items?  And then base the stats around the classes prime stats.  Then judge hit points vs. average damage meted out, the basic difficulty of spell/ability saving throws.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070722Looks like you are actually working off Swords & Wizardry or the TSR Boxed sets from the 80s, rather than 1974 D&D Kiero.

Why would he actually read the game he wants to change?

Quote from: KieroIt's incredible that for a hobby that prides itself on people hacking things to meet a particular objective, there are so many purists who recoil at the notion of someone changing something as trivial as how ability scores are generated.

But you're not hacking it to meet an objective, you just "don't like" random character generation. I don't like polearms - should I take them out of the rules? No, because doing so would not achieve any particular objective, it would not make the game session better. As a DM, it's not about my personal likes and dislikes, it's about what the players find fun.

If you actually play a game, rather than just reading it, or reading a clone of it, then you have some experiences on which to base any changes you and your players think good. By playing a game, you start to figure out that some things you thought were issues aren't, and some things you thought would be fine cause a mess. With experience, you can then solve the problems arising, if any, and make the game session more fun. Until then you're offering solutions in search of a problem.

Some years back S John Ross commented that, answering questions on the GURPS mailing list, he could tell the difference between the questions that came up from playing the game, and the questions that came up from reading the book. On reading a book, many things seem to be issues which turn out not to be in play - and vice versa. This is doubly so when you're not even reading the book but a rewriting of it.

Play the game with a competent and experienced DM for a while, and then start thinking about changing things. Until then you're a virgin arguing about sex. This is a long pattern for you, Kiero, going back to rpg.net days where you proclaimed "I'm not a gamer."

You can and should change.

Quote from: Razor 007;1070733When 10 is supposedly a common normal stat for an everyday NPC on the street, how can a heroic adventurer have a 6 in any stat?

Ordinary people can do extraordinary things. They just need daring, wits and luck. Two of those three are in the control of the player. That's part of the fun of the game.

An array I've used pre-3e that works well was 16 14 13 12 10 9. It's based off best 3 of 4d6 as the baseline for PCs though.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070722Looks like you are actually working off Swords & Wizardry or the TSR Boxed sets from the 80s, rather than 1974 D&D Kiero.

D&D 1974

Prime requisite 15: 10% experience bonus
Prime requisite 13-14: 5% experience bonus

Constitution 15: +1 per hit die
Constitution 6: -1 per hit die
Dexterity 12: +1 to missle
Dexterity 9: -1 to missle

Charisma
13-15: +1 loyalty
16-17: +2 Loyalty
18: +4 Loyalty
Loyalty is between 1 and above 19.


Focusing on the modifiers is a skewed way to look at the attribute scores in 1974 D&D.  The scores help the player and DM with the visualization and conceptualization of the character and how that character acts and may act in the world.  Not so much about modifiers.

If you would like a smaller group, which an array creates, just do so, perhaps 1-10 or even 1-6.  NPCs and monsters don't have ability scores remember.

I'm working off B/X-derived ACKS, which has a unified system of modifiers for the stats. That's why it's tagged OSR-ish, not OD&D 1974. Perhaps I should have said "for OD&D-type games" rather than simply "for OD&D"?

In ACKS, those modifiers go:
3: -3
4-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-12: 0
13-15: +1
16-17: +2
18: +3

Thus the modifiers matter intrinsically, as they do in all the later games for which the elite array is featured. We're talking about two completely different interpretations of what the ability scores are there for.

Quote from: Pat;1070725Jesus fucking christ, the two of you are whiners. There's no baggage. Play, or don't play. Nobody cares. Just stop with all this passive aggressive shit, and stop playing victim. It makes you shitty people, and makes for shitty threads.

There clearly is baggage, since people are wasting text trying to justify how important random ability scores are, even though I expressly asked them not to.

Baggage, Exhibit A:

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1070705Kiero can I suggest you play something else?

I'm not trying to be nasty, but really, just...there's plenty of other games that'll do what you want to do without you having to reinvent the wheel.

"Please don't alter the game I hold sacred!"

Exhibit B: everything Kyle Aaron has posted in this thread.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070734I figure those people in those games aren't "heroes" but just people actually dumb enough to risk their life to do stupid things for money instead of just being a farmer.

Which is nice if people want to rationalise why their adventurer with no aptitude is doing stupid things, but not what I'm interested in for the types of games I run.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1070746But you're not hacking it to meet an objective, you just "don't like" random character generation. I don't like polearms - should I take them out of the rules? No, because doing so would not achieve any particular objective, it would not make the game session better. As a DM, it's not about my personal likes and dislikes, it's about what the players find fun.

If you actually play a game, rather than just reading it, or reading a clone of it, then you have some experiences on which to base any changes you and your players think good. By playing a game, you start to figure out that some things you thought were issues aren't, and some things you thought would be fine cause a mess. With experience, you can then solve the problems arising, if any, and make the game session more fun. Until then you're offering solutions in search of a problem.

Some years back S John Ross commented that, answering questions on the GURPS mailing list, he could tell the difference between the questions that came up from playing the game, and the questions that came up from reading the book. On reading a book, many things seem to be issues which turn out not to be in play - and vice versa. This is doubly so when you're not even reading the book but a rewriting of it.

Play the game with a competent and experienced DM for a while, and then start thinking about changing things. Until then you're a virgin arguing about sex. This is a long pattern for you, Kiero, going back to rpg.net days where you proclaimed "I'm not a gamer."

You can and should change.

I don't care about the original game, nor does it matter whether I'm reading it or a clone, they all fall under the broad umbrella of OD&D. I've got more than enough experience of actually playing D&D (numerous editions) to know what I'm doing. I've run OD&D-derived games where I changed the chargen method, and surprisingly, they were fun. I only GM games I think are fun, and I'm upfront about what changes I've made and why in the pitch. If people don't like that, then they say so and we don't play it.

So take your tiresome, patronising schtick about how much more experienced in the world you are and stick it. I don't need your approval, nor do I care whether you think I've "earned my dues". Your opinion is irrelevant in this thread, feel free to stop offering it.

Quote from: S'mon;1070749An array I've used pre-3e that works well was 16 14 13 12 10 9. It's based off best 3 of 4d6 as the baseline for PCs though.

Another one for consideration, thanks.

Quote from: Kiero;1070758Another one for consideration, thanks.

You'll note that with B/X (or ACKS) bonuses it gives a +2, two +1s, and three +0s, which I find works very nicely.

If you have characters in a game with only scores from 9-18 there is no reason to have an array range from 9-18, since no one has 1-8.  Just use 1-10.  NPC don't need ability scores and monster don't.  

'Array Ability Stats for Adventurer Conquer King' is your thread title.  I guarantee GMs that play it like threads about their main game.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070761If you have characters in a game with only scores from 9-18 there is no reason to have an array range from 9-18, since no one has 1-8.  Just use 1-10.  NPC don't need ability scores and monster don't.  

'Array Ability Stats for Adventurer Conquer King' is your thread title.  I guarantee GMs that play it like threads about their main game.

NPCs do need ability scores; it hardly takes any effort to make them the same way as you would a PC and if they're the sorts with class levels there's no reason not to. So I see no need to ditch the existing stats and replace them with something else when what is there is perfectly serviceable. Though in my particular case there are no "monsters" unless you count animals.

People are monsters my friend.  Boo!

Nah, NPCs never need ability scores in D&D.

Classed npcs are typically given stats in all editions.

If you use d20 or 3d6 roll under stat checks you need the numbers to be in the usual range. Not 1- 10 or 0 to 3.

NPCs do not need ability scores.  You are simply choosing to do so.   Same with roll under with d20.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070766NPCs do not need ability scores.  You are simply choosing to do so.   Same with roll under with d20.

Do what you like in your game. In mine I will continue to give important NPCs (which includes henchmen and villains) proper stats.

What a limiting way to envision them.  Poor fellows.  Oh the tragedy.



Edit: Arrays worked ok in 4th by the book, however, being the way it was all set-up.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1070747They just need daring, wits and luck. Two of those three are in the control of the player. That's part of the fun of the game.

Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

Quote from: kythri;1070771Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

Stats don't matter when PCs are little more than interchangeable avatars of their players, competing in the beauty parade for who can impress the GM the most.

Quote from: Kiero;1070774Stats don't matter when PCs are little more than interchangeable avatars of their players, competing in the beauty parade for who can impress the GM the most.

It certainly seems that way, with all the bitching I've heard about the Diplomacy skill in 3E/3.5...

If you can't lift vehicles over your head in real life, that's OK, because your STR stat covers that, but if you can't shower someone with flowery prose in real life, well, fuck you.

Quote from: kythri;1070776It certainly seems that way, with all the bitching I've heard about the Diplomacy skill in 3E/3.5...

If you can't lift vehicles over your head in real life, that's OK, because your STR stat covers that, but if you can't shower someone with flowery prose in real life, well, fuck you.

Unlike lifting things, talking is the medium of the game, so it kind of takes away from it.

Imagine a cooking game where the game handles all the non-cooking parts for you, like shipment of goods and delivery, but leaves the cooking to you. That makes sense. But if it also does the cooking for you, what's left?

Quote from: kythri;1070776It certainly seems that way, with all the bitching I've heard about the Diplomacy skill in 3E/3.5...

If you can't lift vehicles over your head in real life, that's OK, because your STR stat covers that, but if you can't shower someone with flowery prose in real life, well, fuck you.

Unlike lifting things, talking is the medium of the game, so it kind of takes away from it.

Imagine a cooking game where the game handles all the non-cooking parts for you, like shipment of goods and delivery, but leaves the cooking to you. That makes sense. But if it also does the cooking for you, what's left?

Quote from: Kiero;1070707It's incredible that for a hobby that prides itself on people hacking things to meet a particular objective, there are so many purists who recoil at the notion of someone changing something as trivial as how ability scores are generated.

It open content, do you what you think best and don't worry about other people think.

However the changes you are making are not going to be liked by broad subgroups within the OSR. Don't be daft and think there is some ideal that doesn't exist.

You done what necessary you stated clearly why you want the changes you want. Just I do when people challenge me on including "skills" in my take.

As for the OP you are overthinking it. Just pick a starting point that "feels" right and run some campaigns with it. That will tell you whether it works for what you want to do.

What you need to do write down all the effects resulting from ability scores from in your chosen edition or retro-clones. Then see how you like various combinations.

For example if you make 13 the high score of the array while using the B/X rules then every player cleric will probably have at a 13 wisdom with +5% to earned XP and +1 to their magic saving throws.

If you are cool with that then great. If not you need to consider alternative or just living with the random system.

If the changes you are making keep piling up then you need to ask yourself what are you getting out of using an edition of D&D? From personal experience from writing and publishing my own rules the problem with extensive house rules is then using other classic D&D supplements and products are reduced in utility. With the enough changes they are no better (or worse) than say Pathfinder, Fate, GURPS, or Fantasy Age.

Finally some changes seem innocous but require a lot of work to implement even though the result is still largely compatible. For example in my Majestic Wilderlands allow certain magic user classes to have a focused art based on the metaphysics of how magic works. The mechanics of this is that a spell has a boost in effective when cast by somebody who is focused in the art of the spell.

For example a magic user who is focused in the Art of the Flame will be able to cast fireball with the following bonus;

QuoteThe fireball is now 60 feet in diameter and will expand to fill 196 5' by 5' squares. And does +1d6 damage.

Initially I tried just a small rule change of +1 caster level. But if one goes through a list of classic D&D spells not many of them have effects dependent on caster levels. Something that was quickly found out during the first campaign.

The flavor of the Arts of Magic is part of how magic works in the Majestic Wilderland so I bit the bullet and when through each spell and not only added what art is belongs too but also a focused art section and tailored the bonus effect for each spell.

For example

Light: Art of the Eagle: Light will radiate out to 30 feet and dim light and shadows extend to 90 feet. (instead of 20 feet and 60 feet)

Find Traps: Art of the Lantern: The range is now 40 feet, and the duration is one hour (instead of 30 feet and 20 minutes).

Both the original +1 caster level and the bonus effect came after discarding alternatives, most of which altered the core system to much.

As for what you are doing, what will happen is that most PCs will automatically get a small boost above and beyond their class descriptions.

Also you have to consider that unlike later edition the attribute scores are the primary mechanic as to how to roleplay a particular character. While not expresses in terms of mechanical bonus, a player should roleplay the differences in the various scores. A character with a 6 dexterity versus a 13 dexterity, or more obvious a 6 charisma versus as 13 charisma. It is the player side of the whole 'rulings not rules' ethos of OD&D.

Quote from: kythri;1070771Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

Not in terms of mechanics, but as referee if a player with a 6 int doesn't roleplay that 6 intelligence then we will be having a chat out of game about the issue.

There is player side to 'rulings not rules'. The referee ruling has to make sense in terms of how the setting works or it not fair. A player actions as a character has to make sense in light of what attributes they have or likewise it not fair.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1070779Unlike lifting things, talking is the medium of the game, so it kind of takes away from it.

I'm not suggesting the skill should replace talking, or replace conveying what you actually want to do.  The skill allows a not-so-eloquent speaker to roleplay an eloquent speaker, much like high STR fighters allow skinny/weak folk to portray high STR fighters.

The player is still going to need to verbally convey to the DM what he/she wants to do, and/or what he/she wants to persuade an NPC to do.  Obviously, that shouldn't be negated, but just because a player themself can't do something well doesn't mean a character shouldn't be able to.

Quote from: estar;1070788Not in terms of mechanics, but as referee if a player with a 6 int doesn't roleplay that 6 intelligence then we will be having a chat out of game about the issue.

There is player side to 'rulings not rules'. The referee ruling has to make sense in terms of how the setting works or it not fair. A player actions as a character has to make sense in light of what attributes they have or likewise it not fair.

That's pretty much what I'm suggesting.  A character's wits are based on their stats, not based on the player's wits.  If you've got a low INT/low WIS character, than that character doesn't have much in the way of wits about them.

Quote from: Kiero;1070774Stats don't matter when PCs are little more than interchangeable avatars of their players, competing in the beauty parade for who can impress the GM the most.

The rules are defined by the setting. The rulebook is just a tool to make running the campaign easier. Like it is easier to give attributes a quantifiable number of 15 than to say your character has a high strength. Likewise a character with 6 wisdom is likely to be more than a bit foolish or not very forward thinking.

Quote from: kythri;1070790That's pretty much what I'm suggesting.  A character's wits are based on their stats, not based on the player's wits.  If you've got a low INT/low WIS character, than that character doesn't have much in the way of wits about them.

Yes but with OD&D it part of the roleplaying rather than in other RPGs and later editions where it primary effect is a modifier for codified subsystem.

The player wits and creativity are still a part of the game. In this particular case oriented towards how to roleplay this obviously foolish character who doesn't plan ahead much (or any other cool interpretation of a 6 wisdom).

For example I have a Cleric with a 9 charisma. Anytime I have to preach, convince, I try to fuck it up a little. Not as bad as the bishop in the Princess Bride but bad enough to make it obvious public speaking and persuasion isn't his thing. The general approach that he is curt, a little bit rude, and tends to be inconsiderate in listening to what other are saying.

He has good traits like making sure his adherents and hireling are well equipped and well taken care of. But overall people agree he is a bit of a dick about it.

Quote from: estar;1070794Yes but with OD&D it part of the roleplaying rather than in other RPGs and later editions where it primary effect is a modifier for codified subsystem. The player wits and creativity are still a part of the game only in this particular case oriented towards how to roleplay this obvious foolish character who doesn't plan ahead much (or any other cool interpretation of a 6 wisdom).

How does that negate what I'm saying?

Low INT/Low WIS should be roleplayed accordingly.

Quote from: kythri;1070795How does that negate what I'm saying?

Low INT/Low WIS should be roleplayed accordingly.

The devil is in the details hence I gave some of the details I thought were important.

Quote from: kythri;1070795How does that negate what I'm saying?

Low INT/Low WIS should be roleplayed accordingly.

He's saying that it's still all what the player is doing, there's no "charisma roll."

The character sheet for the cleric I was talking about. Forgot he had a 8 charisma not a 9. So yeah definitely comes across as a bit of a dick. A bit clumsy and has frail health.

Also he survived is now 4th level. Hirelings and Henchmen got to love them. Plus he has a little cred now because he is the only one that managed to keep more of his crew alive. I lost a goblin henchmen while everybody else lose their crews.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3117[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3118[/ATTACH]

And, I suppose, that's the part I taking umbrage with.

If you're an excellent roleplayer, and can tone down your natural eloquence to roleplay a low CHA character, cool.  If you're a fledgling player, or, in real life, not very charismatic, and you want to play a high CHA character, it seems the general attitude is, you're fucked, because you (the player) can't dazzle the DM with your natural charm.

Quote from: kythri;1070800And, I suppose, that's the part I taking umbrage with.

If you're an excellent roleplayer, and can tone down your natural eloquence to roleplay a low CHA character, cool.  If you're a fledgling player, or, in real life, not very charismatic, and you want to play a high CHA character, it seems the general attitude is, you're fucked, because you (the player) can't dazzle the DM with your natural charm.

Does anyone play that way though? I am pretty sure that most people, the DM included, add a layer of "suspension of disbelief" and look at someone's attempt at charisma through rose-tinted glasses. You might not be able to sound like an orator, but usually we can get the gist of where you're going with it, and interpret it charitably.

If not being able to have "high charisma" means just being an obnoxious boor, then that's not about charisma but just about making mistakes.

Quote from: estar;1070786It open content, do you what you think best and don't worry about other people think.

However the changes you are making are not going to be liked by broad subgroups within the OSR. Don't be daft and think there is some ideal that doesn't exist.

You done what necessary you stated clearly why you want the changes you want. Just I do when people challenge me on including "skills" in my take.

As for the OP you are overthinking it. Just pick a starting point that "feels" right and run some campaigns with it. That will tell you whether it works for what you want to do.

What you need to do write down all the effects resulting from ability scores from in your chosen edition or retro-clones. Then see how you like various combinations.

For example if you make 13 the high score of the array while using the B/X rules then every player cleric will probably have at a 13 wisdom with +5% to earned XP and +1 to their magic saving throws.

If you are cool with that then great. If not you need to consider alternative or just living with the random system.

If the changes you are making keep piling up then you need to ask yourself what are you getting out of using an edition of D&D? From personal experience from writing and publishing my own rules the problem with extensive house rules is then using other classic D&D supplements and products are reduced in utility. With the enough changes they are no better (or worse) than say Pathfinder, Fate, GURPS, or Fantasy Age.

Don't worry, if I cared that much about what other people think, I'd never have made public any of the myriad hacks of all sorts of systems to fit whatever particular game I was attempting at the time. I've dealt with much opprobrium from this community over the years, it doesn't phase me. As an aside, I like my "skills" in D&D too, and my hack has them.

However, I don't agree with simply going with what "feels right"; there was an underlying basis for the much-used elite array that appears in every edition from 3.0 onwards, and that rationale includes the modifier effect. Given that ACKS, which is my starting point, has a set of unified modifiers just like later editions, it makes even more sense to use that approach when determining both an elite and standard array against those values.

I already know what I get out of using an old edition of D&D: a fast, relatively simple set of mechanics that are easily modified. In the specific case of ACKS, I get the Proficiency system and easy compatibility with the excellent Domains@War supplement, which covers mass combat, military campaigns, sieges and so on. Other systems will come with their own baggage and in the examples you mentioned there, most of them are much more complex at their core than B/X is. Meaning a lot more work to adjust to suit.

Quote from: estar;1070786Finally some changes seem innocous but require a lot of work to implement even though the result is still largely compatible. For example in my Majestic Wilderlands allow certain magic user classes to have a focused art based on the metaphysics of how magic works. The mechanics of this is that a spell has a boost in effective when cast by somebody who is focused in the art of the spell.

For example a magic user who is focused in the Art of the Flame will be able to cast fireball with the following bonus;

Initially I tried just a small rule change of +1 caster level. But if one goes through a list of classic D&D spells not many of them have effects dependent on caster levels. Something that was quickly found out during the first campaign.

The flavor of the Arts of Magic is part of how magic works in the Majestic Wilderland so I bit the bullet and when through each spell and not only added what art is belongs too but also a focused art section and tailored the bonus effect for each spell.

For example

Light: Art of the Eagle: Light will radiate out to 30 feet and dim light and shadows extend to 90 feet. (instead of 20 feet and 60 feet)

Find Traps: Art of the Lantern: The range is now 40 feet, and the duration is one hour (instead of 30 feet and 20 minutes).

Both the original +1 caster level and the bonus effect came after discarding alternatives, most of which altered the core system to much.

I don't use magic, so many of these issues of spiralling complexity don't arise. When everything is mundane, the game is a great deal simpler. And if we get back to the topic of the thread, there's nothing innocuous or unknown about non-random chargen. This isn't a complex matter we're dealing with, it isn't as though there aren't lots of systems (and later editions of D&D) which have done it many times.

Quote from: estar;1070786As for what you are doing, what will happen is that most PCs will automatically get a small boost above and beyond their class descriptions.

Also you have to consider that unlike later edition the attribute scores are the primary mechanic as to how to roleplay a particular character. While not expresses in terms of mechanical bonus, a player should roleplay the differences in the various scores. A character with a 6 dexterity versus a 13 dexterity, or more obvious a 6 charisma versus as 13 charisma. It is the player side of the whole 'rulings not rules' ethos of OD&D.

Again, ACKS doesn't use the OD&D modifiers, so the scores matter a lot more. They're not mere guides, they impact play on a regular basis, affecting attack rolls, saving throws and/or Proficiency rolls. So in this case it's much more like later editions, than OD&D. It's still an OSR game, though, even if not as faithfully close to the original material as some others.

Quote from: kythri;1070800you want to play a high CHA character, it seems the general attitude is, you're fucked, because you (the player) can't dazzle the DM with your natural charm.

It no different than dealing with high physical attributes (strength, constitutions, charisma). You look at what the player trying to do and rule accordingly using their attribute as one of the elements of your ruling.

Of course like I said earlier the devil is in the details.

I had a young player who had an issue with stuttering. He rolled a character with a decent charisma a 14. He knew by reputation that players in my campaign are expected to speak first person. So was nervous about this.

While this was the first time I dealt with somebody with a verbal disability, I have dealt with players who were extremely shy and introverted. So I tried the same thing I do with them.

If you feel eloquent by all means roleplay it but otherwise I am looking for your plan of actions. What are you trying to do when talking with the NPC? I am aware of your shuttering but in the campaign your character has a charisma of 14. So that the baseline I am making a ruling on. So don't sweat it and I got your back on this.

If what (not how) you say is nonsense then you are not going to persuasive. Conversely if what you say makes sense then you will be persuasive. Over everything where things are uncertain or there is a serious consequence for failure, you will be rolling a dice modified by your character's charisma. Which of these three will happen? That depends on what you do as a player roleplaying your character.

What about high intelligence and high wisdom. Both require support from the referee to roleplay properly. In the absence of modifiers for codified subsystem, the referee has their superior knowledge of the campaign and what going on behind the since.

The players with a character with high intelligence or wisdom get more information than other players with lower score. The type of information depends on the score involved and the circumstance of the campaign. In general I handle it by passing specific notes to the character that supplies additional details available only to them.

Finally to be clear I do not think minimalist rule system are any better or worse than everything but the kitchen sink rule systems. My preference is for something I consider to be well designed whether it's GURPS with all the options, OD&D, or something in between like Fantasy Age or D&D 5th edition.

I find that overall players like some mechanics as opposed to a nearly pure ruling approach. Hence in my take on classic D&D I have attribute modifiers of up to +3 and ability rolls which function much like skills except any character has a similar chance of success. And this includes intelligence, wisdom and charisma rolls. You can read a basic summary here.

http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2008.pdf

However I ran OD&D several RAW and have no problem with making it work despite the minimalist rules by using the guidelines I outlined above. Which also applies to GURPS, Fantasy Age, Harnmaster, and any other system I run.

You have a far more lenient and agreeable approach to the situation than some I've seen 'round these parts.

Quote from: S'mon;1070711Found it - the humans use 17 16 14 11 9 8. The demi-humans use 16 14 11 9 9 7.

That seems way way too high for a 3d6 array. Thats higher even that the playtest 5e's r4h3. Which was 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

You don't need anyone's permission to modify D&D.  Your game belongs to you.  Have fun.

Quote from: Omega;1070824That seems way way too high for a 3d6 array. Thats higher even that the playtest 5e's r4h3. Which was 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

As we established back in post #4, that's the elite array, rather than standard. We've got (at least) two arrays in play:
Elite: 16, 15, 14, 13, 11, 8
Standard: 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, 7

Late to the party, but last AD&D game I ran I let everyone do 5D6x2 (drop two), 4D6x2 (drop one), 3D6x2, assign as desired. Then any prime requisites could be raised to 18 (similar to Rolemaster), so usually this meant someone playing a fighter would assign a low roll (7 or something) to Strength and still have an 18.

You know what happened? Nothing. The game was pretty much the same as every other AD&D game I've ran: the retards died horribly, the smart players survived. I don't think stats are all that relevant, to be perfectly honest.

You could also use a flat array instead, or as flat as it can get.

Example in 5e the flat array is 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12. (27 points)
While in the playtest it was 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13. (30 points)

A flat array for 3d6 would then be something like 11, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10. (16 points)

Quote from: kythri;1070818You have a far more lenient and agreeable approach to the situation than some I've seen 'round these parts.

Started out back in the late 70s with AD&D 1st when I was the referee who let players trash his campaign.

I still let players players "trash" my campaign I just give it fancy names these days.

Quote from: kythri;1070818You have a far more lenient and agreeable approach to the situation than some I've seen 'round these parts.

One other note, Preservationists have a point about using classic D&D 'as is'. Just keep in mind these things

1) They worth listening too because they made RAW work and work well. This is useful to know when making the system to you want based on classic D&D (or Traveller, or Runequest 2nd edition, etc). It often answers the question of why X mechanic works the way it does.

2) They are having just as much fun with the hobby as any other segment of the tabletop roleplaying. And deserving of respect as much as any other segment of the hobby.

3) And I said this before, they just a segment of the hobby, what important we along with them (and anybody) have equal access to the open content that been made available. And is free (in both sense of the word) to whatever one things best with the material

And if you want to share or sell what you created it far easier to today with digital technology.

Quote from: Brad;1070830Late to the party, but last AD&D game I ran I let everyone do 5D6x2 (drop two), 4D6x2 (drop one), 3D6x2, assign as desired. Then any prime requisites could be raised to 18 (similar to Rolemaster), so usually this meant someone playing a fighter would assign a low roll (7 or something) to Strength and still have an 18.

You know what happened? Nothing. The game was pretty much the same as every other AD&D game I've ran: the retards died horribly, the smart players survived. I don't think stats are all that relevant, to be perfectly honest.

In my last historical game, for the PCs, I used: Roll 1d6+12, 2d6+6 twice and 3d6 four times. Drop the lowest result from these seven rolls. That's your array, choose to use it, or that of another player at the table (non-exclusively), assign as you like.

Everyone ended up using the same array (but assigned differently). It meant they were all capable and believable as professional mercenaries each worthy of leading their own retinues (and everyone went for a CHA high enough to give a bonus, and thus give extra henchmen).

Quote from: Omega;1070833You could also use a flat array instead, or as flat as it can get.

Example in 5e the flat array is 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12. (27 points)
While in the playtest it was 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13. (30 points)

A flat array for 3d6 would then be something like 11, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10. (16 points)

A flat one is a potential additional option, thanks.

Quote from: Kuroth;1070764Nah, NPCs never need ability scores in D&D.

At this point, there's almost 20 years of products that say the opposite. Whether you like those products or not, ability scores for NPCs is a part of D&D today.

Quote from: Kiero;1070758There clearly is baggage, since people are wasting text trying to justify how important random ability scores are, even though I expressly asked them not to.

Baggage, Exhibit A:

"Please don't alter the game I hold sacred!"

Exhibit B: everything Kyle Aaron has posted in this thread.

There's nothing of the sort in thedungeondelver's post, which you quoted. And Kyle Aaron hadn't posted anything significant in the thread at the time.

Though after my post, Kyle Aaron turned into a complete jackass and started telling you how to fucking play.

But you were still preemptively whiny and made the thread worse that it needed to be.

Quote from: Kiero;1070838In my last historical game, for the PCs, I used: Roll 1d6+12, 2d6+6 twice and 3d6 four times. Drop the lowest result from these seven rolls. That's your array, choose to use it, or that of another player at the table (non-exclusively), assign as you like.

Everyone ended up using the same array (but assigned differently). It meant they were all capable and believable as professional mercenaries each worthy of leading their own retinues (and everyone went for a CHA high enough to give a bonus, and thus give extra henchmen).

Sure that works. Too many sacred cows around here that just need to be sacrificed in the name of fun.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070868At this point, there's almost 20 years of products that say the opposite. Whether you like those products or not, ability scores for NPCs is a part of D&D today.

But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Quote from: SP23;1070909But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Yes, it started in 3e, but it's still going strong in 5e (the current D&D). Retro materials are steps backward, but everything moving forward uses ability scores for NPCs/monsters.

Quote from: kythri;1070771Wouldn't a character's wits be based on their INT/WIS stats?

That depends on the edition, or even the system. But typically what we call "INT" is better conceived of as education, general knowledge &c such as academics have, while "WIS" is common everyday stuff such as peasants etc have. Some systems will have some kind of perception stat, to show how much of what's before them the character notices. Real-world intelligence we think of in terms of putting together what you see now with what you know already, which is up to the player.

Quote from: kythriIf you've got a low INT/low WIS character, than that character doesn't have much in the way of wits about them.

Remember too that in pre-AD&D2e versions, the character class can also be conceived of as a very broad skill. The fighter doesn't need high INT/WIS to plan an ambush, because that's what fighters do; but MUs won't be able to plan an ambush however high their INT. "I'm not a smart man, Jennoi, but I know what an L-shaped ambush izzz." You might of course argue that a higher-INT (or WIS) fighter could plan an ambush better than a low-INT one, and I think that'd be reasonable.

The question of an eloquent player playing a low-CHA player, or vice versa, I've not found to be an issue in play. The eloquent player typically gets amusement from playing someone more obnoxious (or whatever) from time to time, and the inarticulate player will be helped along - as estar said, just tell us what you want to say and we'll assume it's said as someone with 15 Charisma would say it.

And if an eloquent player sits there entertaining us with their eloquence, is that really a problem? If a smart player comes up with a brilliant tactical plan, should we say, "but does your character have the INT to think of that?" Should we discourage eloquence and smarts at the game table? I don't think so - my aim is to have fun. If we can allow fireballs, we can allow smart players to come up with smart and entertaining ideas, even if their character couldn't. We're there to have fun.

Quote from: estarIf the changes you are making keep piling up then you need to ask yourself what are you getting out of using an edition of D&D? [...]

Finally some changes seem innocous but require a lot of work to implement even though the result is still largely compatible.

Correct. Which is why I say, try using the spanner as a spanner rather than using it as a hammer. See how that goes for you. Experience can then inform your decisions better.

Quote from: estarAlso he survived is now 4th level.

"But he has 6 CON! Impossible!"
QED.

Quote from: estarOne other note, Preservationists have a point about using classic D&D 'as is'.

I say: change it as much as you like. Just try it more or less by the book first, so that your changes are in response to something going wrong in play, rather than purely theoretic problems. Many things you think will be problems on reading turn out not to be, and many things that looked fine turn out to be a mess.

Try it first. THEN change it, rip it to pieces! But try it first. Radical idea, I know.

We've already covered these three (old school equivalents to third edition's standard, nonelite, and elite arrays):

• Standard array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10. No bonuses. This just the average of 3d6 (not in order), and is the default for most creatures.
• Nonelite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded down. The bonuses (+1... -1) are enough to distinguish a strength and a weakness, so it's good for notable NPCs (in third edition, NPCs with NPC classes). You can assume a typical town guard has +1 bonus from Strength, for instance.
• Elite array: 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, except rounded up. The bonuses (+1, +1... -1, -1) allow more differentiation. It's aimed at PCs, but can also be used for major or unique NPCs. This doesn't increase their bonus in their prime stat, but does give them a secondary strength (and weakness), so it's more about an additional distinguishing characteristic than being better than the nonelites.

But one thing about Basic (BX/BECMI/etc.) is ability scores can be adjusted. In general, you can increase you prime by 1 point in exchange for lowering another ability score by 2 points. There are various additional restrictions on top of this, the key one being you can't lower Dex, Con, or Cha. If we assume the 14 goes into your prime, the elite array gives 3 options for increasing it: reducing the 13 by 2 or 4 points, and reducing the 11 by 2 points. Since all we need is +2 to reach the next breakpoint (16, or +2), what that really boils down to is the 13 needs to be in an ability that can be reduced. If the scores can be assigned as desired by the player, that's automatic. Randomly, the odds are closer to 1 in 3, but the array represents a typical 3d6 in order roll, not all possible rolls. In many other possible arrays, it's more likely. So if we want to, we can treat it as a variant elite array:

• Elite array (adjusted): 16, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded up, and adjusted. The bonuses (+2... -1, -1) have the same sum as the elite array's, but exchange two +1s for a single +2, so it's good for more specialized PCs (or unique NPCs).

This has some interesting world building implications. It suggests that most people don't have any particular bonuses, but those with specialized training in an area related to one of the main stats get a +1 bonus (Str for smiths, Int for scholars, etc.), but will tend to sacrifice some other ability (the scholars might have a -1 to Str, because they spend a lot of time at a desk). If you want to make an NPC unique, add another +1 and another -1, making them a little different from their peers. Finally, someone who's really dedicated might be able to increase the +1 in the prime to a +2, but will have to take another weakness (2 -1s). That gives a decent baseline for the world. It allows truly exceptional people (you rolled an 18?) to really stand out, but assumes some basic competence on the part of the masses. It's also really easy to apply, ad hoc, especially since you can just ignore the penalties (-1s) most of the time (weaknesses are less important than strengths; they're primarily there to help give NPCs who spend a little more time in the spotlight a little extra character). And that's exactly what this is -- one of many ways to add a little character. While it's linked to some mechanical benefits, that's mostly relevant for the PC's opposition. If the town blacksmith has S 13 can be just listed with other character traits, like friendly or grouchy. Even better, use an adjective to describe the type of S 13. Maybe the town's blacksmith is S 13 (burly), while the veteran is S 13 (wiry).

Quote from: Brad;1070904Sure that works. Too many sacred cows around here that just need to be sacrificed in the name of fun.

Agreed, and it worked well in that instance.

Quote from: SP23;1070909But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070920Yes, it started in 3e, but it's still going strong in 5e (the current D&D). Retro materials are steps backward, but everything moving forward uses ability scores for NPCs/monsters.

Indeed, I statted out NPCs and the game was better for it. Less handwaving or delays while I had to arbitrarily decide how to play an NPC or what they might know on the spot. I statted up all the bigwigs in the settlement during my setting prep, once we'd discussed the outline of the game.

For example, these were the "stat blocks" of the three presidents of the settlement's ruling council:

Spoiler

Pelopidas (12, 15, 8, 8, 9, 10)
-oldest member and senior of the three presidents; indecisive
-mid-60s (Old - adjustment applied)
-actually relies on his wife to make decisions, and so often tries to defer during debates until the next session to deliver his verdict
-often bullied into taking the side of the aristocratic faction

Laodamas F5 (14, 16, 13, 10, 13, 11)
-second president and a moderate aristocrat
-open to reasoned argument, reputation for fairness
-has experience of fighting in Sikelia in his youth
-Prime=43; early 50s (Middle Aged - age adjustment applied)
-tries to avoid faction, but often ends up the ajudicator between them

Cleonymos  W6 (16, 13, 9, 9, 13, 16)
-youngest and junior of the three presidents
-bitter opponent of Menesthios (formerly his closest friend - they were born a day apart and grew up together),
-leader of the aristocratic faction
-fought in Sikelia and Italia
-Prime=40 (Middle Aged, adjustments applied)

Quote from: Pat;1070967We've already covered these three (old school equivalents to third edition's standard, nonelite, and elite arrays):

• Standard array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10. No bonuses. This just the average of 3d6 (not in order), and is the default for most creatures.
• Nonelite array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded down. The bonuses (+1... -1) are enough to distinguish a strength and a weakness, so it's good for notable NPCs (in third edition, NPCs with NPC classes). You can assume a typical town guard has +1 bonus from Strength, for instance.
• Elite array: 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, except rounded up. The bonuses (+1, +1... -1, -1) allow more differentiation. It's aimed at PCs, but can also be used for major or unique NPCs. This doesn't increase their bonus in their prime stat, but does give them a secondary strength (and weakness), so it's more about an additional distinguishing characteristic than being better than the nonelites.

But one thing about Basic (BX/BECMI/etc.) is ability scores can be adjusted. In general, you can increase you prime by 1 point in exchange for lowering another ability score by 2 points. There are various additional restrictions on top of this, the key one being you can't lower Dex, Con, or Cha. If we assume the 14 goes into your prime, the elite array gives 3 options for increasing it: reducing the 13 by 2 or 4 points, and reducing the 11 by 2 points. Since all we need is +2 to reach the next breakpoint (16, or +2), what that really boils down to is the 13 needs to be in an ability that can be reduced. If the scores can be assigned as desired by the player, that's automatic. Randomly, the odds are closer to 1 in 3, but the array represents a typical 3d6 in order roll, not all possible rolls. In many other possible arrays, it's more likely. So if we want to, we can treat it as a variant elite array:

• Elite array (adjusted): 16, 11, 10, 8, 7. This is the typical 3d6 in order array, rounded up, and adjusted. The bonuses (+2... -1, -1) have the same sum as the elite array's, but exchange two +1s for a single +2, so it's good for more specialized PCs (or unique NPCs).

As I said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to base them on 3d6 in order when that isn't even my starting point. I'm mirroring the arrays of the later editions, using their modifiers to map the values across.

However, something based on 3d6 is useful for a standard array, if the newer edition's 4d6 drop one is for an elite array. I do agree with the differentiation between the two, keeping the elite for PCs and significant NPCs, and the standard for everyone else.

Quote from: Pat;1070967This has some interesting world building implications. It suggests that most people don't have any particular bonuses, but those with specialized training in an area related to one of the main stats get a +1 bonus (Str for smiths, Int for scholars, etc.), but will tend to sacrifice some other ability (the scholars might have a -1 to Str, because they spend a lot of time at a desk). If you want to make an NPC unique, add another +1 and another -1, making them a little different from their peers. Finally, someone who's really dedicated might be able to increase the +1 in the prime to a +2, but will have to take another weakness (2 -1s). That gives a decent baseline for the world. It allows truly exceptional people (you rolled an 18?) to really stand out, but assumes some basic competence on the part of the masses. It's also really easy to apply, ad hoc, especially since you can just ignore the penalties (-1s) most of the time (weaknesses are less important than strengths; they're primarily there to help give NPCs who spend a little more time in the spotlight a little extra character). And that's exactly what this is -- one of many ways to add a little character. While it's linked to some mechanical benefits, that's mostly relevant for the PC's opposition. If the town blacksmith has S 13 can be just listed with other character traits, like friendly or grouchy. Even better, use an adjective to describe the type of S 13. Maybe the town's blacksmith is S 13 (burly), while the veteran is S 13 (wiry).

A goodly proportion of this is handled by skills, which add the nuances to explain what the scores mean. They'd act as a guide on how to modify the array for NPCs.

Quote from: SP23;1070909But it kinda isn't actually. I haven't used NPC stats since the 3.5 days, and I'd consider the very concept more of an artifact of the 3.0/3.5/PF rule-set, than an integral part of D&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070920Yes, it started in 3e, but it's still going strong in 5e (the current D&D). Retro materials are steps backward, but everything moving forward uses ability scores for NPCs/monsters.

Except D&D has been statting NPCs since at least Village of Hommlet circa 1979. Right there on page 3 Elderly Farmer,retired lvl4 fighter S15 I12 W16 D12 C16 C11. Then Elmo the lvl4 ranger with S18/43 I15 W16 D16 C17 C11.

Quote from: Kiero;1070975As I said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to base them on 3d6 in order when that isn't even my starting point. I'm mirroring the arrays of the later editions, using their modifiers to map the values across.

You missed two key words: "For me". As I said before, you can use whatever arrays you want, but you don't get to redefine the basic arrays.

Though if you want a far more generous array, here's one based on the high-powered method in third edition, i.e. 5d6 best 3,

• High-powered array: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10. Bonuses +2, +1, +1, +1, or exceptional at most things. The 16 is right on the border, and could be easily flipped to 17.
• High-powered array (adjusted 1): 18, 14, 13, 13, 10, 10. Bonuses +3, +1, +1, +1. This is the previous array, using the ability score adjustment rules to get an 18. It's objectively better than the standard high-powered array (because reducing the 15 to 13 and the 12 to 10 doesn't result in a loss of ability score bonuses), so it's not a good trade off. Use one or the other.
• High-powered array (adjusted 2): 16, 16, 14, 13, 10, 10. Bonuses +2, +2, +1, +1. Another adjusted variant, this time going for dual 16s.

Quote from: Pat;1071005You missed two key words: "For me". As I said before, you can use whatever arrays you want, but you don't get to redefine the basic arrays.

Why are you being so pedantic? "For me" when discussing ideas we like on a message board about RPGs is pretty much implied unless you're an asshole looking for something to be offended about.

Quote from: Chris24601;1071033Why are you being so pedantic? "For me" when discussing ideas we like on a message board about RPGs is pretty much implied unless you're an asshole looking for something to be offended about.

Have you read the thread? There's been a very strong tendency on both sides to present their preferences as objective absolutes.

There was an OSR online pre-OSR. AKA, people in the late 90s who played B/X and OD&D talking about it. I picked up an idea from that group and it was pretty fun regarding "standard arrays". Each player rolled 3d6 and the GM recorded the number until you got 6 scores. Those became the only scores that you could use to make up PCs for the entire campaign. Some GMs were doing that for AD&D and thus it limited certain classes existing in some campaigns. I've done it for Tunnels & Trolls and it was quite fun. It's a real hoot when the players realize they gotta incorporate Timmy rolling a 5 into all their character concepts!

I run OD&D, often via S&W: White Box because its a free PDF. S&W uses -1/0/+1 for stats. It's easy enough to make the array as 2 x -1, 2 x 0, 2 x +1 and go with that. S&W uses 7 or less = -1, 8-13 = 0, 14 or higher = +1 if you want numbers. Thus, as S&W array could be 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16

Quote from: Omega;1070824That seems way way too high for a 3d6 array. Thats higher even that the playtest 5e's r4h3. Which was 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

I was a bit surprised Mentzer used such a high array. It kinda fits with the drift away from Fantasy Effin Vietnam towards more of a Chosen Heroes feel.

I've used the card method (N cards of 1-6, draw to simulate 3d6 rolls) several times, and really enjoyed it.  It's a good compromise between some randomness and a standard array.  The great benefit of the standard array is that you can get on with it.  For me, though, a standard array can get a little stale.  

Card draw is also easy to customize.  Since we wanted a slightly higher set of stats than 3d6, and wanted some very mild player choice, we included an extra "2" and an extra "1" in the deck that were not drawn, but assigned to two different "rolls" after the player drew.  (There was still a maximum score that could not be exceeded with the extra cards.)  Point being, you can customize a card draw to do whatever you want.

I rather like the idea, though I've never done it, of letting each player do a card draw at the start of the campaign.  Those then become the possible standard arrays for that campaign.

Another option is building an array based on Method V in Unearthed Arcana. That's the notorious method where humans roll 9d6 and take the best 3 in their most important ability, then 8d6 in their next, down to 3d6 in their last ability. It's not really feasible to generate all possible arrays and find the median (6^42 is a big number), but we can approximate it with the median of the individual rolls.

• Method V array: 16, 16, 15, 15, 14, 12, 10. Bonuses +2, +2, +1, +1, +1. Yes, there's a 7th number, that's because Method V includes Comeliness. Just drop a number off the front (for 8d6..3d6) or the back (for 9d6..4d6) for the standard 6 abilities. Note this is a very adjustable array -- dropping one 15 to a 9 could turn a 16 into an 18, and the other 15 into a 16.

As for Array vs. Random in Chargen, I gotta give the last Gamma World mad props. Here's how it works:

1) Make one score 18.
2) Make another score 16.
3) Roll 3D6 for the rest.

I thought that method really squared the circle.

Quote from: Kiero;1070703No, I don't give a shit. I couldn't care less how it was done "back in the day" or what the aesthetic is or anything else. I don't care what your anecdotal experience was in your group.

My interest here is solely that OD&D has a neat little core system that runs fast. I'm not interested in any of the baggage that goes with it.

No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

 The only person who says more about OD&D while knowing less than you is CB.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071211No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

 The only person who says more about OD&D while knowing less than you is CB.

So what did?  (Honest question)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071211No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

 The only person who says more about OD&D while knowing less than you is CB.

I'm not talking about the 1974 edition of the game, you muppet. I know that was poorly designed and inconsistent, and given the way you talk about it, encouraged "Mother May I" play. OD&D is a generic term for games derived from that, as well as referring to a specific edition.

And as I already said, I don't give a flying fuck how it was "back in the day", it's totally irrelevant to my games.

Quote from: Kiero;1071218OD&D is a generic term for games derived from that, as well as referring to a specific edition.

No it not a generic term. There is Holmes, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e. The only thing ambiguous about using OD&D is whether one referring to just the 3 LBB or the 3 LBB plus supplements.

Quote from: Kiero;1071218I'm not talking about the 1974 edition of the game, you muppet.

You were talking about ACKS which is B/X with modifications. As stated in this post.

Quote from: Kiero;1070802Given that ACKS, which is my starting point, has a set of unified modifiers just like later editions, it makes even more sense to use that approach when determining both an elite and standard array against those values.

Quote from: Kiero;1071218I know that was poorly designed and inconsistent, and given the way you talk about it, encouraged "Mother May I" play. OD&D is a generic term for games derived from that, as well as referring to a specific edition.

And as I already said, I don't give a flying fuck how it was "back in the day", it's totally irrelevant to my games.

Don't be willfully ignorant. You been part of numerous conversations on this forums where it was explain how it was "back in the day". It was not a case of "Mother may I", the "missing" rules are found in the setting the referee opted to used. If the referee opted to do a fantasy medieval setting then the expectations that unless stated otherwise what held true in our own medieval time period would hold true in the referee's rulings.

Things like attacking the flank, and attacking from above is good, being attacked from the rear is bad. People want to sell high and buy low, you can only jump so far and so on. All these developed as a result knowing or being taught about medieval history not a case of "Mother may I."

"Mother may I" results from several things individually  or in combination.  Players not understanding the setting from not willing to read up on anything. And/Or the referee not doing their job explaining what important about their setting. Rules don't fix this issue.

And your chosen baseline, ACKS, is very much a product of this attitude as the author added numerous subsystem and designer notes on top of a B/X variant that reflects their deep knowledge of how ancient/medieval life worked. The heart of ACKS remains B/X which in turn was a cleaned presentation of OD&D.

Quote from: estar;1071220No it not a generic term. There is Holmes, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e. The only thing ambiguous about using OD&D is whether one referring to just the 3 LBB or the 3 LBB plus supplements.

OD&D doesn't just mean "Original D&D", it also means "old D&D".

Quote from: estar;1071220You were talking about ACKS which is B/X with modifications. As stated in this post.

Don't be willfully ignorant. You been part of numerous conversations on this forums where it was explain how it was "back in the day". It was not a case of "Mother may I", the "missing" rules are found in the setting the referee opted to used. If the referee opted to do a fantasy medieval setting then the expectations that unless stated otherwise what held true in our own medieval time period would hold true in the referee's rulings.

Things like attacking the flank, and attacking from above is good, being attacked from the rear is bad. People want to sell high and buy low, you can only jump so far and so on. All these developed as a result knowing or being taught about medieval history not a case of "Mother may I."

"Mother may I" results from several things individually  or in combination.  Players not understanding the setting from not willing to read up on anything. And/Or the referee not doing their job explaining what important about their setting. Rules don't fix this issue.

I've seen many accounts of "back in the day" and people claiming they're being faithful to the way it was played in reporting how they play. Aaron Kyle describes his games as his players impressing him with what they decide upon, most of which is metagame stuff, not even really about what their characters would necessarily know. It looks a lot like "Mother May I".

Rules can fix the issue if it makes it clear to everyone what the situation is. Especially when they cover things which are actually well handled by rules, like skill systems. Instead of handwaved rulings on the spot from case to case, if we all know in advance what your characters' skillset is, all the ambiguity and potential for abuse disappears. That isn't a mandate for 3.x style bean-counting, merely an argument for having a skill system at all. Omitting them in 1974 was forgiveable, because it was all new. Doing the same 45 years later is misguided or just plain lazy.

Not only that, your choice of skills is a really important part of flavouring the setting from the player's perspective. What is and isn't featured on the list, and how broad they are speak volumes about many of the assumed conceits of the setting.

Quote from: estar;1071220And your chosen baseline, ACKS, is very much a product of this attitude as the author added numerous subsystem and designer notes on top of a B/X variant that reflects their deep knowledge of how ancient/medieval life worked. The heart of ACKS remains B/X which in turn was a cleaned presentation of OD&D.

ACKS is ancient, rather than medieval; that's why it was so easy for me to convert the currency to an actual ancient one with nothing more than a multiplier (1gp is 5 silver drachmae). Even the silver to gold conversion rate is consistent with the Hellenistic era, after Alexander had looted the Persian treasuries and devalued gold.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221OD&D doesn't just mean "Original D&D", it also means "old D&D".

OD&D is most commonly used to mean the original game. If you look at the Dragonsfoot forum titles https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/index.php the non-AD&D old D&D is referred to as Classic D&D, with an OD&D sub forum for the original game. So it's probably best to say 'Classic', or 'B/X' if being more specific (eg excluding Mentzer BECMI/RC).

Quote from: Kiero;1071221OD&D doesn't just mean "Original D&D", it also means "old D&D".

Only if one trying to be unclear as to which edition of D&D they are referring too. Especially there is a commonly accepted term that applies to all pre D&D 3.0 editions, classic D&D.
 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221I've seen many accounts of "back in the day" and people claiming they're being faithful to the way it was played in reporting how they play. Aaron Kyle describes his games as his players impressing him with what they decide upon, most of which is metagame stuff, not even really about what their characters would necessarily know. It looks a lot like "Mother May I".

Kyle Aaron did not play in Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and Tekumel, Mike Monard did. Since Mike's reports and anecdotes are consistent with various pieces of primary documentation we have and the anecdotes of other who played or refereed in the same time period, I know who I would accept an authority on what how people played back in the day.

The implications of this are... nothing. It information it neither superior or inferior to how things are today. It is however useful because it illustrates alternatives that were lost due to the personal or business interests of the designers that shaped the hobby and industry since.

My recommendation is to lose the attitude and listen you might learn something useful.

And because this needs to be spelled out, me saying is it neither inferior or superior also means how useful it is to you is a matter of opinion. That my position stated earlier continues to be go with what works for you.

Also I get that you think skill systems are important.

In addition RPG history isn't a case where everybody was marching in lockstep. There are accounts of people who were very much "Do what impress me" style referee. However the norm, the person who you were likely to run into prior to D&D spreading all over the place in the mid 70s were individual who were versed how history and combat worked. Who were used to making rulings and debating from first principles. Whose charts and talbles wasn't some Avalon Hill, SPI, or TSR author judgment of how things worked but based on actual military studies with charts outlined various percentages and statistics.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Rules can fix the issue if it makes it clear to everyone what the situation is.

Only in specific circumstances. There isn't a set of rules made that can handle all things players can do in a RPG campaign while interacting with a setting as their character. Hence the need for the considered judgment of the human referee.

Because of this what important is that the referee communicates clearly what the situation is with the campaign. The rules used for adjudication only a part of this.

 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Especially when they cover things which are actually well handled by rules, like skill systems.

 While Skill systems are in common use it is not a settled that it is a accurate and useful reflection of human capabilities. Thus still a point of debate. I happen to find skill system useful however I also acknowledge there is a legitimate counterpoint against skill systems.
 
 My overall opinion is that in addition to reflecting the setting, designed as a useful tools, a rule system has to work with how a given referee thinks both in terms of procedure and what detailed are covered.
 
 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Instead of handwaved rulings on the spot from case to case, if we all know in advance what your characters' skillset is, all the ambiguity and potential for abuse disappears.

It not ambiguous if you understand history.  
 

Quote from: Kiero;1071221That isn't a mandate for 3.x style bean-counting, merely an argument for having a skill system at all. Omitting them in 1974 was forgivable, because it was all new. Doing the same 45 years later is misguided or just plain lazy.

I think you are ignorant of the alternatives. I prefer to use skill systems and created one for my Majestic Fantasy rules (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2008.pdf). However I also understand and have put into practice how to referee fairly and clearly without a skill system. Doing this proved invaluable to creating and understanding the design of system I used since.

It about understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. None are "better", or misguided or being lazy. It rather it has to do with what abstracted, what details are emphasized, and the way the referee thinks. All subjective opinions that could change depending as the details of the campaigns change.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221Not only that, your choice of skills is a really important part of flavouring the setting from the player's perspective. What is and isn't featured on the list, and how broad they are speak volumes about many of the assumed conceits of the setting.

True as long as one keeps in mind that for tabletop roleplaying games the rules can not define all what a player can do as their character. Only the setting and the specifics of the character does that.

Quote from: Kiero;1071221ACKS is ancient, rather than medieval; that's why it was so easy for me to convert the currency to an actual ancient one with nothing more than a multiplier (1gp is 5 silver drachmae). Even the silver to gold conversion rate is consistent with the Hellenistic era, after Alexander had looted the Persian treasuries and devalued gold.

I know what the author based the Auran setting on and how the rules reflect that. However is not ancient as in Sumeria, Egypt and Shang Dynasty but classical as in Greece, Rome, and the Han. Which is a hop and the skip from the medieval and if you have read their axioms you will see that much of their original work is applicable to a broad span of time. This is on top of the fact that is based on B/X which is based on OD&D which is assumes a fantasy medieval setting. And in OD&D it is treated in a way that is flexible enough to handle John Carter of Mars to 4th millenia Sumeria.

Quote from: S'mon;1071223OD&D is most commonly used to mean the original game. If you look at the Dragonsfoot forum titles https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/index.php the non-AD&D old D&D is referred to as Classic D&D, with an OD&D sub forum for the original game. So it's probably best to say 'Classic', or 'B/X' if being more specific (eg excluding Mentzer BECMI/RC).

Classic D&D is popular on Dragonsfoot, less so elsewhere. Basic D&D is an alternative, which can cover anything from Holmes through the RC. Though neither is likely to cause any confusion.

Or even more generally, old school D&D. That covers pretty much everything from OD&D (correct use) to the Basic and Advanced lines, to more recent incarnations like the clones, or more broadly any OSR game. Or OSR D&D, though that excludes the originals.

As far as reffing CHA goes, IMC everything starts with what a player actually says - high CHA won't fill in the blank for you with a die roll, you still have to decide how to approach a conversation.

But if you have high CHA anything you say is respun in its best possible light.  So if a high CHA PC is played by a dull player then I as a DM "re-state" whatever is said in a way more agreeable to the NPC (since only I know what would be agreeable to an NPC).

Likewise, if a charismatic player tries to dump-stat CHA, everything the player adds in conversation will be re-stated in a bad light, commensurate with the score given.  They could make a statement that is perfect at the table, cracks everybody up, and is of such insight that it expresses exactly what would be necessary to "solve" the conversation to the PCs favor - but I'll in turn reply "well, you meant to say "X" but in reality the words you chose imply that the NPC's mother is undiscerning when seeking company."

The funny player does their job - makes the meatspace game fun for meatspace people - but their character is still tied to their CHA.  Likewise the player who can't play up to their stats gets a boost from the DM.

I never understand the "Mother May I" stuff. Could somebody post an example?

Here's my OD&D experience (and I've run it for decades):

"Can I lift that boulder away from the door?"
"What's your STR?"
"12"
"That's a damn big boulder. Probably a half ton. What's your plan to move it?"
"I'm gonna use use the handle of my axe as a wedge and try to roll it."
"It's possible, but damn hard and you might snap the axe. Roll XYZ dice."
[Dice clatter]
[I adjudicate based on dice results vs. STR 12 + tool use]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071211No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  

Welcome back Gronan!

I knew we'd see your peehole around here again!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071211In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

Dude...WTF.

Since the VCR era, groups I played with used either a D20 under stat or 3D6 under your stat all the time for OD&D stats as determiners of success.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1071248Dude...WTF.

Since the VCR era, groups I played with used either a D20 under stat or 3D6 under your stat all the time for OD&D stats as determiners of success.

You apparently were playing the game wrong.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071211No, YOU still do not know what the fuck you're talking about.  In OD&D stats do not influence "How often you succeed."

 The only person who says more about OD&D while knowing less than you is CB.

So, a stat that provides a bonus has no influence on success ratio? I totally agree that stats are much less relevant, and that player declaration and chosen actions are the thing when you run old school (I assume--I mean, this is your lawn, you tell me). However, even if you run by the book, but there is a small amount of influence for sure, when stats come into play, and there is some sort of bonus involved. If they're so entirely meaningless, why roll them up at all? (cue long lecture, or a peehole reference).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1071248I never understand the "Mother May I" stuff. Could somebody post an example?

Here's my OD&D experience (and I've run it for decades):

"Can I lift that boulder away from the door?"
"What's your STR?"
"12"
"That's a damn big boulder. Probably a half ton. What's your plan to move it?"
"I'm gonna use use the handle of my axe as a wedge and try to roll it."
"It's possible, but damn hard and you might snap the axe. Roll XYZ dice."
[Dice clatter]
[I adjudicate based on dice results vs. STR 12 + tool use]

Welcome back Gronan!
I knew we'd see your peehole around here again!

Dude...WTF.
Since the VCR era, groups I played with used either a D20 under stat or 3D6 under your stat all the time for OD&D stats as determiners of success.

I don't know what Mother May I?, is. I never ran a game or played that way in any of my friends campaigns. I did learn from Gronan that I had not been playing 0D&D right when it came to the number of attacks a character had as they advanced in level. With the Chainmail rules a Hero or 4th level fighter made four attacks per melee round, however I always used the alternate combat system so was not aware that was even an option for this until it came up in conversation just last year. An alternative combat system was used beginning with Greyhawk that i adopted in 1978 that allowed a fighter of any level to only make 1 or 2 attacks per round. Fighters got two attacks, if they were dual-wielding two weapons simultaneously, or if they were using a Short Bow or Long Bow, they could get off two arrows in one round. Nowhere in the alternative combat rules section of the LBB or the supplements did the rules expressly say higher level players received multiple attacks. The first time I recall seeing explicit rules about the number of attacks a character would get to make in a specific melee round was with the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook.

    Skill rolls and skills checks against attributes were officially introduced into original D&D with the Rules Cyclopedia in 1991, and with 2nd edition AD&D. We heavily house ruled our original D&D and were of course making rolls against various attributes much earlier based on GM fiat. Charisma being one of the primary drivers of this in our games, where a character would roll his or her Charisma or less on a d20 to get a certain outcome when trying to persuade NPCs to take action or not take action depending on the circumstances of a particular encounter.  For example, the party might be coming into town and run into some gate guards whose orders were to collect a 1 Gp tax from any person wishing to enter the City. The character with a high Charisma would just state he would do no such thing because (lying his a$$ off) he was the second cousin of a prominent local noble. Instead of just letting the characters into town (Mother May I, GMing style... yes you may...), I would have the character roll a d20 against his or her Charisma attribute to determine just how persuasive and smooth at lying he (or she) was. If he/she rolled Charisma or under I ruled the persuasion attempt successful.

    The Complete Warlock added various attribute checks as well, with a table of special characteristics for all character classes, as well as a special set of thievish abilities so one could really customize the thief character class to be a specific type of rogue, dashing, handsome, and extremely persuasive, or highly skilled at disarming traps and figuring mysteries and codes, or good with poisons. There was quite a bit of customization in early D&D games based on specific campaigns, and each group would devise their own house rules while playing. No one considered this was not D&D except for the One True D&D tm GM's and Players that disliked the apparent and once in awhile very real incompatibilities or conflicts such house rules introduced into the game. Traveller also extensively used 2d6 under or equal roll versus attributes as a quick role-playing resolution mechanic for various types of skills, and communications checks. For those of us that wanted speedy games it was very convenient to add in as a house rule, and it was so popular that it was officially adopted with the last iteration of original D&D in the Rules Cyclopedia. We had been using this quick resolution mechanic in our D&D games from late 1977 onward.

In our gaming group we never did use a 3d6 roll against our attribute, we used a d20 vs. the attribute on the presumption that even the best of liars and skilled workers would mess up a job or con attempt about 10% of the time just due to unusual circumstances, or just plain bad luck. Another example of this from the Conan the Barbarian movie, even though Conan is a high level fighter, after he nails the evil high priest at Thulsa Doom's stronghold, he Don's the EHP wardrobe, but fails the bluff check when trying to get by other guards on the stairway to get close to Thulsa Doom. One of the Guard's recognizes the EHP's Unholy Symbol of Set when Conan presents it as proof he "belongs", and informs other guards who then successfully subdues and captures Conan, where he ends up contemplating his poor choices on The Tree of Woe.

Most groups I knew liked the D20 under stat. It was fast and fit with RQ's Stat x 5% concept. The groups who used 3D6 under stat were doing it based on the fact your stats were 3D6 based. But then GMs were having you roll stat under 4D6 for challenging stuff and quickly everything became challenging. The Under 3D6 worked fine until you dealt with 3s and 18s, as one always failed and one always succeeded, but a couple DMs I knew liked that. It certainly made stats of 10 vs 13 meaningful in actual play.

I used to always use d20 roll under, but these days I prefer 3d6 roll under - I like having competent characters generally succeed, and low stats fail.

If I want a high degree of randomness I use a saving throw- I like the s&w single save.

I never did look close at multiple attacks from fighters, because I thought fighters already had tremendous advantages at least until the higher levels when wizards would finally start getting lethal spells. Your basic tenth level fighter had an average of ten hit dice or forty-five HP or so *using the d8 HD (10d8+1) for fighters from Greyhawk. A tenth level wizard would have on average about sixteen hp (7d4 HD). So the fighter had three times as many HP, on average, and on the alternative combat to-hit tables, a tenth level fighter has a minimum of 10% better chance to hit with every attack he makes. Even making only one attack a round, this is a tremendous advantage over the course of a melee in a 1-on-1 fight.

With multiple attacks a fighter is even more lethal, getting to make eight attacks in a melee round all at +1 (Superhero+1) while the wizard gets to only make five. Chainmail confers additional advantages on fighters providing them with a 2d6 9+ saving throw against any hit. Basically if the "hero" or "superhero" rolls a 9+, that hit is not counted against them, and it take 4 hits to kill a hero, and eight to kill a superhero! A superhero could easily defend against more than a hundred normal men (ten figures in the Chainmail rules), and a hero could easily defend himself vs. fifty men.

Concerning abilities checks against attributes, since it was a roll under mechanic, a natural 1 was always a critical success, and a 20 was always a critical failure. Since one had a basic 5% chance of failing spectacularly, no matter what, this mechanic was not particularly abused by players, since they often had to take a lethal risk when employing the ability check... i.e. (I'm using my strength to climb down the cliff face...), so each round the player without the thieves natural climbing ability was climbing, they had to make a strength check, and a critical fail means, they lost their grip on the cliff face, and fell. On the other hand I would usually rule a critical success as "Oh yeah, he'll be able to climb all the way up or down the cliff without making any additional checks because he/she is apparently a naturally skilled climber."

Also on critical successes, I particularly enjoyed having the player then describe their unusual success to the other players, and for example, in this climbing scenario, I would have the player himself describe his unusual technique that made climbing so effortless. This added a very nice Bollywood "Over the top" effect to gameplay, and would often result in eye-rolls from the other players, especially when the player making the description was being completely ridiculous. Of course as a GM, I always kept some spectacular "critical fail" tables laying around and would enjoy describing the failure for the rest of the players, so they knew it was a high stakes affair. "The fighter loses his grip and suddenly falls, taking 8d6 of damage as he bounces off a rock outcrop, and then falls another thirty feet before impacting with the mountainside taking an additional 3d6 of damage... he also take another 2d6 of damage from sliding down the shale on the steep slope, before taking 1d6 additional damage from colliding with a tree and coming to a stop. ...Joe, how is your fighter doing now?"


In one of my last convention games I had a thief and an orc face off using spears, and the thief critically fumbled. The result was that the thief accidentally lost her grip on the spear, and it fell on the ground out of her reach between the thief and the Orc. Without missing a beat I described the Orcs followup attack thusly:

"The orc laughs in delight at you, and gently kicks the spear up (making a successful Dexterity check), into his off hand. He then twirls both spears in an impressive display of fighting skill and leaps towards you making a double attack."

All the players caught their breath thinking the thief was about to be skewered.

"and.... (rolling a 1) he fails, landing wrong, one of the spears snaps as it hits the ground prematurely, and the orc is impaled on his own broken spear, he screams taking 1d6 in unexpected damage, and automatically misses with his other attack. Roll for initiative on the new combat round."

By combining both roleplaying and roll-playing we end up with many fabulous and dramatic moments like this, in our old school D&D games.

Gamedaddy, what's 'high level' to you?  Because at about level 5 Fireball and Lightning Bolt usually come into play allowing Magic Users to potentially blow up proportionately MORE targets with almost zero miss chance, in fact, I dare say that a lot of the time, half damage is still more than enough to clean out a small room.  More effectively than a Fighter can, because remember, the Fighter can miss.  And a miss is no damage to the target.

Your HP argument is invalid because is the Magic User is taking massive damage, your Fighter is either dead or not doing their job.  A magic user has no business in the middle of a melee, that's that Fly, Invisible and other mobility spells are the for, which are also a last resort.  The Fighting Man and if you're playing New School editions, like BECMI, the Cleric should be the first two lines of defense.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1071337Gamedaddy, what's 'high level' to you?  Because at about level 5 Fireball and Lightning Bolt usually come into play allowing Magic Users to potentially blow up proportionately MORE targets with almost zero miss chance, in fact, I dare say that a lot of the time, half damage is still more than enough to clean out a small room.  More effectively than a Fighter can, because remember, the Fighter can miss.  And a miss is no damage to the target.

As I understand it, those spells are highly situational in many varieties of old school D&D, due to propensity for a) blowback and b) damaging the loot.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1071338As I understand it, those spells are highly situational in many varieties of old school D&D, due to propensity for a) blowback and b) damaging the loot.

Wandering parties have loot?  To be honest the explosive force behind a fireball isn't going to damage gold.  And the flash of heat is too fast to melt the metal significantly.  Most magical items would get a save anyway.  So anyone who 'damages' the loot, is a jerk DM for wanting to screw the players out of the reward they've 'earned'.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1071342Wandering parties have loot?  To be honest the explosive force behind a fireball isn't going to damage gold.  And the flash of heat is too fast to melt the metal significantly.  Most magical items would get a save anyway.  So anyone who 'damages' the loot, is a jerk DM for wanting to screw the players out of the reward they've 'earned'.

And this is why you have a problem with magic-user power - you've convinced yourself that realism is more important, and that modification makes them more powerful.

Quote from: EOTB;1071343And this is why you have a problem with magic-user power - you've convinced yourself that realism is more important, and that modification makes them more powerful.

So melting coins and destroying magical items is your 'fix' for solving Magic's power?  And it's not 'realism', it's plausibility.   Back wash, which I didn't address, is more of a valid concern, in my opinion, but a good party knows how to coordinate around a magic user.

https://goldsurvivalguide.co.nz/storing-precious-metals-will-gold-silver-survive-a-house-fire/

QuoteGold and silver both have a high melting point that should be higher than just a standard house fire temperature.

But if your gold and silver bullion was in some kind of packaging as many coins are, then obviously this would melt and could damage the exterior.

Also consider that it may be difficult to dig through the ashes to even find your bullion after a major fire.

While your gold and silver may still be "pure" after a fire, if the bullion is damaged then when the time comes to sell you will likely receive less for it. It will need to be refined again and re-cast or re-minted and assayed. So a gold buyer or refiner will likely offer you much less than the prevailing spot price of gold or silver for it because of this.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1071345So melting coins and destroying magical items is your 'fix' for solving Magic's power?  And it's not 'realism', it's plausibility.   Back wash, which I didn't address, is more of a valid concern, in my opinion, but a good party knows how to coordinate around a magic user.

Absurd reduction doesn't change the point.  Yes, if unpleasant side effects of something are neutralized, for whatever reason, it will be used in many more situations by players than a game presumed.  Putting that on the game is not an accurate charge.

I have no problem with magical fire melting coinage. It just means that MUs sometimes have to cast something other than fireball in a battle.  Games giving players tactical choices are better (a) do I want to protect the treasure? (b) do I need to nuke this problem right now? Sometimes, you nuke the room full of trolls because your party couldn't handle them otherwise, even if it means losing that sweet sweet loot.

Literally melting the gold is too silly for me, but I occasionally have dragonfire stick the coins together in a lumpy mass. :)

However in high level D&D gold isn't even that valuable, it's the gems and magic items you need to watch out for. Carbon-based gemstones like diamonds, and many magic items, certainly can be fire-damaged.

Quote from: estar;1071347https://goldsurvivalguide.co.nz/storing-precious-metals-will-gold-silver-survive-a-house-fire/

Quote from: S'mon;1071357Literally melting the gold is too silly for me, but I occasionally have dragonfire stick the coins together in a lumpy mass. :)

However in high level D&D gold isn't even that valuable, it's the gems and magic items you need to watch out for. Carbon-based gemstones like diamonds, and many magic items, certainly can be fire-damaged.

You do know that a Fireball is a flame based EXPLOSION?  At least according to the books, while Dragons' breath and House Fire are sustained heat?  If you set FIRE to a a house with all the gold in it, sure, yeah, good luck getting the mass of melted gold off the walls and floor.

And I have another question, in terms of fire damaged gold.  Does it actually lose it's value?  Couldn't you get at least HALF the reward if a bunch of the coins were stuck together?  Might be a bit awkward to carry, mind you, depending on the mass of gold...

Before you accuse me of splitting hairs, remember, it was players who unscrewed the original Tomb of Horror doors, which originally were of Mithral and Adamantine (Before they changed to magically seem like it), off their hinges and went home to sell it to some Dwarves.  So I'm trying to think like an older style player here. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1071362And I have another question, in terms of fire damaged gold.  Does it actually lose it's value?  Couldn't you get at least HALF the reward if a bunch of the coins were stuck together?  Might be a bit awkward to carry, mind you, depending on the mass of gold...

I give full value or near full value for the metal, the problem is transporting it back home.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1071248Dude...WTF.

Since the VCR era, groups I played with used either a D20 under stat or 3D6 under your stat all the time for OD&D stats as determiners of success.

But it's a HOUSE RULE.  The OP used that as a reason for disliking rolling stats.

Disliking a game because of a house rule you added yourself is just silly.

Quote from: EOTB;1071343And this is why you have a problem with magic-user power - you've convinced yourself that realism is more important, and that modification makes them more powerful.

Remember, his relationship and knowledge of D&D is so bad Black Vulema named a syndrome after it.

Quote from: estar;1071224Only if one trying to be unclear as to which edition of D&D they are referring too. Especially there is a commonly accepted term that applies to all pre D&D 3.0 editions, classic D&D.
 

Being unclear is indeed the point.  See also "Brady syndrome."

You'd think by now you might have learned to use the multiquote function...

Kiero, you need to have Brady on your podcast. You'd make a great team!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071611Disliking a game because of a house rule you added yourself is just silly.

I blame Gary for all house rules I don't like! Damn you Gygax! :)

So what did you, Gary and Dave use for determining non-combat stuff via stats?

AKA, how did Wis 9 vs. Wis 12 matter? Or even Wis 6 vs. Wis 15?

Also, what's the status of your magnum opus? Your book, not your schlong.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071614Being unclear is indeed the point.  See also "Brady syndrome."

Oh, how I missed you, pumpkin.  Why DID you come back anyway?  Did you miss insulting me?

And I'd like to know, honestly and sincerely, if stats/bonuses don't influence success when rolling dice back then, what did?

I'm serious, I'm honestly curious and wish to learn.

What influenced dice rolls?  In combat, damn little.  Flanking or rear attacks would.  But they also put multiple attacks on an enemy, which was its own reward.

Charisma, as written, gave a bonus to negotiations, but your actual roleplaying -- what you said --was far more important.  Pundy has that right.

Same with other out of combat activities.  What you said was what mattered.  Maybe, MAYBE having a high stat might help, or mitigate failure.

But honestly, we didn't think in terms of "influencing die rolls."

There.  A straightforward answer.

OK.  Fair enough.  

So, can I ask why bother with stats?  If your skill at talking determined how well you did in certain situations, then why bother (to use your example) with a Charisma stat?  Was it there simply to put a cap on how many henchmen and followers a player could get?

Was strength simply for lifting capacity?

Oh, and I'm honestly curious, how did Saving Throws work?  Did you guys even have those?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1071956OK.  Fair enough.  

So, can I ask why bother with stats?  If your skill at talking determined how well you did in certain situations, then why bother (to use your example) with a Charisma stat?  Was it there simply to put a cap on how many henchmen and followers a player could get?

Was strength simply for lifting capacity?

Oh, and I'm honestly curious, how did Saving Throws work?  Did you guys even have those?

Stats provided an XP bonus.  But they didn't bind you.  If you rolled a STR of 15 and a WIS of 11 and had your heart set on playing a Cleric, you could.  You wouldn't get an XP bonux, but that was inconvenient, not crippling.

CHA was indeed mostly for limiting henchmen, and a little extra oomph when rolling reaction.

Saving throws were class and level based.  Categories were vs death poison, paralysis, wands, and magic, I think.  "Fighter, level 1-3, saves vs magic on a 17."  It was this way up until 3rd edition, I thought you'd played?

Didn't have the saving throw categories right.  This blog post shows the table.

http://initiativeone.blogspot.com/2017/04/a-frequently-missed-point-on-saving.html

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071961Stats provided an XP bonus.  But they didn't bind you.  If you rolled a STR of 15 and a WIS of 11 and had your heart set on playing a Cleric, you could.  You wouldn't get an XP bonux, but that was inconvenient, not crippling.

Right, the 10% bonus, forgot about that.  It's been decades since I played a campaign of 2e.  I've had mostly one shots with Rules Cyclopedia and I've got my 1e reprints in storage.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071961CHA was indeed mostly for limiting henchmen, and a little extra oomph when rolling reaction.

Answers that.  Thank you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1071961Saving throws were class and level based.  Categories were vs death poison, paralysis, wands, and magic, I think.  "Fighter, level 1-3, saves vs magic on a 17."  It was this way up until 3rd edition, I thought you'd played?

Fair point, I completely forgot that 2e's saves weren't affected by stats.  I just remember the Wisdom extra abilities for ignoring illusions and stuff on saving throws.  The system shock rolls a higher than average Con, so on and so forth.  Although Strength was one I really remember well, with the percentiles dictating attack and damage.

Again, it's been decades and frankly, my memory has never been all that good.  I haul around my books and still reference them all the time, because I have a hard time retaining information, especially short term.

I agree with the sentiment here that randomly generated ability scores is a terrible mechanic.
In my own games I let players choose one of three options:
Hero: 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16
Generalist: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Specialist: 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18
They can assign the numbers where they want them, then these are further modified by whatever race/class combo.

Hubert of the Wick - 4th level Cleric
Human
Aln: LN
Exp: 9.417  Needed: (12,000)

Str - 8 (-1)
Int - 8 (-1)
Wis - 12
Con - 12
Dex - 10
Chr - 13 (+1)

AC – 2
HD - 3d6
HP – 17

Attacks: +1 Mace Damage 1d8+1
To Hit
AC: 10     9     8     7     6    5     4     3    2    1     0
===========================================
      10    11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20

+1 Chainmail, +1 Shield, Helm, Medium Warhorse 400/800, chainmail barding w/ livery, sqaddlebags with four large sacks on horse, backpack belt, high soft boots, long cloak, holy symbol, four vials of holy water,  belt pouch, one weeks' iron rations, two flasks of oil, 12 iron spikes, 50' rope, four large sacks, mallet and three stakes, tinderbox, eighteen torches (12 on the horse), one bunch of wolvesbane, one waterskin, one wine skin, and a +1 Mace.

Hieght 5'10" Weight: 165

Saving Throws Death Ray/Poison: 11, Magic Wands: 12, Paralysis/Turn to Stone: 14, Dragon Breath: 16, Rod/Staff/Spell: 15
Undead Turn Skeleton D Zombie T, Ghoul T, Wight 7+, Wraith 9+, Mummy 11+

Spells 2/1 per Day

1st Level Spells
Cure Lt. Wounds
Detect Evil
Detect Magic
Light
Protection from Evil
Purify Food & Water
Remove Fear
Resist Cold

2nd Level Spells
Bless
Find Traps
Hold Person
Know Alignment
Resist Fire
Silence 15' Radius
Snake Charm
Speak with Animals

Dane, Warhorse
AC: 5
HD: 3
HP:
Damage/Attack: Hooves 1d6, 1d6
Move 120' (40')
Morale: 9
Int: 2
Save as F2

Wealth: Gold, 224

I absolutely detest ability-score arrays.