Quote from: RandallS;501026That's just YOUR INTERPRETATION of the the rules as you clearly state in the the article linked. I don't know of any group that interpreted the rules that way back when OD&D was the only game in town. It's certainly okay to interpret the OD&D guidelines that way, but it in my experience, it certainly is not the way most people I knew or knew of interpreted the rules back then.

I think what Justin describes is probably the original intent, but it was so commonly misinterpreted that the misinterpretation eventually became the official rule in later editions.  (No certainty on that, it's just my opinion.)

Re: Rolling vs. Point Buy

The way I see it, there are two basic philosophies for creating a character.  The first is roll and see what the "dice gods" give you, and try to make something cool and interesting from what you're given.  The second is to envision a character, before-hand, and then build the character you're imagining.  Both are valid approaches.

When using the "roll stats" approach, I think the system/edition you're playing matters.  For example, in original D&D without the Greyhawk supplement, your stats aren't as important as in later editions.  I'd be much more inclined to use 3d6 straight-down with original D&D.  If I were rolling for AD&D, where stats are more important, I'd usually allow a less rigid method that allowed for higher stats.

When using the "envision and build" approach, I would tend to go all the way with it.  That is, I wouldn't even require point-buy (or even worse, a cookie-cutter "standard array"), I'd just allow the player to assign the stats that seemed appropriate to the character being envisioned.

Quote from: Rincewind1;500953I once played a 10 Int wizard on point buy.

I won't say on whom I based it .

Louie punch?

For the record, I did some character generation with my spiffy new Gamescience sharp-edged dice I got for Christmas, and this is the spread I got.  


Method I 13 11 14 9 13 16

Method II 11 11 12 14 14 13

Method III
str 14
int 14
wis 12
dex 17
con 15
cha 14

Method IV

S12 S12 S16 S14 S12 S13
I9  I12 I14 I11 I7  I5
W10 W7  W10 W17 W13 W11
D13 D13 D12 D11 D14 D7
C8  C15 C14 C10 C15 C8
C11 C12 C10 C11 C11 C9

S7  S13 S16 S9  S8  S17
I12 I10 I8  I9  I7  I8
W13 W15 W10 W13 W10 W6
D13 D11 D8  D12 D14 D12
C14 C16 C8  C11 C9  C5
C7  C8  C9  C10 C13 C9


Notes:

I did not use Method V outlined in Unearthed Arcana, as it is designed to build human characters of desired classes; the outcome is heavily weighted to a desired role.

I did not list the "throwaway" stats on Method III, simply because the instructions say to keep the best.  Therefore listing the lower stats would be superfluous.  

None of these characters fit the text in the Players Handbook:

Quote[...] it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in now fewer than two ability characteristics.

(If we are generous and say that "usually" != "always" then a few are passable.)

I left the entire field of data for Method IV because what is a "desirable" set of stats is wholly up to the player and what class they want.  There are more than a few awful character stat block cells in the grid, however, some are workable (top row, nos. 3 and 4 from the left in particular).

Lastly, it's a bit apocryphal I know but I've done this before and gotten a paladin out of Method I, a phenomenal fighter out of Method II, a ranger out of Method III and a brace of rangers and the rest wholly serviceable characters out of method IV.

Quote from: RandallS;501026That's just YOUR INTERPRETATION of the the rules as you clearly state in the the article linked. I don't know of any group that interpreted the rules that way back when OD&D was the only game in town.

My particular way of handling the bookkeeping for that is an interpretation. The phrase "for experience purposes only", OTOH, is pretty explicit. Anyone who interprets "for experience purposes only" to include purposes which are not experience is, frankly, illiterate.

It doesn't shock me that many people overlooked that phrase, however. Like most passages in Gygaxian rulebooks, this one is befuddled, confusingly written, and requires a lot of wrangling to wrest any sense out of it.

(Note: As noted at the link, one could also choose to interpret it that you can actually bump up Intelligence and Wisdom for non-experience purposes, but cannot bump up Strength for non-experience purposes.)

Quote from: Reckall;500888I fully agree. Is from putting "6" in Constitution that you get the idea of a thief suffering from tuberculosis or, maybe, too much corpse-handling - and a memorable character is born.

Well, it worked for Elric, didn't it?

JG

Quote from: Cranewings;501051Louie punch?

Good anime, watched it again last weekend.

Quote from: James Gillen;501097Well, it worked for Elric, didn't it?


JG

Word. Epic character that was.

Quote from: Cranewings;501051Louie punch?

He's in my avatar dammit.

IMHO, rolling is a way to "shake creativity". You see two six "6" and you think "Wouldn't it be funny/interesting if..."

For example: "6" in CON and WIS = a frail character who never accepted his/her health problems and, as a reaction, behaves recklessly.

Of course in a spasmodic min/max campaign it wouldn't really work, but spasmodic min/max campaigns should have their appropriate character creation methods anyway.

I still remember my first really meaningful use of "Magic: the Gathering" cards: I shuffled the deck, draw five cards, one by one, and put them on the table. Then I looked at them to see if some good idea for my campaign sprung in my mind.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;501082My particular way of handling the bookkeeping for that is an interpretation. The phrase "for experience purposes only", OTOH, is pretty explicit. Anyone who interprets "for experience purposes only" to include purposes which are not experience is, frankly, illiterate.

It doesn't shock me that many people overlooked that phrase, however. Like most passages in Gygaxian rulebooks, this one is befuddled, confusingly written, and requires a lot of wrangling to wrest any sense out of it.

(Note: As noted at the link, one could also choose to interpret it that you can actually bump up Intelligence and Wisdom for non-experience purposes, but cannot bump up Strength for non-experience purposes.)

I was surprised when I saw this interpretation a while back, but sure enough, the books do imply that the scores don't literally change.

Then again:

• Under the original set rules (pre-Greyhawk), I don't recall any explicit, well-defined, game-mechanical effect of the various scores other than their effect on experience. True, there are implied or vaguely-alluded effects. Once you get to Greyhawk, you have new rules and it's arguably unclear how much of the original text is meant to be retained.
• The rules as written are often contradictory or vague, making interpretation a matter of the spirit not the letter, as the letter is moot.

In short I find "illiterate" an overstatement, but that's par for the course, I guess.

I suggest that the main points of interest here are (a) how the game was played by Gygax, and (b) how it was played by people at large.

(b) Weighs pretty clearly in favor of changing the actual scores. I'm sure some group didn't do it, somewhere. All subsequent versions of Basic specifically state that the scores change, making the idea official. In fact, it seems to have been cemented even earlier, as of Greyhawk, according to tfoster's comment in this thread. (Personal experience: we did literal score-trading and never suspected it was anything other than standard, using the White Box. When the AD&D DMG was published, we switched to 4d6, drop lowest, arrange in order.)

As for (a) the same thread offers points for & against regarding Gygax's intention at the time he put pen to paper. Probably he did mean that the "trading" wasn't literal and was only used to calculate the experience bonus, but the narratives of how D&D was written suggest that, just like AD&D & Unearthed Arcana, a lot of the rules were made up at the time of writing, even though they may not have been used before or after even by the author. Gygax's quoted answer to the question is consistent with this approach to rules-writing.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;501239Under the original set rules (pre-Greyhawk), I don't recall any explicit, well-defined, game-mechanical effect of the various scores other than their effect on experience. True, there are implied or vaguely-alluded effects.

Page 11 of Volume 1 has a couple tables listing the effects. Also bonus langauges are based on Int on page 12; effects on changing class on page 10; and so forth.

QuoteOnce you get to Greyhawk, you have new rules and it's arguably unclear how much of the original text is meant to be retained.

Also true.

Quote from: Reckall;501190I still remember my first really meaningful use of "Magic: the Gathering" cards: I shuffled the deck, draw five cards, one by one, and put them on the table. Then I looked at them to see if some good idea for my campaign sprung in my mind.

Heh. That's how I used my collection of On The Edge CCGs for my last Over The Edge campaign. Instant scenario/npc/plot generation. Worked like a dream.

Now, back to the slammin'

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;501427Heh. That's how I used my collection of On The Edge CCGs for my last Over The Edge campaign. Instant scenario/npc/plot generation. Worked like a dream.

Now, back to the slammin'

The entire back 1/5th of the Dungeon Masters Guide (1e) is basically a dice-based build your own adventure engine that could be replicated with cards if you were so inclined...

QuoteI still remember my first really meaningful use of "Magic: the Gathering" cards: I shuffled the deck, draw five cards, one by one, and put them on the table. Then I looked at them to see if some good idea for my campaign sprung in my mind.

I really rather used Magic cards for you know, playing, but...

I know, right? That's why I think it'd be cool if 5e came with just a little official guidance to do that.

I did that with Star Wars too, using the old card game.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;501430The entire back 1/5th of the Dungeon Masters Guide (1e) is basically a dice-based build your own adventure engine that could be replicated with cards if you were so inclined...

Cool. My roleplaying doesn't go that far back, but it was something similiar that I fell for in Vornheim; the tables that could generate stuff like that (twisted plots, colourful npc's, etc) at the roll of few dice.