Character Generation and Ability Scores (Merged Topic)

Message
Author
Xaxyx
Pathfinder
Pathfinder
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:27 pm

Character Generation and Ability Scores (Merged Topic)

#1 Post by Xaxyx »

DISCLAIMER (PLEASE READ): Many who don't know me and some who do might interpret the following article as some lame attempt at passive munchkinism. Well, by strict definition, it's true: my point does largely revolve around wanting characters to start out their careers with more power. Nevertheless, I prefer to believe that my underlying goals are altruistic. I want a better campaign for all -- that includes both the players and the DM. To that end: when replying, I kindly request that you address the *content* of the post, only. If you prefer to question its supposed motivations, please do so via private message.

I for one have always stood staunchly against the "standard" 4d6c3 model for character generation (top 3 of 4d6, roll six times, arrange to taste). I feel that this is a poor character generation method for 1e, 2e, and/or OSRIC. Allow me to elaborate.

When rolling 4d6 and taking the top three results, the odds of rolling a number higher than a 14 are only about 21%. (Math available upon request.) This means that most of the six rolled stats are very likely going to come out as 14 and below. Indeed, there's approximately a 24% chance that NONE of the six rolled stats will be above 14.

Setting racial modifiers aside for the moment: characters with 14 or less in all of their stats are strictly inferior to characters with at least one 15. Heck, for most purposes, 14 is hardly better than an 8 in the same score. This is because in all of the aforementioned systems, ability scores tend to only yield bonuses at 15 or higher. To be more specific:

Str: +1 damage at 16 or higher (even 15 yields no bonuses here)
Int: +10% change to understand spells, additional 1 min/2 max spells per level at 15
Wis: +1 mental saves at 15; 2nd level spells gained at 15-16 (1st level spells at 13-14)
Dex: -1 AC, +1 on avoidance saving throws at 15; -2 AC / +2 saves, +1 reaction/missile at 16
Con: +1 hps at 15; +2 hps at 16
Cha: significant loyalty/reaction bonuses gained at 15+; 15 cha required to qualify for some classes

Right away, we're in tricky territory admittedly, insofar as that terms like "inferior/superior", "better/worse" refer to subjective concepts. But it's certainly evident that any bonuses received by characters from their ability scores largely only show up once passing the 15+ threshold. Dexterity and constitution are the strongest examples of this principle. Extra hit points and armor class can be of immense importance and utility to characters of any level.

Consider the following two sets of ability scores:

16 9 8 8 8 8
14 14 14 14 14 14

If you tally the numbers, you'll see the the second character (84 points total) has 47% more ability score points than the first character (57). Yet it's the first character who enjoys a tremendous flexibility in choosing a character class and receiving immediate, specific bonuses in that class. The second character, for all his supposedly impressive ability score points, will receive few bonuses, if any:

- As a fighter, the first character can either have +1 damage from strength, or (my preference) -2 AC, +2 on avoidance saving throws, and +1 reaction/missile adjustment from dexterity, or a +2 hit point adjustment per hit die. The second character would receive *no useful combat bonuses whatsoever* from any of his ability scores.

- As a thief, the first character would have all of the aforementioned dexterity bonuses (along with +5% Open Locks for good measure), or either of the other aforementioned combat bonuses. The second character would again receive no useful benefits.

- As a cleric, both characters would get a full compliment of three 1st level cleric spells. The first character, however, in addition to receiving +2 on mind-affecting saving throws, would also get two bonus 2nd level spells upon reaching 3rd level (Hold Person x 3 is always fun). The second character receives nothing additional.

- As a magic-user, the first character would enjoy higher chances to learn spells, and a larger, more versatile spellbook as compared to the second character. None of the other ability scores would matter a whit.

Indeed, the only "advantage" I see for the second character in this hypothetical match-up is that he can qualify as a ranger. If it were my choice, however, I'd be far more tempted go with the first set of stats and just play a 16-dexterity fighter.

Oh -- and lest we forget: the first character can, at his option, gain +10% to earned experience. The second character can't.

Throwing racial modifiers into the mix hardly seems to change the scenario much. The only existing racial bonuses are +1 to dex (matching a 17 dex against a 15 dex; the clear winner is obvious), +1 to con (same deal), and +1 to int (as a gnome; but gnomes can only be illusionists, and neither template could qualify even with the bonus).

Oops, we forgot one: the half-orc, +1 to strength and con. For the second character, that's no different than playing a dwarf really, since 15 strength yields no bonuses. For the first character, however, that could yield a 17 strength, which grants an additional, precious +1 to-hit in melee -- or, if the character so chooses, a 17 constitution, again the same as the scenario above.

Now mind you, playing a character with cruddy ability scores can be lots of fun. Role-playing is about playing a personality, not a set of numbers. I recently played in a table-top campaign (3d6 straight up!) where I played a halfling thief with the following stats: Str 4, Int 10, Wis 4, Dex 11, Con 14, Chr 10. He was *tremendous* fun; I thoroughly enjoyed playing out his weaknesses, right up until he was eaten by a ki-rin.

Nevertheless, these are fantasy games, and players are playing fantasy characters fulfilling a role. Surely, either as a player or a DM, we'd want these characters to be suited to their roles, skilled at their roles. Surely there could or should be at least one thing that the character is genuinely good at. After all, isn't that why you told your players to use 4d6c3-arrange-to-taste in the first place?

Gary Gygax agrees:

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics." - 1e PH, p.9

Consequently, I tend to recommend to DMs that they give all due consideration to the character generation systems that they use, lending weight to the notion that they might want to ensure that characters have a bit more capability baked into them. Some suggestions:

1) 4d6c3 x 6, arrange to taste; if none (or only one) of the stats is 15+, discard the full set and repeat.
2) 4d6c3 x 6, arrange to taste; reroll the 6th stat until it's 15+ (Argennian's system).
3) 4d6c3 x 6, arrange to taste; two additional "floating" ability score points that can be added to any score(s). (This is the method my current table-top 2nd Edition campaign uses.)

User avatar
Alethan
POWAH!
POWAH!
Posts: 14355
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:50 pm
Location: Midwest
Contact:

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#2 Post by Alethan »

Hmmm... Great topic, Xaxyx. Sorry I haven't commented on it sooner.

From personal experience, I would have to say playing a character with one or two impressive stats is the most fun. I'm good with any method that gives all of the players a good chance at achieving those kinds of stats.

I've managed to roll up a few characters over the years that had more than two impressive stats. They were... meh. For some reason, having too many good stats made the characters less interesting to me. If I had the patience and the insight I have today, those would have been really good characters to make a human who takes six or seven levels of one class and then changes to another (thief and magic user would be good there), resulting in, say, a thief who can eventually cast some great lower level MU spells to aid his thieving skills.

I'm currently in a PbP game where we started with the original brown book rules. We all rolled 3d6 six times and had to keep them in that order for the stats (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha). If you had the rolls for it, you were allowed to reduce specific stats by two points in order to raise a different stat by one point, as long as the stat you were lowering didn't go below 9. (I don't remember the exact ruling; it was all btb for the brown book rules, though.) Iirc, I couldn't even do that - but I had some tough rolls. I think my highest stat is like a 12 or 13 for STR and the lowest was a 5 for DEX, with everything else being in the 7-9 range. But none of the characters in the campaign are remarkable. We're all pretty average, which means we need to play smarter, be more crafty, plan things out better, etc. in order to survive. A few of us have done so and made it to level 2. Most die and roll up a new person, though. (I've seen some really interesting ways for the GM to bring a new character into the game because of that.) I think... yeah, I think I'm having more fun with that character than I've had with one of the few characters I had with several good stats.

But the character with just one or two high stats? I like that. It gives you a focus - something you can say your character is good at and work into your background story. It doesn't make you too powerful. It's just enough that you're MORE than the common man, which is why you've taken up adventuring in the first place (otherwise every farmer who had a hankering for gold would be out there swinging a sword or casting spells or cutting purses).

To add to the different methods of chargen...

I've played a few games where the DM liked to give the players a lot of flexibility to build their own character. The thought behind it was that if you build the character you WANT to play, then you become more invested in that character and, thus, play him/her more truly and fully and hopefully create a really good gaming environment the entire group will benefit from. With that in mind, he would roll 18d6 and give you the 18 results of those rolls. You were free to arrange them as you wanted, but could only ever set one stat to 18, if you had the rolls for it. I thought it was a great method and it's one I'm interested in trying if I ever get around to running something.

I'm currently in one game where the DM makes all of your stat rolls. He provides them to you already assigned to the stats (similar to brown book rules), with one caveat. You can replace any single dice roll with a 6, as long as it does not make that stat 18. So, for example, you would receive the following:
Str: 6, 1, 6
Int: 4, 3, 5
Wis: 2, 1, 4
Dex: 3, 5, 6
Con: 2, 5, 3
Cha: 5, 4, 5

And you could replace any single dice roll above, except for the "1" in Str, with a "6" to increase that stat. He also uses a very simplified "in 6" (1 in 6, 2 in 6, 3 in 6, etc.) function for stat bonuses/explanations.

I like that method because it does give the player a little bit of agency in their character creation. It gives them a better chance at having at least one high level stat. (But not always, of course...)

Umm... those are pretty much my thoughts on chargen methods. I'm very flexible when it comes to character creation. If I'm not happy with the DM's method of chargen, then I certainly don't have to play the game.

As a GM, if one of my players rolled up the most bland and mediocre stats, I would probably try to work with them to come up with some way of giving them a semi-remarkable stat in exchange for something else (usually something akin to taking a character defect that I would closely monitor to make sure they were playing... or I would make sure it was played out properly). But they would always have some sort of choice in the matter, including not taking any character defect and keeping the stats they have.
Dragon foot. Bamboo pole. Little mouse. Tiny boy.

User avatar
Argennian
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 4885
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Bay Area, NorCal

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#3 Post by Argennian »

Great thread idea, Xaxyx! 8-)

Xaxyx wrote:DISCLAIMER (PLEASE READ): Many who don't know me and some who do might interpret the following article as some lame attempt at passive munchkinism. Well, by strict definition, it's true: my point does largely revolve around wanting characters to start out their careers with more power. Nevertheless, I prefer to believe that my underlying goals are altruistic. I want a better campaign for all -- that includes both the players and the DM...
I wouldn't call that munchkinism at all, perhaps just wanting to have a PC that's got something going for them.

Xaxyx wrote:I for one have always stood staunchly against the "standard" 4d6c3 model for character generation (top 3 of 4d6, roll six times, arrange to taste). I feel that this is a poor character generation method for 1e, 2e, and/or OSRIC...
Heh, I came from the "3d6, play em in the order rolled" camp. Compared to that, the 4d6c3 was much more gratuitous. The additional caveat of "arrange as desired" was like a whole new world and was the first time I actually felt like I had some real control in how I set up my character!

When I started DMing, I changed that up by allowing the choice of 2 sets of stats rolled, using 4d6c3 in a row with an additional bonus stat roll of at least 15 (reroll until 15 or higher) for each set. Using 1E age and racial bonuses/penalties, you had the choice of either switching 2 of your core stat rolls or using your bonus roll in place of one of the stat rolls. There was no point trading and you made what you could. I only once remember a buddy calling shat and asking for a complete do-over. :)


Xaxyx wrote:... Allow me to elaborate.

When rolling 4d6 and taking the top three results, the odds of rolling a number higher than a 14 are only about 21%. (Math available upon request.) This means that most of the six rolled stats are very likely going to come out as 14 and below. Indeed, there's approximately a 24% chance that NONE of the six rolled stats will be above 14.

Setting racial modifiers aside for the moment: characters with 14 or less in all of their stats are strictly inferior to characters with at least one 15. Heck, for most purposes, 14 is hardly better than an 8 in the same score. This is because in all of the aforementioned systems, ability scores tend to only yield bonuses at 15 or higher. To be more specific:

Str: +1 damage at 16 or higher (even 15 yields no bonuses here)
Int: +10% change to understand spells, additional 1 min/2 max spells per level at 15
Wis: +1 mental saves at 15; 2nd level spells gained at 15-16 (1st level spells at 13-14)
Dex: -1 AC, +1 on avoidance saving throws at 15; -2 AC / +2 saves, +1 reaction/missile at 16
Con: +1 hps at 15; +2 hps at 16
Cha: significant loyalty/reaction bonuses gained at 15+; 15 cha required to qualify for some classes

Right away, we're in tricky territory admittedly, insofar as that terms like "inferior/superior", "better/worse" refer to subjective concepts. But it's certainly evident that any bonuses received by characters from their ability scores largely only show up once passing the 15+ threshold. Dexterity and constitution are the strongest examples of this principle. Extra hit points and armor class can be of immense importance and utility to characters of any level.

Consider the following two sets of ability scores:

16 9 8 8 8 8
14 14 14 14 14 14

If you tally the numbers, you'll see the the second character (84 points total) has 47% more ability score points than the first character (57). Yet it's the first character who enjoys a tremendous flexibility in choosing a character class and receiving immediate, specific bonuses in that class. The second character, for all his supposedly impressive ability score points, will receive few bonuses, if any:

- As a fighter, the first character can either have +1 damage from strength, or (my preference) -2 AC, +2 on avoidance saving throws, and +1 reaction/missile adjustment from dexterity, or a +2 hit point adjustment per hit die. The second character would receive *no useful combat bonuses whatsoever* from any of his ability scores.

- As a thief, the first character would have all of the aforementioned dexterity bonuses (along with +5% Open Locks for good measure), or either of the other aforementioned combat bonuses. The second character would again receive no useful benefits.

- As a cleric, both characters would get a full compliment of three 1st level cleric spells. The first character, however, in addition to receiving +2 on mind-affecting saving throws, would also get two bonus 2nd level spells upon reaching 3rd level (Hold Person x 3 is always fun). The second character receives nothing additional.

- As a magic-user, the first character would enjoy higher chances to learn spells, and a larger, more versatile spellbook as compared to the second character. None of the other ability scores would matter a whit.

Indeed, the only "advantage" I see for the second character in this hypothetical match-up is that he can qualify as a ranger. If it were my choice, however, I'd be far more tempted go with the first set of stats and just play a 16-dexterity fighter.

Oh -- and lest we forget: the first character can, at his option, gain +10% to earned experience. The second character can't.

Throwing racial modifiers into the mix hardly seems to change the scenario much. The only existing racial bonuses are +1 to dex (matching a 17 dex against a 15 dex; the clear winner is obvious), +1 to con (same deal), and +1 to int (as a gnome; but gnomes can only be illusionists, and neither template could qualify even with the bonus).

Oops, we forgot one: the half-orc, +1 to strength and con. For the second character, that's no different than playing a dwarf really, since 15 strength yields no bonuses. For the first character, however, that could yield a 17 strength, which grants an additional, precious +1 to-hit in melee -- or, if the character so chooses, a 17 constitution, again the same as the scenario above.
I agree that getting a bonus To Hit or for AC or to Hit Points when you level is huge. Getting that 10% bonus to XP for your PC's high primary attribute is what I would consider the strongest reason for going with the first rolls. A 10% bonus to XP will level you quicker!

I guess I'm relating to the fact that if the stat range of 9-12 is considered "normal", I would see any scores above 12 as "above average". Thinking in relation the character's overall stat scores, I consider what the chances will be when a d20 attribute roll is needed, i.e., make a Str check, Dex check, Int check, etc. So in that regard, the PC stats with the six 14s would be superior, imho, even if a high attribute bonus isn't present.



Xaxyx wrote:Now mind you, playing a character with cruddy ability scores can be lots of fun. Role-playing is about playing a personality, not a set of numbers. I recently played in a table-top campaign (3d6 straight up!) where I played a halfling thief with the following stats: Str 4, Int 10, Wis 4, Dex 11, Con 14, Chr 10. He was *tremendous* fun; I thoroughly enjoyed playing out his weaknesses, right up until he was eaten by a ki-rin.

Nevertheless, these are fantasy games, and players are playing fantasy characters fulfilling a role. Surely, either as a player or a DM, we'd want these characters to be suited to their roles, skilled at their roles. Surely there could or should be at least one thing that the character is genuinely good at. After all, isn't that why you told your players to use 4d6c3-arrange-to-taste in the first place?

Gary Gygax agrees:

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics." - 1e PH, p.9
Those are some tough stats on that halfling thief, man! :shock:

I also agree that a Player Character should have at least 1 to 2 high attributes or at least mostly above average ones. It can be fun to play a below average character for the challenge of it or even the humor factor, but it doesn't work with some games and/or game groups and would eventually burn the player out, imho. For what could be considered a lengthly or "serious-themed" campaign, I'd agree that most players would prefer their PC hero to be exceptional.

Xaxyx wrote:Consequently, I tend to recommend to DMs that they give all due consideration to the character generation systems that they use, lending weight to the notion that they might want to ensure that characters have a bit more capability baked into them. Some suggestions:

1) 4d6c3 x 6, arrange to taste; if none (or only one) of the stats is 15+, discard the full set and repeat.
2) 4d6c3 x 6, arrange to taste; reroll the 6th stat until it's 15+ (Argennian's system).
3) 4d6c3 x 6, arrange to taste; two additional "floating" ability score points that can be added to any score(s). (This is the method my current table-top 2nd Edition campaign uses.)
For the New Hope to the West campaign, I actaully went with:

- 4d6 (drop the lowest die)
- All ones are counted as twos
- Any rolls under 8 are rerolled
- Last roll must be at least a 15 or higher (reroll till you attain 15 or higher)
(Racial bonuses/penalties apply)

I think on average it netted pretty decent scores for all involved and a couple folks landed 18s. Not having a penalty from a low attribute is huge, even if it's a disadvantage on a d20 attribute roll for being one point "below average", per se.
Yosef Travathas: High Elf Fighter4/Magic-User3 (rredmond's Pacesetter Games "Legacy of the Unknown" OSRIC Playtest)
Brok Sterling: Human Assassin3 (ToniXX's Incursion into Newiron OSRIC Playtest)
Tanik Tremwoodak: Dwarf Cleric3 (Dave's 1e Skype Game)

DM: home-brew OSRIC "A New Hope to the West" campaign

Fireball... good!!

"What's it gonna take?"
"Everything."
tkrexx as Emm the Avenging Druid wrote:I shall burn you, and I shall sink your petty warship with fire and lightning, and the ocean shall swallow it and all aboard, and no one will remember any of you!

User avatar
dmw71
POWAH!
POWAH!
Posts: 19482
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:18 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#4 Post by dmw71 »

Xaxyx wrote:When rolling 4d6 and taking the top three results, the odds of rolling a number higher than a 14 are only about 21%.
While not an attempt to defend the method, 21% is basically 1-in-5. Since you need to generate six attributes, isn't there a decent chance of a character using the typical [4d6c1] method naturally getting a score 15+?
Setting racial modifiers aside for the moment: characters with 14 or less in all of their stats are strictly inferior to characters with at least one 15.
Absolutely agree! (I'll address this more about this later.)
Heck, for most purposes, 14 is hardly better than an 8 in the same score.
Once again, I completely agree. (Again, I'll address this more about this later.)
Consider the following two sets of ability scores:

16 9 8 8 8 8
14 14 14 14 14 14

If you tally the numbers, you'll see the the second character (84 points total) has 47% more ability score points than the first character (57). Yet it's the first character who enjoys a tremendous flexibility in choosing a character class and receiving immediate, specific bonuses in that class. The second character, for all his supposedly impressive ability score points, will receive few bonuses, if any
While an unlikely scenario, your example illustrates the flaw perfectly. However, is "the flaw" actually the generation method being used?

I'm not convinced the problem stems from the method used to generate the ability scores, but rather the resulting chart used to assign penalties or bonuses for the generated scores. My biggest issue with AD&D has always been that it was pointless to make ability scores between 8 and 14 basically useless stats (especially when many (if not most) generation methods will produce mostly rolls in this range). What's the point? It was actually because of this very reason that I started to enjoy and actually seek out playing characters with lower ability scores. If my four d6 rolls were 6, 5, 3, 2; I could easily cut the 2 and end up with a 14. However, if I went extreme and cut the 6, my character ends up with an 10 which, for all "intensive purposes" (any 'King of Queens' fans?), is basically the same thing.

At least for me, I could more easily play a character with a 8 in an attribute as a somehow flawed character than I could if the same character had an almost bonus-worthy 14 score instead.
Now mind you, playing a character with cruddy ability scores can be lots of fun. Role-playing is about playing a personality, not a set of numbers. I recently played in a table-top campaign (3d6 straight up!) where I played a halfling thief with the following stats: Str 4, Int 10, Wis 4, Dex 11, Con 14, Chr 10. He was *tremendous* fun; I thoroughly enjoyed playing out his weaknesses, right up until he was eaten by a ki-rin.
:D
Gary Gygax agrees:

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics." - 1e PH, p.9
I'm glad you pointed this quote out. I actually started to respond to this post several days ago and thought I had saved my work as a draft... only to not find it later. No worries. In my lost response, I mentioned reading Gary's thoughts on this as well.
Consequently, I tend to recommend to DMs that they give all due consideration to the character generation systems that they use, lending weight to the notion that they might want to ensure that characters have a bit more capability baked into them.
I am totally fine to play in a game regardless of the ability score generation method. If the DM wants to direct more heroistic characters, so be it. If they elect to force the players to roll 3d6 in order, I would (not literally... I don't think) salivate at the chance. To me, it's all about the opportunity to play and continue to grow as a player.


While I still haven't officially played in a 2E game, I did recently create my first ever 2E character in anticipation of starting a game. There are quite a few little changes and tweaks to what I'm used to (coming from an almost strict 1E background), but one of the things I was most impressed with about the 2E Players Handbook is the "What the Numbers Mean" section which ends the discussion on ability scores.
What the Numbers Mean
Now that you have finished creating the ability scores for your character, stop and take a look at them. What does all this mean?

Suppose you decide to name your character "Rath" and you rolled the following ability scores for him:

Strength: 8
Dexterity: 14
Constitution: 13
Intelligence: 13
Wisdom: 7
Charisma: 6

Rath has strengths and weaknesses, but it is up to you to interpret what the numbers mean. Here are just two different ways these numbers could be interpreted.

1) Although Rath is in good health (Con 13), he's not very strong (Str 8) because he's just plain lazy -- he never wanted to exercise as a youth and now it's too late. His low Wisdom and Charisma scores (7, 6) show that he lacks the common sense to apply himself properly and projects a slothful, "I'm not going to bother" attitude (which tends to irritate others). Fortunately, Rath's natural wit (Int 13) and Dexterity (14) keep him from being a total loss.

Thus, you might play Rath as an irritating, smart-alecky twerp forever ducking just out of range of those that want to squash him.

2) Rath has several good points -- he has studied hard (Int 13) and practiced his manual skills (Dex 14). Unfortunately, his Strength is low (8) from a lack of exercise (all those hours spent reading books). Despite that, Rath's health is still good (Con 13). His low Wisdom and Charisma (7, 6) are a result of his lack of contact and involvement with people outside the realm of academics.

Looking at the scores this way, you could play Rath as a kindly, naive, and shy professorial type who's a good tinkerer, always fiddling with new ideas and inventions.

Obviously, Rath's ability scores (often called "stats") are not the greatest in the world. Yet is is possible to turn these "disappointing" stats into a character who is both interesting and fun to play. Too often players become obsessed with "good" stats. These players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he does not have at least one ability of 17 or higher! Needless to say, these players would never consider playing a character with an ability score of 6 or 7.

In truth, Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness, something not likely to endear him to most people. His Dexterity is a 3? Why? Is he naturally clumsy or blind as a bat?

Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.

Heck, very early in my playing career we used to generate all ability scores by rolling a d20. That's how we were taught and, it wasn't until much later that we realized that how we had been producing characters the whole time was wrong. Probably 85-90% of the characters I've produced have followed the [4d6c1] method, though, and I've been perfectly happy with them... even (and maybe especially) the bad ones. Heck, almost the only characters that truly stand out in my memory over the years are those that weren't "super" characters.

Anyway, just my two cents. ;)

- Dave


-- DM --
Game Status Groups Players
Greyhawk Campaign: Sandbox (1e) On Hiatus (Archived)
--
--

User avatar
Alethan
POWAH!
POWAH!
Posts: 14355
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:50 pm
Location: Midwest
Contact:

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#5 Post by Alethan »

One thing I find interesting, and that is illustrated in this conversation with Xaxyx's description of his thief and Dave's pasted example from the 2e Player's Manual, is how people list out stats. They are generally displayed one of two ways.

First Way:
STR
INT
WIS
DEX
CON
CHA

Second Way:
STR
DEX
CON
INT
WIS
CHA

In the rule books, the change happens between 1e and 2e, but the reason for the first way is based on OD&D rules. In the OD&D books, there were only three classes: Fighting Men, Magic Users, and Clerics. The stats were arranged according to the prime requisites for those three classes (Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom). The other three were considered secondary stats or, at least, stats that all characters could benefit equally from having. They appear that way in 1e, as well, even though by that time the character classes had expanded well beyond the three. Probably just because nobody thought it needed changing.

In 2e, however, the stats show up in the latter arrangement. The logic there is that the first three stats are physical attributes and the second are mental/emotional/spiritual stats. Or non-physical stats, in any case. Even the description for CHA changes slightly from 1e to 2e to accommodate this.
1e Definition wrote:Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism.
2e Definition wrote:The Charisma (Cha) score measures a character's persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead. It is not a reflection of physical attractiveness, although attractiveness certainly plays a role.
After a bit of observation (I started thinking about this when I saw that some people wrote down their stats in a different order than I did), I think it's pretty safe to say you can get a good indication of when the player started D&D (up through 1e or after 1e) by how they write down their stats.

Guess that doesn't really have anything to do with Stat generation... I just thought it was interesting.
Dragon foot. Bamboo pole. Little mouse. Tiny boy.

User avatar
dmw71
POWAH!
POWAH!
Posts: 19482
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:18 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#6 Post by dmw71 »

Alethan wrote:One thing I find interesting, and that is illustrated in this conversation with Xaxyx's description of his thief and Dave's pasted example from the 2e Player's Manual, is how people list out stats.
In the OD&D books, there were only three classes: Fighting Men, Magic Users, and Clerics. The stats were arranged according to the prime requisites for those three classes (Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom).
In 2e, however, the stats show up in the latter arrangement. The logic there is that the first three stats are physical attributes and the second are mental/emotional/spiritual stats. Or non-physical stats, in any case.
You have no idea how difficult it was for me to type the attribute scores in the "wrong" order. It's worth nothing that OSRIC lists the stats in this new 2E order as well, not the original 1E. While I'm most familiar with 1E rules, I tend to agree with the newer order thinking that it makes a more logical separation of the various attributes.
I think it's pretty safe to say you can get a good indication of when the player started D&D (up through 1e or after 1e) by how they write down their stats.
Unless, of course, the player is a stickler for detail and will simply list the stats in the order the rulebook presents them. ;)


-- DM --
Game Status Groups Players
Greyhawk Campaign: Sandbox (1e) On Hiatus (Archived)
--
--

User avatar
dmw71
POWAH!
POWAH!
Posts: 19482
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:18 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#7 Post by dmw71 »

Below is the post I was originally looking for when I became distracted by the discussion over Player or Character Knowledge.

I remember reading the below post a month or so ago and Xaxyx's introduction of this topic got me thinking about it again.
Why I really, really like using "basic" ability scores in 1e

Here is the original post in the above thread so not everyone has to jump to read it (although, it's an interesting discussion and I would encourage those interested in making the jump to follow the replies as well).
IvanMike wrote:This isn't to start an edition war or a purity war, so keep it civil.

I love first edition. (I also love basic). However, the older I get the more I find the ability score modifiers from 1st edition to be cumbersome, hard for newcomers to learn, and frankly I think they cause most of the recently discussed issues people have with character generation.

For those of you that don't know, a score of 3 is -3, 4-5 are -2, 6-8 are -1, 9-12 are 0, 13-15 are +1, 16-17 are +2, and 18 is +3. These affect all of the usual modifiers, but things like extra spells for clerics and system shock can be played 1e btb if you want.

This is easy to remember and easy to learn.

More to the point, no longer are 2 scores of 15+ "mandatory", one can have scores of 13+ instead. Likewise, using the 4d6 method (and yes I know it was developed for AD&D's higher score requirements), you can easily roll up a playable character that has a net +1 bonus or greater when all of their scores are considered. Scores of 16+ are not too uncommon, and that instantly places the character in the upper echelon of that ability. The AD&D character converted to basic mods with scores including a 16 and two 13s along with some 9s undergoes a radical transformation in power and ability, without having to resort to all of the "gimmicky" methods to improve them that so many folks seem to want or need.

The obvious downside is that it's far easier to get negative scores, but simply rerolling all ones changes the minimum score from 3 to 6, which ensures that no penalty would be lower than -1 in any given score.

The other downside is that there is no +4 (which I think is a bit over the top anyhow), and that it's a bit harder to get a +3 bonus. I think these are offset substantially by the fact that bonuses happen at 13 rather than 15 (or higher).

No % STR either, but I think the disparity between the fighter and the cleric (and to a lesser extent, the thief) is better handled by adjusting the to hit progression of those classes somewhat, but that is another topic. A 15 or 16 STR is supposed to be far stronger than most people, and now instead of these netting 0/0 and 0/+1, they give you +1/+1 or +2/+2. To me, this makes a fighter pretty darned heroic from day #1.

I have to thank Matthew for setting me straight over a year ago when I was looking at ability scores and turning me back onto the Moldvay Modifiers which allowed me to learn D&D in 15 minutes back in 1981 and start playing that day. (heroic characters and all)

Given that one of my biggest issues with 1E is the lack of distinction between an 8 and a 14, I probably tend to agree with the original poster.


- Dave


-- DM --
Game Status Groups Players
Greyhawk Campaign: Sandbox (1e) On Hiatus (Archived)
--
--

User avatar
onlyme
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 6838
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Middle of Carolinas

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#8 Post by onlyme »

I noticed recently after looking at my newly acquired basic d&d book, that the sample characters are pretty lucky in their rolls. There were a few with a single seven, and some with an 8. But, no character had 6s or below. All of them had at least one 16, some with 2 that high...
And theoretically, these were supposed to be based on 3d6. I would have thought at least one of their samples would show a 4 or 5, just to make the player realize it could happen. Maybe they meant for folks to have badly rolled characters get dumped anyway.
Dandelion - female half-orc beautyqueen in training (The Lone City in the Wildlands) OSRIC
Halfpint - female halfling badgirl wannabe (Lab Lord- The North Marches) LL
Mark'd - charismatic human fighter (Lab Lord- The North Marches) LL


User avatar
AleBelly
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 8965
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 4:46 am
Location: Research Triangle Park, NC

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#9 Post by AleBelly »

I know this is an old thread, but I love the topic. Good points raised by all (although my math has the chance of rolling a 15 or higher on 4d6drop1 as 23.15%).

To me, it boils down to this: when reading the rulebooks, it seems that OD&D and BECMI nudge the DM towards 3d6, straight up. 1e and 2e seem to suggest 4d6drop1 as the preferred method.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the chances of rolling a 13+ in 3d6 (25.9%) and 15+ in 4d6drop1 (23.2%) are similar. These are threshold scores for earning a bonus in "to hit," AC, etc. As noted above, bonuses kick in at 13 for BECMI and basically at 15 for 1e. Add the fact that 1e and 2e advocate rearranging scores...and the racial modifiers and the chances are basically equal (with some hand-waving) to get a bonus. I wonder if the rules makers were moving the goalposts in response to a migration from 3d6 to 4d6drop1.

User avatar
onlyme
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 6838
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Middle of Carolinas

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#10 Post by onlyme »

Very well could be. It is a fine balance between too strong and too weak. Look at my post right above yours... The BECMI examples (cant remember how many there were, thinking 6-7) have at least one 16, and no 3-6. Using 3d6... There is <25% chance of having a 16 or greater and around a 50/50 of having a 6 or below. If I did my math right, there would be a 0.02% chance that 6 characters would ALL have a score of 16 or greater, and a 3% that none would have a 6 or lower.

So, while they may have been moving goalposts for balancing, etc. they were almost certainly envisioning more powerful characters than the rulebook itself warranted.
Dandelion - female half-orc beautyqueen in training (The Lone City in the Wildlands) OSRIC
Halfpint - female halfling badgirl wannabe (Lab Lord- The North Marches) LL
Mark'd - charismatic human fighter (Lab Lord- The North Marches) LL


Xaxyx
Pathfinder
Pathfinder
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:27 pm

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#11 Post by Xaxyx »

Reviving my own post since I've played enough 5e now to comment intelligently.

I *very* much like the way character generation works in 5e, insofar as that there exists a (admittedly variant) set of rules for determining ability scores via point expenditure. With 27 points to spend, you can purchase scores via this matrix:

8 = 0 points
9 = 1 point
10 = 2 points
11 = 3 points
12 = 4 points
13 = 5 points
14 = 7 points
15 = 9 points

Ability scores in 5e seem more akin to Basic D&D, insofar as that they all grant their bonuses via the same matrix, as follows:

8-9 = -1 modifier
10-11 = +0
12-13 = +1
14-15 = +2
16-17 = +3
18-19 = +4
20-21 = +5

This all, of course, before modifiers by race and such. What's the result? Presuming the DM allows only the point-based character generation system (and as it happens, many play-by-post games I've seen so far are set up in just such a fashion) players can custom-build any characters that they prefer, utterly avoiding entirely scenarios of either horribly bad or horribly good dice rolls.

User avatar
Alethan
POWAH!
POWAH!
Posts: 14355
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:50 pm
Location: Midwest
Contact:

Re: Character Generation and Ability Scores

#12 Post by Alethan »

While I do *really enjoy* sometimes going with the randomness of building a character based on what the dice give me, I must admit I occasionally like to build something specific. This looks like a nice clean system for doing just that.

Thanks for posting the breakdown, Xaxyx!
Dragon foot. Bamboo pole. Little mouse. Tiny boy.

Xaxyx
Pathfinder
Pathfinder
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:27 pm

Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#13 Post by Xaxyx »

I feel this topic to be sufficiently dissimilar to my critique of common ability score generation processes to start a separate thread.

Let's say you're a DM, running Basic or 1e or 2e or Osric or S&W or some other clone with the "standard" ability score matrix. And let's say you've chosen, as seems to so often happen, to instruct your players to use the ol' stalwart 4d6c3 method to determine their characters' ability scores.

And let's say that you've allowed me to join your campaign and roll up a character. And let's suppose that I am, in fact, a jerk.

As a jerk, my goal is to create some grotesquely powerful abomination of a character. So I wander over to the dice generator; I roll; and, dissatisfied with my results (what's that? only *one* 17 result?!) I perhaps complain to you, the DM, who perhaps lets me reroll. Or not. Whatever.

Then, still dissatisfied with my results, I quit the campaign, create a new account, and petition to join your campaign again. And you, unaware that I've done this, allow this "new" player to join. Which then gives me the opportunity to try to roll up some better scores.

Or perhaps I create several accounts, join your campaign several times in parallel, keep whichever account rolls the best set of scores, and quit with all of the others.

Or perhaps I join your campaign, roll a crappy score, and quit; and then someone else who's just as big of a jerk as me (as if that were possible! Ha!) joins and does the same exact thing. And so forth.

My point -- I think I have one somewhere in here -- is that the 4d6c3 method of generating a character arguably *encourages* this obnoxious behavior, insofar as that it potentially *rewards* players who act like jerks and bounce between campaigns and/or create new accounts, as well as potentially creating bad feels for the regular players -- the honorable, "I'll take the scores that I'm given" sorts of players -- who are left with a handful of 11's.

I believe, though lack the hard evidence to prove, that this sort of activity occurs on other play-by-post sites (not sure if I'm allowed to name any here so I'll just leave this part vague) quite steadily. DMs will complain, sometimes loudly, of a high "drop out rate" in these sorts of campaigns. I attribute this attrition *directly* to the ability score generation method and the sort of behavior it is capable of fostering.

So as to be clear that I'm not just whining about the 4d6c3 character generation method itself (I've got a whole other thread for that), let me ask the questions I came to ask:

- Do you agree that it is possible for this character generation system to encourage the sort of behavior I've outlined?
- Is that actually happening, here and/or elsewhere?
- If so, would that be enough of a factor to cause you to reconsider using this character generation method?

User avatar
AleBelly
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 8965
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 4:46 am
Location: Research Triangle Park, NC

Re: Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#14 Post by AleBelly »

Xaxyx wrote: - Do you agree that it is possible for this character generation system to encourage the sort of behavior I've outlined?
I read your post, but I don't see why the 4d6 drop 1 method is singled out. Any method for randomly determining character attributes could lead to this behavior. I think the bigger issue is min/maxing players. I'm not quite sure I understand the point. What alternative method do you propose? Allowing the characters to pick their scores? Either way, I'm not interested in playing with or running a game for players like that.
Xaxyx wrote:- Is that actually happening, here and/or elsewhere?
I haven't seen any evidence of this. I have suspected a couple of players abandoning old accounts and creating new ones, but I think this was more out of embarrassment of abandoning games and wanting to start over rather than going through all that rigmarole to get better ability scores. Although we're more or less anonymous on this site, people do have pretty distinct posting styles and use of language. I don't think it's too difficult to figure out if people are creating new accounts.
Xaxyx wrote:- If so, would that be enough of a factor to cause you to reconsider using this character generation method?
No, I think the chargen method is a key indicator of the style of game a DM runs. I rarely, if ever, allow re-rolling of stats. In my games, the PCs don't have a right to be heroic. They earn that through game play. I'm not saying that's the only valid philosophy, but it is the philosophy of games I run and like to play in. I've run a game on here for over a year. I have been lucky that many of them are excellent role players, and I've also found this type of player is much less likely to whine about ability scores. In my experience, the players who prefer inflated scores tend to be flakier and more likely to drop out of games here.

Xaxyx
Pathfinder
Pathfinder
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:27 pm

Re: Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#15 Post by Xaxyx »

AleBelly wrote:I read your post, but I don't see why the 4d6 drop 1 method is singled out. Any method for randomly determining character attributes could lead to this behavior. I think the bigger issue is min/maxing players. I'm not quite sure I understand the point. What alternative method do you propose? Allowing the characters to pick their scores? Either way, I'm not interested in playing with or running a game for players like that.
Oh, blast. I should have made this all one thread. Generally I propose that rather than rolling for ability scores randomly, something significantly less random, or even not at all random, be used instead. A fixed matrix (or several, from which the player can choose one); a point-buy system; that sort of thing. I perceive several advantages to such an approach: "fairness", insofar as that there's never a guy with 18's and 17's sitting next to some poor slob with 8's and 9's; balance, insofar as that the DM can set up encounters appropriate for the characters without concern with their ability scores; and no jerk-inspired hijinks.
AleBelly wrote:No, I think the chargen method is a key indicator of the style of game a DM runs. I rarely, if ever, allow re-rolling of stats. In my games, the PCs don't have a right to be heroic. They earn that through game play. I'm not saying that's the only valid philosophy, but it is the philosophy of games I run and like to play in. I've run a game on here for over a year. I have been lucky that many of them are excellent role players, and I've also found this type of player is much less likely to whine about ability scores. In my experience, the players who prefer inflated scores tend to be flakier and more likely to drop out of games here.
Unfortunately, you're omitting a crucial scenario: the player who sits down and rolls 16+ on most or all of his ability scores. Suddenly, he's a hero! Not for the time and effort of creating a fascinating character concept and a detailed background; not for crawling through the muck of his first dungeon adventure and emerging unscathed; not for brilliant, gripping role play and personality development; but because he -- the player, not the character! -- got extraordinarily lucky on his dice rolls.

This makes no sense at all to me. It's further exacerbated by this scenario: two players sit down. They create fighters. Player One has an awesome character concept about how his half-brother murdered his fiance and now he's devoted himself to hunting him down and also he's allergic to broccoli. Player Two shrugs and goes "Uh, he's a fighter."

Player One rolls all 8's and 9's for his ability scores (and a 6 just for flavor). Player Two rolls 14-18 all around. Con bonus. AC bonus. Percentile strength. The works.

Who's the real "hero", I find myself forced to ask? Who's most likely going to survive the first dungeon crawl? Yes, I know the spiel, as I've even given it myself: it's a game; it's in the nature of AD&D; stuff* happens; it's about role playing, not roll playing. But here we have a player who demonstrates no interest in "earning the right to be heroic through game play", to more or less quote you. Yet his staggeringly magnificent 1st level character has a clear and huge advantage over his companion. Was this "earned"? No? Then why allow it? Just because that's what's the dice dictated?

User avatar
MonkeyWrench
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:58 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#16 Post by MonkeyWrench »

Well, personally I could see that happening to any character generation method that has the players "roll" for stats. The only exception would be a more point/buy system but then even that is balanced so that if you wanted three 17's you'd be forcing at least one stat to be something like a 6.

Either way, the problem is not with the method but with the players, if someone is a jerk then they are going to play like a jerk; no matter the method of character generation.

As for the presence of jerks on the UnseenServant... maybe? We aren't really a community of complainers as far as I can tell, GM's don't rant or rave about a lot of players dropping out constantly. In every game I've been in there has been at least one player that has dropped, some games I've seen a kind of revolving door of players; but it's always just been the nature of the PbP world, when people don't have to actually physically show up they can be flaky. But I've noticed that the far majority of players on this site are good people, when most of them drop a game they will let the GM know because we all understand that life most definitely comes first.

So while the problem of people being jerks or trying to game the system is apparent on all sites the source of the problem most definitely rests with those few players and not the system itself, all systems have their flaws but this problem is just not one of them.
Life is a roller coaster, if you don't stop to enjoy it then you may as well not even ride.

User avatar
Zhym
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 20556
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:14 am

Re: Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#17 Post by Zhym »

Random rolling and points systems each have their advantages, but I don't see jerk-avoidance as much of a benefit for point systems. If a player's going to be a jerk, I'd rather have it come out when he's creating a character. It seems to me that rage-quitting because of unlucky attribute rolls is a built-in feature that self-selects for non-jerks.

BTW, the probability of rolling all 16+ attributes using 4d6 drop 1 is about 1 in 200,000 (a 0.0005% chance). If a player gets that lucky, I say let him have that PC. But I'd also be suspicious unless I saw the rolls happen.

User avatar
MonkeyWrench
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:58 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#18 Post by MonkeyWrench »

Xaxyx wrote:Oh, blast. I should have made this all one thread. Generally I propose that rather than rolling for ability scores randomly, something significantly less random, or even not at all random, be used instead. A fixed matrix (or several, from which the player can choose one); a point-buy system; that sort of thing. I perceive several advantages to such an approach: "fairness", insofar as that there's never a guy with 18's and 17's sitting next to some poor slob with 8's and 9's; balance, insofar as that the DM can set up encounters appropriate for the characters without concern with their ability scores; and no jerk-inspired hijinks.
Yeah, but using a point-buy system is really your own preference. It's a nice system that does allow a player to create a character that they believe fits their internal image of them but again, that's really up to the GM to decide, some people love rolling the dice for their character and then using those stats to truly get into their character. Some of my most memorable characters were the ones with low stats that made me think outside the box to get things done; that made me play smart instead of "I roll to attack" on every. single. encounter. It's honestly more fun to be creative in my opinion.
Xaxyx wrote:Unfortunately, you're omitting a crucial scenario: the player who sits down and rolls 16+ on most or all of his ability scores. Suddenly, he's a hero! Not for the time and effort of creating a fascinating character concept and a detailed background; not for crawling through the muck of his first dungeon adventure and emerging unscathed; not for brilliant, gripping role play and personality development; but because he -- the player, not the character! -- got extraordinarily lucky on his dice rolls.

This makes no sense at all to me. It's further exacerbated by this scenario: two players sit down. They create fighters. Player One has an awesome character concept about how his half-brother murdered his fiance and now he's devoted himself to hunting him down and also he's allergic to broccoli. Player Two shrugs and goes "Uh, he's a fighter."

Player One rolls all 8's and 9's for his ability scores (and a 6 just for flavor). Player Two rolls 14-18 all around. Con bonus. AC bonus. Percentile strength. The works.

Who's the real "hero", I find myself forced to ask? Who's most likely going to survive the first dungeon crawl? Yes, I know the spiel, as I've even given it myself: it's a game; it's in the nature of AD&D; stuff* happens; it's about role playing, not roll playing. But here we have a player who demonstrates no interest in "earning the right to be heroic through game play", to more or less quote you. Yet his staggeringly magnificent 1st level character has a clear and huge advantage over his companion. Was this "earned"? No? Then why allow it? Just because that's what's the dice dictated?
I think you're getting to involved in the differences of each character, as you said, this is a roleplaying game. Sometimes characters are going to meet people that are just better than them in things. That player should instead focus on their own character and playing them as best they can, rather than trying to emulate the other players character. As long as someone is actually taking the effort to roleplay their character it shouldn't matter anothers stats and if it does then that player is probably not playing with the right group of people.
Life is a roller coaster, if you don't stop to enjoy it then you may as well not even ride.

User avatar
Zhym
Rider of Rohan
Rider of Rohan
Posts: 20556
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:14 am

Re: Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#19 Post by Zhym »

BTW, I'd let a player who rolled no higher than a 9 on 4d6c1 re-roll. That's also an amazingly improbable result, with a 1 in 34,631 chance of happening.

As long as everyone uses the same character generation method, the differences between stats aren't going to be so drastic as to be unfair. And it's easy enough to add a house re-rolling rule to let people out of really bad rolls.

User avatar
Alethan
POWAH!
POWAH!
Posts: 14355
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:50 pm
Location: Midwest
Contact:

Re: Being a Jerk When Creating a Character

#20 Post by Alethan »

[MODERATOR]
If a person is caught creating a new Unseen Servant forum User ID when they have an existing one, they will be banned from the forum, regardless of reason. Actions have consequences; think before you leap. If you suspect someone of doing this, please bring it to the attention of a moderator/site administrator and we will look into it.

So be a jerk (in that way) at the risk of losing all forum privileges.
[/MODERATOR]

More on-topic, if you don't like a DM's method of Chargen, then you likely are going to have issues with other ways in which they run their game. Seriously consider NOT joining that game, even though it uses XYZ rule set and you really love XYZ rule set.

The enjoyment I get from a game has about 10% to do with that extra +1 I get on my To Hit roll because I have that STR score bonus and 90% to do with how I play my character (to the strengths and weaknesses of the rolls) and develop that character through in-game circumstances.

As a teenager, first discovering D&D, one of the things I hated most was the strict Chargen rules and how limited you were in what you could make. Fudged Chargen rolls were the norm in my gaming circles because everyone else felt the same way.

As an adult (or, at least, someone with all legal adult privileges), one of the things I love most about the OS gaming rules is the Chargen methods and how it gives you a random-like basis for building your character. It gives you a starting point; where you go from there is up to you. It is much like RL in that way...
Dragon foot. Bamboo pole. Little mouse. Tiny boy.

Post Reply

Return to “RPG theory”