Character Generation and Ability Scores (Merged Topic)

[Quonundrum]

I like the wheel method, and you could add a bit more fun by changing it to an array. The first and last two numbers can be selected with one or more wildcard rolls.

Like ...

X 6 6 3 1 2 1 5 ...

You could take the 2 - 4 set for a 6 + 6 + 3 = 15 or take a chance with the 1 - 2 plus a wildcard for a 12 + 1d6.

[dmw71]

I like the wheel method, and you could add a bit more fun by changing it to an array. The first and last two numbers can be selected with one or more wildcard rolls.

Leaving wildcard rolls in play is an interesting idea. I still haven't given the methods a try, but I will. And will also keep that wildcard roll spot in mind as well.

[Zhym]

That is really interesting. I'm tempted to try to simulate the results a person would get doing that, but the code to maximize the stat choices might be tricky for the matrix (and probably the wheel, for that matter).

Also, I noticed something in the example. His selections ended up with the attributes 17 14 14 10 8 7:


But different selections would have given the strictly better set of 17 15 15 14 10 10:

Matrix.png (99.86 KiB) Viewed 5400 times

I guess that just shows that picking the best set of numbers isn't trivial with that method.

[dmw71]

But different selections would have given the strictly better set of 17 15 15 14 10 10.

Isn't one of the rules that you need to use a diagonal?

[Zhym]

Isn't one of the rules that you need to use a diagonal?

Ah. I'd missed that rule. Not sure I like that part of it.

[Quonundrum]

I'm not fond of the matrix method for the same reason. Feels more like a game of Sudoku to get the best results. Simulating the wheel shouldn't be too tricky, assuming one is looking for strictly the maximal number of high values. Adjusting for avoiding a very low score, as most would likely do, is a bit more complicated though.

[Zhym]

You're probably right about the simulation. If my math is right (though it probably isn't), there are 20,412 ways to select six groups of three contiguous numbers from the ring of 24: 24 choices for the first pick, 21 for the second, 18 for the third, etc. Because the order in which the triplets are chosen doesn't matter, some of those options are the same; I think it's 6! or 720 different orderings of the same set of selections. So that's (24 x 21 x 18 x 15 x 12 x 9) / 720 = 20,412 different sets to check if you brute force it.

Edit: That number is off because there are some combinations you can't pick because they would prevent picking contiguous triplets later on. For example, if we number the rolls 1 through 24, you can't pick the triplets starting at 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21 because it wouldn't leave any contiguous group of three open for the last set of numbers. Hm.

There's probably a better algorithm, which is also interesting to think about. For example, how would a "greedy" algorithm do, that finds the three numbers that have the highest total and picks them first, then repeats on the remaining numbers? It probably wouldn't always find the optimal set of numbers, but how close would it get?

Then there's the question of which stats are "better" than others. The sum of all the attributes is one easy way to measure, but it's not great: I think most players would take 18 16 14 8 8 7 (total: 71) , for example, over 13 13 13 12 12 12 (total: 75). You could measure by total bonus value, or weight very high and low numbers (18 is more than 1 better than 17, for example).

That's probably more than I have time to do right now. Probably.

[dmw71]

Probably.

[dmw71]

Reviving this topic once again.

I recently picked this up:

• • The Hand You're Dealt: Determining Ability Scores by Playing Cards

The author goes into the math here: Showing My Cards.

I haven't been able to track down a deck of cards to actually try it myself (which is kind of amazing to me, since I used to always carry one on me while in college -- but that's another story), but the author does provide a few examples in the book. It certainly produces a bit of varied results (definite min/max possibilities), but it's an interesting approach.

I'd try it.

[dmw71]

I haven't been able to track down a deck of cards to actually try it...

I found a brand new, unopened deck of cards in my nightstand.

Here's my first deal:

Hand You're Dealt.jpg (124.28 KiB) Viewed 2005 times

Figures I drew all four aces (1's). Without swapping any cards (you're able to swap each ace once), my results are:

• • 10, 5, 15, 14, 12, 14

I love low scores, so I might actually build this character.


Actually, I'm going to "roll" nine more characters, just to compare the results, and I'll come back and edit this post to list them all below:


Array 1: 10, 5, 15, 14, 12 10, 14 (Average: 11.33)
Array 2: 11, 14 15, 14, 7, 4, 9 (Average: 10.00)
Array 3: 12, 15, 9, 5, 16, 14 (Average: 11.83)
Array 4: 11, 13 14, 12, 13, 18, 8 (Average: 12.67)
Array 5: 14, 10 12, 16, 11, 11, 18 16 (Average: 13.33)
Array 6: 17, 16 14, 8, 11, 10, 9 (Average: 11.50)
Array 7: 12, 7, 15, 16, 11 12, 10 (Average: 12.00)
Array 8: 10, 10, 16 17, 10, 16, 10 (Average: 12.17)
Array 9: 17, 13, 15, 11 9, 10 11, 17 (Average: 13.67)
Array 10: 11, 14, 16, 14, 9, 11 10 (Average: 12.33)

---

Average of Cards: 12.08
Average of 4d6c1: 12.24 (Per: 4d6 Drop Lowest)


The results are pretty close... and that is without my swapping aces between piles, which I'm thinking could affect things.

It's interesting.

[dmw71]

Figures I drew all four aces (1's). Without swapping any cards (you're able to swap each ace once), my results are:

• • 10, 5, 15, 14, 12, 14

Actually, there are six optional rules, and I will use four of them (one of the two I'm ignoring involves a joker, which wasn't in the deck at the time; the other states the scores are applied in order and not arranged as desired).

That changes things for my fifth stack.

• All black (-1)
• All clubs (-1)

That 12 becomes a 10.

[whattime]

I think this comment is a little off-track for this totally interesting thread, but I'll say it anyway. Seems like one way to think of the "divide" here is: do you think the rolls of chargen are just more rolls to be dealt with, celebrated, mourned, used for whatever, like the other rolls in the game, or...do you think they're a separate kind of beast that should be handled a different way?

[dmw71]

...do you think the rolls of chargen are just more rolls to be dealt with, celebrated, mourned, used for whatever, like the other rolls in the game, or...do you think they're a separate kind of beast that should be handled a different way?

I guess I never really thought of it, but I do suppose character generation might deserve to be handled differently than other rolls used in the game.

Good rolls can set a player up for success overall, and supplement or improve future "other" rolls by adding positive modifiers. Conversely, poor rolls during character generation can have a similar negative effect on all future in-game rolls.

Which isn't an argument that character generation rolls must be above average (I may be the odd bird here, but I actually prefer the challenge and roleplay opportunities presented by having low rolls --- see here, and here), but I suspect many/most players prefer to have that be the case.

[whattime]

Good rolls can set a player up for success overall, and supplement or improve future "other" rolls by adding positive modifiers. Conversely, poor rolls during character generation can have a similar negative effect on all future in-game rolls.

Which isn't an argument that character generation rolls must be above average (I may be the odd bird here, but I actually prefer the challenge and roleplay opportunities presented by having low rolls --- see here, and here), but I suspect many/most players prefer to have that be the case.

Yeah, I dig the 3d6 in order idea myself. And if I got the chance to spend the day at a table as a player, I thnk I'd enjoy watching several characters be wiped out, only because it would keep me on my toes trying to nurse the next one through.

Although I recognize that these days, even at the table, most people don't have the time or desire to watch 5 characters get toasted before one makes it to 2nd level. So in my mind (not that I have made the opportunity to try this in practice), the fix is to go a little easy on those 3d6 characters, show and tell players that they should avoid combat. Not fudge rolls, but set things up so that there's a reasonable chance of surviving for a while.

Another reason I feel this way is that I'm not that thrilled about bonuses. Just another number to add (maybe I picked the wrong hobby). I'd "rather" have a fighter STR 12 that I think of as the local strongman barely survive or die than have a fighter STR 16 (with another rolling method) have that advantage.

I'm not married to 3d6, and I recognize these thoughts may sound odd. Just a set of preferences that come out of different factors in my experience and personality, I guess. When I went to 3E, my friend told me explicitly, "don't worry about the high ability scores you see--it's just a wider curve now." He was right to warn me, but I just never got used to it.

***

[Okay, I have no idea what I'm doing wrong trying to log in to the dice roller...wow. Huh.]

Purely for casual chit-chat, let's roll 3d6 in order and see what I can come up with. Behind the click for those not interested...

STR 9
INT 15
WIS 7
CON 9
DEX 11
CHA 14

So, a mage, I guess. A charming mage. I can dig it. Sure, probably get killed by a squirrel, but at least he lived.

[dmw71]

Purely for casual chit-chat, let's roll 3d6 in order and see what I can come up with. Behind the click for those not interested...

STR 9
INT 15
WIS 7
CON 9
DEX 11
CHA 14

So, a mage, I guess. A charming mage. I can dig it. Sure, probably get killed by a squirrel, but at least he lived.

I'm thinking magic-user. Obviously.

STR: [3d6], INT: [3d6], WIS: [3d6]
STR: [3d6] = 11, INT: [3d6] = 5, WIS: [3d6] = 15

DEX: [3d6], CON: [3d6], CHA: [3d6]
DEX: [3d6] = 10, CON: [3d6] = 9, CHA: [3d6] = 13

STR: 11
INT: 5
WIS: 15
DEX: 10
CON: 9
CHA: 13

[dmw71]

Yeah, I dig the 3d6 in order idea myself. And if I got the chance to spend the day at a table as a player, I thnk I'd enjoy watching several characters be wiped out, only because it would keep me on my toes trying to nurse the next one through.

Personally, I love creating new characters, and never grow overly attached to any of them. Even if any of them are killed (which just cements their legacy in my mind), I'm happy to just roll up another and start from scratch.


I just re-read the 'Pod-Caverns Of The Sinister Shroom' game (until Malak met his untimely demise -- I'm 0-for-1 lifetime against shambling mounds).

What a fun game. And a fun character to play.


Now I want to be a player again.

[dmw71]

...I actually prefer the challenge and roleplay opportunities presented by having low rolls --- see here, and here), but I suspect many/most players prefer to have that be the case.

Man, searching for those brought back some great memories. Malak was far-and-away my favorite character to play since joining the boards (maybe not to my fellow partymates, however -- here -- lol).

Castien, too (my first ever 2e character).

[Paladin]

I guess I tailor it to the player.

Sometimes they want to roll a quick character and see how long he can last. 3d6 in order. A dungeon with some set-piece encounters but mostly random monsters/treasure generated on the fly. A low-investment, low-prep, easy experience. Some of my favorite games have grown out of these simple beginnings.

Sometimes they want to create a character and give it a good shot at sticking around to progress through a long campaign. Especially if the DM is the type to prep a lot of story arcs and material ahead of time that might be more difficult to run if you're constantly dying. The games tend to have a more heroic feel. Bit more emotion and time invested here. 4d6, drop the lowest and arrange to taste.

And sometimes, usually after years of gaming, you feel like you've played it all and want to try a very specific, very detailed character of a certain type. I'll go so far as to allow a player to select scores that will fit the idea they have in mind--if they can sweet-talk me well enough. Possibly start the game at 3rd level to grant them a bit better chance of staying alive. Gives them a bit of relief from the constant threat of death and allows them to focus on roleplaying or conquering specific situations they've always wanted to try in-game.

For me when I get to play...which is virtually never nowdays...I prefer 3d6 down the line. Play the hand I'm dealt and make as good a run of it as I can. Little roleplaying at first, just discovering the character. Likely getting whacked half a dozen times. But a new character takes, what, three minutes tops to roll up with most old-school games? No biggie. Make a pile of them and take your shot. I enjoy that.

[cybersavant]

When i run games, i see the PCs as above average - in that the average person does not wander far from home, why would they, it's dangerous out there

I'm not a fan of the buy with points - everyone must be equal - everyone isn't equal, that's part of the fun [ btw, i'm a fan of Traveller's origin rolls where you can die during character creation ]


as i was reading above a thought occurred to me - DnD and its ilk usually have the roll 4d6, drop the lowest, add racial bonus
BUT, what if the racial bonus/minus is reflected in the number of dice rolled?

human as baseline - 4d6 across the board
dwarf - 5d6 con, 3d6 cha, 5d6 str, 3d6 dex
elf - 5d6 dex, 3d6 con
hobbit - 5d6 con, 3d6 wis

[tibbius]

Hey, that's an interesting approach. Might try it - if I ever go back to DnD (pretty much done with that, aside from the 5e game I'm running right now, where I've gotten invested in the characters and setting and don't want to jar anything by switching up the rules).