Well, that's why I was looking at the 24d6, assign dice to each score before you roll suggestion. The players can weight things towards having better scores where they want them, but randomness still occurs. I may play around with the exact number of dice.
The random quirk/background lists might be a fun addition, though.
Another thought, though I don't know how well it would work, is use point buy, but then have some of the quirks be stuff like: "Bookworm. Gain +2 to Int and -2 from Str or Con."
The characters would still be more or less even, but it would add a dash of randomness and cut down on the min-maxiness of the builds. Of course, the party fighter might be (understandably) cranky when his Str of 20 gets dropped to 18 and his Intelligence of 8 only goes up to 10 in it's place.
I don't think the dice pool is going to have the effect you're looking for. For example if I'm a power gamer who wants to play a wizard, Str and Cha are still going to be my dump stats because I'm only assigning them 1d6 each. I want a decent Dex and Wis, so I'll assign 4d6 to those. And I want great Con and Int, so I'll assign 6d6 to Con and 8d6 to Int.
Now I might get lucky and roll a 6 for Str and Cha, and I might get unlucky with only a 15 Int. But I think you'll agree that I still made a 'cookie-cutter' character. Specific scores might be a point or two higher or lower than if I had used point buy, but I'm still playing a very traditional weakling nerdy genius wizard.
You can make minor adjustments to the 'cookie-cutterness' by requiring at least 2d6 per score or by adding quirks that modify stats, but the end result is basically the same: the game rules will still reward players for making cookie characters, and you'll still run the risk of bad luck casting a pall over your players.
I don't think the dice pool is going to have the effect you're looking for. For example if I'm a power gamer who wants to play a wizard, Str and Cha are still going to be my dump stats because I'm only assigning them 1d6 each. I want a decent Dex and Wis, so I'll assign 4d6 to those. And I want great Con and Int, so I'll assign 6d6 to Con and 8d6 to Int.
I think you're misunderstanding the 24d6 method, which requires stipulations for minimum and maximum numbers of dice in any one stat. You can't just declare "1/2 of a d6 for Strength, and 16.5d6 for Intelligence," or something. Generally, you can assign no fewer than 3 dice to any one score. Some groups also assign a max # of dice (generally 6), so the wizard doesn't always put 9d6 in Intelligence and 3d6 in everything else.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope this points out how destructive randomly generating stats can be...
I am very sorry to hear that as a result of these middling ability scores, your house exploded and your car melted down to cinders. I sincerely hope you were able to replace the Players Handbook, that I assume it is safe to say, was reduced to ash by your unspectacular rolls.
Your obliterated dice are a testament to the evils of random generation, as is your fractured psyche.
I can only apologize for those friends of mine who enjoy random generation after decades of using it. I am sure if they knew how your every personal relationship was left in utter chaos after this event, they would immediately quit the practice.
I cannot account for any bad grades or dependencies you may have encountered after this fantastically calamitous event, as prevailing attitudes towards such phenomena are that the responsibility rests with the individual. However, I hold no illusions that the experience had a real hand in setting you on a ruinous course.
On behalf of anybody who still enjoys a quick, rolled-up game where we let the dice fall where they may and live with it, and on behalf of those who still labor under the delusion that a baseline must exist to guide character creation, and that 3d6 is as good a tool for introducing the elements of said creation as anything else, please accept my humblest apologies for our years - nay, decades of ignorance of your plight, and our sincerest wishes for your eventual recovery and financial success.
I find this kind of sarcasm and dismissive attitude to be detrimental to a community where we share ideas and allow people to express themselves. Your hyperbole served no purpose except as an exercise in rhetorical masturbation.
Much more useful (as others have done in this thread) is to present your side with helpful advice, such as how to be creative with bad stats instead of being insulting and sarcastic.
Actually, on the internet, responding to hyperbole (i.e. the "rolling for stats is destructive" comment) with anything but sarcasm and a dismissive attitude is a waste of time. The person he was responding to did nothing to advance the conversation.
Better advice would have been to ask the second poster to just ignore silly hyperbole.
PB equivalents
00 = -30 (no this isn't equal to a null score "--" )
01 = -25
02 = -20
03 = -16
04 = -12
05 = -09
06 = -06
07 = -04
08 = -02
09 = -01
10 = +00
11 = +01
12 = +02
13 = +03
14 = +05
15 = +07
16 = +10
17 = +13
18 = +17
Actually, on the internet, responding to hyperbole (i.e. the "rolling for stats is destructive" comment) with anything but sarcasm and a dismissive attitude is a waste of time. The person he was responding to did nothing to advance the conversation.
Same reading mistake, the post wasn't "is" or "always is" but "", meaning a possibility not an absolute certainty.
The last game I ran I gave the option of 2d6+6 take 6 out of 7 rolls or 20 point buy.
If a player rolled crappy he had to keep the roll.
THE FOLLOWING IS A TRUE STORY, ACTORS HAVE BEEN USED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT :)
I remember my very first character I played for ADnD in 1979.
I imagined him as a great Viking Warrior, muscles bursting out of his scalemail armour, a battleaxe and large round shield, he was going to be "Awesomeness" personified ... ERIK the Viking, there would be tales written by the Skalds of his adventures
Then I rolled my stats 6 x 3d6, with the stats being allocated to whichever stat you liked ...
S 12, I 9, W 10, D 11, Co 10, Ch 9
I almost cried ... meanwhile, another fighter (a friend of mine playing his Jamaican based fighter, Ceti Wayo) rolled his dice:
S 18/92, I 10, W 9, D 16, Co 18, Ch 10
He had rolled two 18's and a 16, the then rolled 3 x 10's for HP and at 3rd level (our starting level for this game) gave him 42hp.
I tried to let the disappointment roll over me and I rolled my HP, 4 + 3 + 2 for a starling 9hp ;(
This story does have a happy ending however, we were playing Bone Hill and a Ghoul wiped the whole party and we rerolled characters ... I then got one 17 and a hand full of average numbers and made myself a Cleric who went on to retire at level 16 ...
I just hope this points out how destructive randomly generating stats can be... when they are great, it's great -- but when you roll bad, it is truly awful.
Points buy is the best system as it allows all players to be fantastic in a stat, pretty great in a couple of stats or well rounded in all stats ...
Just my 1 copper piece worth - though if you want it, it's down in the pit with Erik and the Ghoul ... :)
You almost cried over character scores in a game? It was "destructive"?
It also appears the problem solved itself, so I don't see any "destruction" at all.
Also, 2 18's, a 16, and 10 for HP 3 times is .00000006% likely. I think you "got took." ;)
Isn't any grouping of stats going to have roughly that same probability...?
EDIT: nevermind, i got mega-ninja'd by not reading the rest of the thread. disregard me.
Thread about dice roller/rolling. Goes with what some of you are saying.
Actually, on the internet, responding to hyperbole (i.e. the "rolling for stats is destructive" comment) with anything but sarcasm and a dismissive attitude is a waste of time. The person he was responding to did nothing to advance the conversation.
Better advice would have been to ask the second poster to just ignore silly hyperbole.
Just curious, do think this internet forum is only for people who perfectly agree with each other?
If you don't think that, please explain to me how sarcasm, insults and condescension improve the level of discourse. In my experience, they have never improved the quality of ideas and the rate at which they are exchanged between people.
The only purpose of internet forums is for people to discuss with each other and exchange ideas. They can be used for other purposes, like disseminating information, but their primary purpose is for people to interact. Positive interactions are more likely to have positive results. I enjoy sarcasm for humors sake, but I do not believe sarcasm as an insult benefits anyone here on these forums.
It is a common phenomenon on the internet, where people don't add constructively, they only try to disrupt destructively. In some areas of life, that can work, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet and all that. With an internet forum, it only serves to create a toxic environment that becomes less and less fruitful.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, if you've been around long enough, all of these threads cover ground that has been trampled into infertility long, long ago. After a while, you can predict just about every comment made three posts before someone makes them.
Honestly, the 1% of people who find this all new and exciting should just ignore the rest of us who are having fun and goofing on each other, arguing to argue, or being dicks just to be dicks and have your own conversation between it all.
And, seriously, anyone who thinks anything on a gaming forum is Serious Business, tm, is hilarious. Unless you're actually getting paid to take it seriously and it puts food on your table, that is.
I don't think the dice pool is going to have the effect you're looking for. For example if I'm a power gamer who wants to play a wizard, Str and Cha are still going to be my dump stats because I'm only assigning them 1d6 each. I want a decent Dex and Wis, so I'll assign 4d6 to those. And I want great Con and Int, so I'll assign 6d6 to Con and 8d6 to Int.I think you're misunderstanding the 24d6 method, which requires stipulations for minimum and maximum numbers of dice in any one stat. You can't just declare "1/2 of a d6 for Strength, and 16.5d6 for Intelligence," or something. Generally, you can assign no fewer than 3 dice to any one score. Some groups also assign a max # of dice (generally 6), so the wizard doesn't always put 9d6 in Intelligence and 3d6 in everything else.
Still, such a method doesn't ensure that the inspiration by randomness phenomenon will take place, and there's still the risk that players will be upset after rolling poorly or rolling poorly in their primary stat. It might result in a high Str wizard or something, but I don't think it'll create the chargen dynamic that Kalshane is looking for.
Still, such a method doesn't ensure that the inspiration by randomness phenomenon will take place, and there's still the risk that players will be upset after rolling poorly or rolling poorly in their primary stat. It might result in a high Str wizard or something, but I don't think it'll create the chargen dynamic that Kalshane is looking for.
Agreed; personally, I still prefer the "4d6, drop lowest, six times, arrange as you like" method, but I'd probably allow 24d6 (min. 3d6, max 6d6) if someone REALLY wanted to try that.
Maybe it's just me, but I usually have a number of character ideas floating around in my head, so dice rolling has never bothered me from a character creation standpoint. I find that the list of allowed sources hoses me far more than poor dice rolls, as many of my ideas tend to blend sources together. Also, longer campaigns tend to de-emphasize raw attributes over time. As for those who roll high, as a DM, I make it very clear that exceptional people get exceptional amounts of attention, some if it good, some of it not so good. Those with lower scores stand out less, which in any game I'm going to run, can be good at times. The key is to balance out character capability with appropriate NPC reactions, and remind the players that higher scores can have challenges associated with them as well as benefits, and lower scores can have benefits as well as challenges.
The next campaign I am thinking about a hybrid myself. I don't mind the 4d6 method personally, but enough people complain about it any more, that I'm trying to find a middle ground. I don't particularly care for point buy, even though I see why many people like it; to me, it just goes to far, as I like at least some randomness. I'm thinking a 15, and 2d6+6 for the rest. That insures at least one good number that will work just fine as a primary stat for any character concept (I am not one who believes you must have an 18 to be successful), so no character concept is going to be completely wasted, and the 2d6+6 insures no score is below average, but the sense of randomness is still there to keep things interesting. If they roll truly abysmally, than I have a few ideas of how to handle it, but hopefully, this scheme would keep all but the very worst rolls from being problematic.
Dude, if you've been around long enough, all of these threads cover ground that has been trampled into infertility long, long ago. After a while, you can predict just about every comment made three posts before someone makes them.
Honestly, the 1% of people who find this all new and exciting should just ignore the rest of us who are having fun and goofing on each other, arguing to argue, or being dicks just to be dicks and have your own conversation between it all.
And, seriously, anyone who thinks anything on a gaming forum is Serious Business, tm, is hilarious. Unless you're actually getting paid to take it seriously and it puts food on your table, that is.
Let me see if I have this right...
When I see someone being a jerk, your advice to me is to not call them on it?
Cool, glad you guys are happy with your decision. Every time I've just walked past a jerk who was being mean to someone I've felt horrible about it later. I'd rather swim against the tide than have that feeling.
I can't count the number of times I have just walked away
I was just using the verb you used.
Funny thing about forums, people being 'abused' can just not read the jerk posts.
You're entitled to think that's an appropriate response. I disagree.
Too often, I have seen silence inferred as agreement. You may disagree, but you're going to have to present a much stronger argument to counter my past experiences and knowledge. I feel better about myself saying something than when I say nothing. Following your advice results in me feeling worse, therefore I doubt I'm going to follow it.
I'd rather flail uselessly than do nothing.
Be useless if it makes you feel better. Chance you have of adjusting my behavior? Zero.
I wasn't even engaging with you in the post that started this, you engaged me.
Let me see if I have this right...When I see someone being a jerk, your advice to me is to not call them on it?
Ideal forum etiquette is to flag it and move on.
|
|
First of all, Bruunwald's response was HILARIOUS. I loved it. Made me laugh. Sarcasm in the face of ridiculousness is hilarious.
Second, I wish my response a few days ago to "creativity + awesomeness > random dice rolls" wasn't eaten. You would have had a nice, long, sarcastic post I made to respond to. But alas, I'm lazy and didn't feel like typing it all out again.
Third, it's the internet. This may as well be a Playstation, it's just entertainment, I don't take it at all seriously. And I love poking people who do. It amuses me.
|
Bill has the right of it. Flag it and let the mods delete it. Responding only feeds the drama.
Often, both the "abused" and the "abuser" lack reading comprehension/skills.Funny thing about forums, people being 'abused' can just not read the jerk posts.
I would cut to the chase and say forum goers often lack that.
|
Selgard:
Two of my favorite characters included a dwarf Fighter/Cleric with a Charisma of 4, and a Wizard with a Strength of 15 (might have been higher).
The dwarf was an utterly boring, smelly, disgusting boor who had no manners, hygiene, or sense of personal space, but he was always steadfast and kept around because he was just so useful. I knew I was playing him right when one PC had to be restrained from attacking me, in each adventure. The other players had fun just raining down insults on the guy--it was part of the charm.
The wizard was something else, because he would rush the front line nearly as often as cast spells. At one point, the PCs were suspended above a pit of boiling oil, and while the knight struggled with his bonds, it was the wizard that burst free, swung on his chain, brawled with the guards, and freed everyone. He was fun!
Ha, you think that's something?
in a 2e game (AD&D I think)we had a wizard who rolled no lower than 16 in each of his stats (no cheating, we were all there to watch). Obviously he also had psyonichs (mind blast). Our very first adventure ended with a huge encounter that had our party all split up across the dungeon. Me (a cleric), our brave dwarven fighter and the wizard ran into an ogre, who pounded me and the fighter into near death in a couple of rounds...In swoops the wizard with his quarterstaf, out of spells, with no armor.... *and beat the ogre to death with his wodden stick*.
That was a brutal game...
I cleaned up some posts. Flag it and move on, folks.