Roll 3d6 for ability scores, no WBL and ultimate campaign?

[hewhocaves]

Reading through ultimate campaign it got me wondering how a campaign would go if character creation was just "roll 3d6 and take the ability scores in order." In exchange WBL would be ignored. Using the UCa rules, could players turn said lemons into lemonade? I know that it would depend heavily on the campaign (or AP). Would the challenge be fun?

I'd also think it would be cool to randomize character background creation and use the "traits tied to generated background" concept.

Part of me feels that this would work a lot like a Paranoia campaign, with respect to clone lifespan. That wouldn't be a bad thing, either, so long as the players were ok with it. Would be a good excuse to get people out of their comfort zones.

[wraithstrike]

In exchange? I think you mean in addition. Exchange is normally a trade off. These look like two negatives, but with that aside the campaign would have to be altered to account for the lack of wealth IF you want the players to survive, and if they are smart they will all go with caster. Martials are too gear dependent if no adjustments will be made.

As for would it be fun, that depends on too many variables. One is how how much fudging would you do to save them. I might do it for a module or one shot, but I don't know if I would try it for an entire AP, unless the other players were also pretty good.

Explaining away how I am not getting gear when the bad guys have magical equipment would also be an issue, since nothing is stopping them from picking the equipment up after a kill.

PS:I am not saying it won't work, but a lot of factors need to be considered.

[hewhocaves]

I'm confused. I didn't mean that the PCs would not get any money from treasure. I was referring to the exact opposite - that PCs wouldn't be told "you have too much loot, im shutting the money off".

Unless you thought i meant that they wouldn't be getting starting money. No, i did not mean that :)

And yeah, completely different kind of campaign. Might be fun. I was thinking Thornkeep might be a good place to try it lol.

[dreamingdragon]

Also, have them pick their class and race BEFORE they roll stats.

[Kazaan]

Kind of depends on what you roll. If you roll adequately, you could find a build to fit it. If you roll very well, you can go for a more MAD build. Roll poorly and you may need to resort to a lower-end build. Try the idea of calculating the "equivalent point buy" for each player's stats and using that as a rough "power level" gauge and letting you earn Hero Points with greater or lesser difficulty based on this power level. For example, if you roll the an array of {16, 17, 12, 13, 8, 10}, that's equivalent to a 26 point buy. If you rolled an array of {12, 8, 7, 11, 9, 14} it's equivalent to a 1 point buy. The character with 26 point stats would find it rather hard to earn Hero Points because they're expected to be very capable. By contrast, the guy with 1 point buy may get a Hero Point for successfully surviving breakfast. So, he has a lot more points to "fudge" his abilities with while the more capable character either has to make do with far fewer hero points, or be an anti-hero and never earn nor benefit from hero points in exchange for a bonus starting feat. That could help balance things out quite a bit.

[LazarX]

dreamingdragon wrote:

Also, have them pick their class and race BEFORE they roll stats.

As it is, this proposal is enough of an exercise in DM sadism.

[EldonG]

I don't use WBL as it is...but I'm also fairly stingy with treasure. I counterbalance with excellent stats (via 3 of 4/grid method)...but also won't stop someone from 'striking it rich', if they can...but it also goes back to magic items, and they don't just fall from trees. I'd never assume you can have just what you need, unless you create it yourself.

It's not always easy to find something as precious as a specific magic item in a game I run.

[wraithstrike]

Picking the class before the rolls is where I would have to talk to the GM. No amount of wealth can help you if certain rolls go bad and you have certain classes. Of course you could just multiclass after the first level to ignore the bad class if you get something that wont work.

[Bruunwald]

There was a similar thread last week where somebody was borderline freaked out by the notion of having to roll for ability scores.

I set the Wayback Machine for when the game actually assumed you would be doing exactly what this thread is suggesting. You didn't HAVE to keep that lousy character, but, yeah... for the most part the rules assumed you did.

[wraithstrike]

Bruunwald wrote:

There was a similar thread last week where somebody was borderline freaked out by the notion of having to roll for ability scores.

I set the Wayback Machine for when the game actually assumed you would be doing exactly what this thread is suggesting. You didn't HAVE to keep that lousy character, but, yeah... for the most part the rules assumed you did.

1. I am glad rolling is no longer mandatory.

2. Rolling is one thing, but rolling in order and sticking to a class that was picked ahead of time would not be fun unless someone got lucky.

3. That is all I will say to avoid derailing the thread..:)

[sowhereaminow]

This got me thinking - what about:

1. Roll 3d6 six times, arrange to taste.
2. Find total stat bonuses for each character.
3. Character with lowest total stat bonus gets an extra feat.
4. Second lowest gets extra trait.
5. Highest total stat bonus character gets nothing extra.

Bonus granted to lower stat bonus totals could be changed. Just brainstorming here. Could be two bonus feats. Or a free cohort at first level. Or starting with 2,000 gp in gear. Or 10 free hero points. Or 10 free draws from the plot deck. Or a free Mythic level.

Lots of crazy ways to balance out the guy with the bad stat rolls with the guy with the spectacular stat roll.

Depending on potential bonus, you might WANT to be the guy with the worst stats in the group!

[Morgen]

3d6 straight down the line is absolutely the only appropriate way for a character to be generated with dice. Anything else is for wimps and power gamers (who whine louder then wimps.)

It speeds up character creation a bit so long as your players understand that is how it is going to work and that every character deserves a fair chance. You could be extremely lenient and use the tavern/inn keeper rule form Hackmaster that allows particularly worthless characters to be named and then turned over to you to use as NPC's. Usually if everything is sub-10 would be fair enough without compromising to the wimps.

Using a lot of the ultimate campaign rules you could create quite the old style campaign which would could be tons of fun if everyone was up for it.

The wealth by level is more of a guideline for the GM to use rather then a hard rule to strictly follow. Something that says, "PC's should be about here for the CR system to work best at judging appropriate challenges."

[JTibbs]

3d6 also makes it so that your adventurers are fairly likely to be crippled bastards in some way. or multiple ways.

A fighter with 7 con and 4 strength is pretty stupid after all. Entirely possible with the '3d6 straight down' method.

Good luck trying to go anywhere when you count as being overencumbered when carrying only a sword and a set of chainmail.

worlds most incompetent fighter?

3d6 straight down is pretty unrealistic, and is FAR too wildly variable to be anything suitable for use.

[wraithstrike]

Morgen wrote:

3d6 straight down the line is absolutely the only appropriate way for a character to be generated with dice. Anything else is for wimps and power gamers (who whine louder then wimps.)

It speeds up character creation a bit so long as your players understand that is how it is going to work and that every character deserves a fair chance. You could be extremely lenient and use the tavern/inn keeper rule form Hackmaster that allows particularly worthless characters to be named and then turned over to you to use as NPC's. Usually if everything is sub-10 would be fair enough without compromising to the wimps.

Using a lot of the ultimate campaign rules you could create quite the old style campaign which would could be tons of fun if everyone was up for it.

The wealth by level is more of a guideline for the GM to use rather then a hard rule to strictly follow. Something that says, "PC's should be about here for the CR system to work best at judging appropriate challenges."

Since when is time an issue for creating a character? Even without herolab I can have one done in less than a day. It is not like saving me 3 minutes is really going to help, if it saves time at all. If I roll poorly I am more like to worry about the rest of my build to make up for my pathetic score. So really the time argument does not even stand.

I would counter that anyone rolling down the line has no real interest in their character, and is a poor RP'er. If they really cared they would want the character to live, and this way does not help that at all. What real RP'er wants a dead character. <---I dont really believe that but it is just as legit as the silly wimp and powergamer comment.

[wraithstrike]

JTibbs wrote:

3d6 straight down is pretty unrealistic, and is FAR too wildly variable to be anything suitable for use.

You can save time making your next character once the first one dies. :)

[ZanThrax]

wraithstrike wrote:

I would counter that anyone rolling down the line has no real interest in their character, and is a poor RP'er. If they really cared they would want the character to live, and this way does not help that at all. What real RP'er wants a dead character. <---I dont really believe that but it is just as legit as the silly wimp and powergamer comment.

I actually do believe what you said there wraith. 3d6 straight down is right out of the days where characters didn't have histories or personalities, character names were just the player's (or game designer's) name written backwards, and the GM's job was to kill as many characters as possible per session with dungeons full of traps that were entirely tests of the players, not their characters. Old-school D&D was an adversarial war game where there was no point in being attached to your characters or really detailing who they were, because the only way they were going to live long enough to matter was through dumb luck.

[Albatoonoe]

I don't think WBL was ever intended as something to be enforced. An idea of what was expect of that level, especially for new characters, sure, but to cut players off? That seems anti-role playing.

And as far as 3d6s go, I'm not sure how I feel about that. A PC could conceivably end up with animal intelligence. On the other hand, that could lead to interesting situations.

Since classes are learned and attributes are inherent, wouldn't the attributes define which class you pick? Why would someone as dumb as a sack of hammers try to become a wizard? Or better yet, how would they even succeed at becoming one?

[Ascalaphus]

WBL is meant as a diagnostic tool. "He's nominally level 3, but does he have more or less equipment than a typical level 3? In that case he should be able to handle bigger or smaller challenges than a level 3."

Not "He's level 3, so let's make sure he has the wealth of a typical level 3."

Or even worse "He's got more wealth than typical, so I'm going to contrive to not let him loot anything or make a profit on anything until he gets within bounds again."

WBL and CR are tools for the GM to figure out what the PCs can handle, not what they should have or must face. Coming from 2nd edition, I think CR has made it much easier for the GM to guess how hard a monster will be; back then I inflicted a Will-'o-Wisp on a level 4 party because I hadn't realized they had no way to hit it or outrun it.

===

I recently tried "roll 4d6, drop lowest, in order, and switch two stats to taste."

It didn't go all that great. Power level varied wildly, players were between 9pt and 25pt buy. Players had a hard time selecting a class they were interested in playing and that also worked with the stats they'd got.

I eventually took pity and allowed everyone who wanted to, to rebuild at 15pt buy.

===

That said, something in me thinks the concept of "take these stats and make something of it" is nice.

Maybe what you could do as a GM is to make a number of in-order statlines, about 1.5 times the number of players, and all equal point value. Then one by one the players indicate which one they wanna play; if nobody else wants that statline they get it, otherwise they roll to see who gets it.

[LowRoller]

Morgen wrote:

3d6 straight down the line is absolutely the only appropriate way for a character to be generated with dice. Anything else is for wimps and power gamers (who whine louder then wimps.)

It speeds up character creation a bit so long as your players understand that is how it is going to work and that every character deserves a fair chance. You could be extremely lenient and use the tavern/inn keeper rule form Hackmaster that allows particularly worthless characters to be named and then turned over to you to use as NPC's. Usually if everything is sub-10 would be fair enough without compromising to the wimps.

Using a lot of the ultimate campaign rules you could create quite the old style campaign which would could be tons of fun if everyone was up for it.

The wealth by level is more of a guideline for the GM to use rather then a hard rule to strictly follow. Something that says, "PC's should be about here for the CR system to work best at judging appropriate challenges."

You are right, it sucks when characters survive to level 2. Such high level characters are a clear sign of power gaming :P

[hewhocaves]

lol. I hit a nerve.

But thank you everyone for your thoughts. You have convinced me that this is an excellent and awesome idea - one which I will definitely implement! And i think the perfect place to do it is in the Thornkeep setting.

The one concession i will make is to let people re-roll anything below a 6.

lol. and I'm not a sadistic DM. In fact, I'm likely to be more lenient to PCs trying to make their way through the world with what what life dealt them.

[Kazaan]

Have you tried the Dice Pool method? You start with 3d6 down the line, either as an array or fixed to each stat. Then, you're given a "pool" of extra dice that you can "assign" to different rolls. At the end of it all, you take the 3 best in each category so it necessitates keeping track of each individual roll. To illustrate:

Str: 2, 3, 6
Dex: 2, 4, 5
Con: 1, 3, 4
Int: 3, 4, 6
Wis: 5, 6, 6
Cha: 6, 6, 6

Now normally, you'd roll 4d6 and take the best 3. But in the above matrix, you've already got a maximum roll for Charisma and a nearly maxed roll for Wisdom. You can take the fourth dice that normally would have been rolled for Wis and Cha and you can transfer them to other stats instead. So, lets say you are given 6 additional rolls and you want to bolster up your lowest stat; Con:

Str: 2, 3, 6
Dex: 2, 4, 5
Con: 1, 3, 4, 3, 5, 5
Int: 3, 4, 6
Wis: 5, 6, 6
Cha: 6, 6, 6

So you spend 3 of your 6 dice on Con and boost it from 8 to 14. Now, you want to maximize another stat. Str has one high value and two low values so your chance of significantly raising it is highest.

Str: 2, 3, 6, 5, 6
Dex: 2, 4, 5
Con: 1, 3, 4, 3, 5, 5
Int: 3, 4, 6
Wis: 5, 6, 6
Cha: 6, 6, 6

Now you've boosted Str from 11 to 17 and have one more dice to assign. I'd try my hand in Dex because I have a 2/3 chance to improve that 2.

Str: 2, 3, 6, 5, 6
Dex: 2, 4, 5, 1
Con: 1, 3, 4, 3, 5, 5
Int: 3, 4, 6
Wis: 5, 6, 6
Cha: 6, 6, 6

Well... b%+!$&#s. Oh well, I boosted one stat from 8 to 14 and another from 11 to 17, ending up with the following values:

Str: 17
Dex: 11
Con: 14
Int: 13
Wis: 17
Cha: 18

Then, you just do with that stat lineup what you will; maybe make a Cleric or Paladin or something fitting.

Regarding the picking of class/race and then being stuck with a completely random line of stats, that's mechanically enforcing bad RP. Why would a low Str, low Con weakling decide to become a fighter? Even if he was, who'd bother to hire him for anything? If you're smart, you aim for a job that uses your intelligence. If you're strong, you aim for a job that uses your strength. If you're both, you have options. But I'd consider it poor RP to say, "I'm physically incapable but I'm going to be a fighter anyway." If you really want to have verisimilitude, you'd do the following. First, pick Race because that's determined by accident of birth. Then, determine stats because that's going to be the result of the interaction between nature and nurture as you grow up. Lastly, you pick your starting class because that's what you do when you reach adulthood.

[EldonG]

Morgen wrote:

3d6 straight down the line is absolutely the only appropriate way for a character to be generated with dice. Anything else is for wimps and power gamers (who whine louder then wimps.)

It speeds up character creation a bit so long as your players understand that is how it is going to work and that every character deserves a fair chance. You could be extremely lenient and use the tavern/inn keeper rule form Hackmaster that allows particularly worthless characters to be named and then turned over to you to use as NPC's. Usually if everything is sub-10 would be fair enough without compromising to the wimps.

Using a lot of the ultimate campaign rules you could create quite the old style campaign which would could be tons of fun if everyone was up for it.

The wealth by level is more of a guideline for the GM to use rather then a hard rule to strictly follow. Something that says, "PC's should be about here for the CR system to work best at judging appropriate challenges."

I disagree completely. 9 of 10 heroes in fantasy have better than average stats. Probably more like 99 of 100. That's what I prefer to emulate...and Pathfinder is HIGH fantasy, unlike Runequest, say.

[LazarX]

Bruunwald wrote:

There was a similar thread last week where somebody was borderline freaked out by the notion of having to roll for ability scores.

Someone comes up with a thread like this on the average three times every two months. It's usually someone who's of the opinion that they're making a great step in the GM frontier by doing so.

It's generally a GM that proposes this as they aren't the ones who have to live with the results of the execution. Some armchair theorypunters usually join in, because they're the folks who theorycraft much more often then they play.

[Gorbacz]

Stats Generation Method: The Litmus Test of D&D Gamers.

[The black raven]

All those in favor of rolling should go and play Mythus.

It is Gygax at his best, at least as far as randomness goes.

Good dice rolls at character creation and you are a twice Mythic character with the wealth of a kingdom (I saw it once, it was NOT pretty).

It was even worse than Stormbringer where you could have a pauper from Nadsokor in the same party as a Wizard-Prince of Melniboné.

Or Hawkmoon where an inventor could have such high physical stats that he was better at combat than a full-trained fighter.

Or Beyond the supernatural where you could be a god of physical abilities with a PhD granting you a wealth of skills for combat, social and investigation.

Needless to say balance usually ended up in an asylum or dying in a dirty back-alley. Fun was usually not far behind, except for those powergamers who did get an excellent result and reveled in it (and in rubbing the salt in the wounds of the other less lucky players).

Those were the Dark Ages of RPG. I do not miss them.

[Thanael]

hewhocaves wrote:

lol. I hit a nerve.

But thank you everyone for your thoughts. You have convinced me that this is an excellent and awesome idea - one which I will definitely implement! And i think the perfect place to do it is in the Thornkeep setting.

The one concession i will make is to let people re-roll anything below a 6.

lol. and I'm not a sadistic DM. In fact, I'm likely to be more lenient to PCs trying to make their way through the world with what what life dealt them.

I like it. It's quick and dirty and old school and fits with a mega dungeoncrawl and or hex crawl sandbox campaign. If you run it this way consider taking an open game table approach and make sure to read up on the excellent Alexandrian blog about Dungeoncrawling, the mega dungeon open game table and more...

(I'd recommend all of it, but esp. the one on encounter design (dont tailor the EL if sand boxing but don't be afraid to use many low CR encounters too), the importance of wandering monster tables, hex crawling (for reuse of material, minimal prep and understanding the basic underpinnings of D&D), and (advanced) node based design.)

If the PC wants to retire or dies, he can roll a new one...

[Wind Chime]

I don't have a problem with rolling but I prefer to set up a system where with 3d6 you reroll all 1s so you don't get anything lower than 6 or you use the 4d6-1d6 that seems popular now days.

[Kthulhu]

ZanThrax wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I would counter that anyone rolling down the line has no real interest in their character, and is a poor RP'er. If they really cared they would want the character to live, and this way does not help that at all. What real RP'er wants a dead character. <---I dont really believe that but it is just as legit as the silly wimp and powergamer comment.

I actually do believe what you said there wraith. 3d6 straight down is right out of the days where characters didn't have histories or personalities, character names were just the player's (or game designer's) name written backwards, and the GM's job was to kill as many characters as possible per session with dungeons full of traps that were entirely tests of the players, not their characters. Old-school D&D was an adversarial war game where there was no point in being attached to your characters or really detailing who they were, because the only way they were going to live long enough to matter was through dumb luck.

Ah, the fun old chestnut of " nobody did any actual roleplaying until 2000"

All I can really say in return is that you must be in a state of overwhelming bliss, assuming the old adage about ignorance is true.

[Kthulhu]

wraithstrike wrote:

the campaign would have to be altered to account for the lack of wealth

Why is it that WBL slaves seem so incapable of understanding that not using WBL does NOT necessarily mean LESS treasure? It simply means that the campaign is not bound by the arbitrary limits of the WBL chart. Gold doesn't have to randomly fall out of the sky if the characters are "too poor", but neither do invisible WBL fairies have to steal the character's gold if they dare to become " too rich".

[Daenar]

JTibbs wrote:

3d6 also makes it so that your adventurers are fairly likely to be crippled bastards in some way. or multiple ways.

A fighter with 7 con and 4 strength is pretty stupid after all. Entirely possible with the '3d6 straight down' method.

Good luck trying to go anywhere when you count as being overencumbered when carrying only a sword and a set of chainmail.

worlds most incompetent fighter?

3d6 straight down is pretty unrealistic, and is FAR too wildly variable to be anything suitable for use.

Gygax was a pioneer... apparently just not a playtest pioneer. How could he expect to give heroes the same odds as a commoner and be great dragon slaying heroes? Did he put any thought into the ramifications of having a fighter drive a longsword through his Own foot one in twenty attacks? I love dnd but looking back at grampa 1st edition, it's hard to see how the game survived the lunacy of its designer and his insane, senseless randomness.

[Ascalaphus]

Because the OP wrote

OP wrote:

In exchange WBL would be ignored.

And that sounds like you'll get less treasure. Sure, that wasn't what he meant, but it's what it sounds like.

What the OP actually meant, "I won't sabotage your treasure if you happen to be rich", only makes sense if you think of WBL as "if the PCs get more than this, smack them on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper", which isn't what WBL is supposed to be.

WBL is part of the assumptions behind CR. The game thinks this monster is hard/easy for PCs of a given level, assuming those PCs have a typical amount of wealth, and WBL indicates what kind of wealth is assumed in calculating CR. So if the GM says he'll "ignore WBL", what does that mean? That he'll ignore if you're over- or underequipped compared to typical PCs of your level? It's not a good exchange either way.

[LazarX]

Thanael wrote:

I like it. It's quick and dirty and old school and fits with a mega dungeoncrawl and or hex crawl sandbox campaign. If you run it this way consider taking an open game table approach and make sure to read up on the excellent Alexandrian blog about Dungeoncrawling, the mega dungeon open game table and more....

I've played AD+D starting in 1980, so I think that makes me somewhat "old school". And in all of the grouups, I played in back in the pre-Internet days before point buy was introduced, NOT ONE used this method. Usually it was some variation on the order of 4d6, drop one, frequently rolled seven times, or a reroll if you did not get at least two scores that were above average, that or a bunch of other ones designed to skew the average away from 10. And no one made you go to the nonsensical extent of 3d6 in order, choose your class before you start rolling.

I get a sense that what I'm seeing here as I've seen it in myself, is that there are quite a few aging gamers looking to recapture a youth that they're looking at with rose tinted eyewear.

[Kthulhu]

LazarX wrote:

I get a sense that what I'm seeing here as I've seen it in myself, is that there are quite a few aging gamers looking to recapture a youth that they're looking at with rose tinted eyewear.

Ah yes, because the only way anyone could POSSIBLY enjoy a non-d20 dmes is by viewing it through rose-colored glasses. You're probably quite blissful yourself.

[LazarX]

Kthulhu wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I get a sense that what I'm seeing here as I've seen it in myself, is that there are quite a few aging gamers looking to recapture a youth that they're looking at with rose tinted eyewear.

Ah yes, because the only way anyone could POSSIBLY enjoy a non-d20 dmes is by viewing it through rose-colored glasses. You're probably quite blissful yourself.

When I see people recounting a past that didn't exist, rose colored glasses are the most logical explanation. They tend to overlook why the bulk of gamers dumped die rolling with a passion, first by deserting D+D in droves to point by games such as Hero and GURPS, or by adopting point buy when Wizards finally caught up with the rest of the pack and put in an official system to do so.

[Aranna]

I would play this game.
Make myself a nice merchant character and see if I got rich first or dead first. But the only real drawback I see is random backgrounds. Still NOT EVERYONE wants to play Superman son of Krypton at level 1. Sometimes it's an absolute blast playing on hard mode. It kind of forces you to think as a team rather than a diva or a star.

[TOZ]

Oh look. People are arguing about bad wrong fun again.

[Lamontius]

people
hey people
hey

don't do it your way
do it my way

[AM OGRE]

AM MY WAY OR HIGHWAY.

[Full BAB Rogue in Plate]

AM OGRE wrote:

AM MY WAY OR HIGHWAY.

MORE LIKE HIGHWAY ROBBERY, AM I RIGHT OR WHAT?

P.S. I STOLE YOUR WALLET AND AGGGGGGH IT IS MADE OUT OF HUMAN SKIN

[Gorbacz]

"roll 3d6 in order" - hardxxxore Gygaxianist. Considers anything beyond 1E to be a vicious insult to The True Way. You all anime kiddos can get off his lawn. Forums? Those are some newfangled tech terrors! Uses BBS for communication with friendly sentient beings.

"roll 3d6 and assign as you wish" - 2E fan. Run before he begins to go on about THACO. Or Giffs. Or Complete Book of Elves... Hangs out at Dragonsfoot if his 56k modem has a good day.

"roll 4d6, drop lowest" - softcore 3E gamist with some streaks of nostalgia thrown in. Quite likely longs for 3E haste and thinks Epic Level Handbook was a great idea. Gets in endless arguments about Use Rope at Enworld.

"point buy 15" - Turbo Gamist. Will laugh and ridicule you if you bring up any notion of playing something that is not a Wizard or a ToB:Bo9s class. Holds confirmed bans at every d20 forum apart from the Den.

"point buy 20" - see above, but sometimes plays Clerics or Druids and can still post at GiTP, but it's a close call every week.

"16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 array" - 4E lover. Desperately seeks others of his kind to play Scales of War. Spends most of his time at WotC boards fighting a lopsided battle against 5E evangelists and vengeful 3E'ers.

[Gorbacz]

Kthulhu wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I get a sense that what I'm seeing here as I've seen it in myself, is that there are quite a few aging gamers looking to recapture a youth that they're looking at with rose tinted eyewear.

Ah yes, because the only way anyone could POSSIBLY enjoy a non-d20 dmes is by viewing it through rose-colored glasses. You're probably quite blissful yourself.

Dude, this subforum is called "Pathfinder RPG". Take your "I'm here only to remind everybody how older editions were better and defend them every time somebody dares to say anything negative about them" threadcraps elsewhere.

[ZanThrax]

Gorbacz wrote:

"roll 3d6 and assign as you wish" - 2E fan. Run before he begins to go on about THACO. Or Giffs. Or Complete Book of Elves... Hangs out at Dragonsfoot if his 56k modem has a good day.

But Giff were cool when I was 12.

[wraithstrike]

Kthulhu wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

the campaign would have to be altered to account for the lack of wealth

Why is it that WBL slaves seem so incapable of understanding that not using WBL does NOT necessarily mean LESS treasure? It simply means that the campaign is not bound by the arbitrary limits of the WBL chart. Gold doesn't have to randomly fall out of the sky if the characters are "too poor", but neither do invisible WBL fairies have to steal the character's gold if they dare to become " too rich".

Normally when I see people say they will ignore WBL, and rolling stats(down the line) they are about to set up a more difficult game, and that means less loot.

Are there are more questions you want this "WBL slave" to answer for you? As for the other "WBL slaves" you will have to ask them. Maybe they have their own reasons for that train of thought.

[Mulgar]

Gee, I did 4d6 drop lowest back in red box basic D&D in the eighties.

And those rules let you lower one stat to raise another.

[LazarX]

Kthulhu wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I get a sense that what I'm seeing here as I've seen it in myself, is that there are quite a few aging gamers looking to recapture a youth that they're looking at with rose tinted eyewear.

Ah yes, because the only way anyone could POSSIBLY enjoy a non-d20 dmes is by viewing it through rose-colored glasses. You're probably quite blissful yourself.

I've done plenty of non-D20 gaming in my time. Traveler, Vilains +Vigilantes, Mage, Wraith, Werewolf, Amber Diceless, GURPS, Marvel Superhero roleplaying and Ars Magica. and a couple of fairly obscure titles as well.

3D6 done with DM Sadism is hardly the only Non-D20 game out there.

[angelroble]

I am using a mixed system for ability scores:
First, the point buy. I use 15 points, but as always this is just a parameter. I put a limit of 8 (lower) and 16 (higher).
Second, the player chooses race, class, feats, skills, etc. It is, takes any decision to complete the character.
Third, every ability score is rolled again (3d6 in order). The higher score is taken, except if the point-buy score was lower than 10. In this case, if the rolled score is lower than the point-buy, you take the average score of both (round down). If int has been modified, choose the extra skill points (or delete ranks if int is lower).

Ex. you want a melee class so the point buy is allocated: 15 13 15 8 12 8. You choose a fighter, calculates hp, allocates skill ranks, etc.
Then you roll 6 times 3d6 in order: 12 8 18 12 6 6. You final scores are: 15 (max[15,12]) 13 (max[13,8] 18 (max[15,18] 12 (max [8,12] 12 (max[12,6] 7 (avg[8,6]). As int is now higher, choose extra skills.

Rationale:
- People chooses professions for a variety of reasons: personal tastes, social pressures, family, etc.
- People don't maximize, they even don't know their ability scores except for a stimation. I mean, they don't always take the profession they are best fitted to.
- In fantasy tales and in real world, there are charismatic warriors and strong wizards (well maybe there are no RL wizards).
- People change, especially at puberty/youth, when many have already choosen their profession.

Game mechanics:
- The final point buy value (I use score of 5 is -6 points and a score of 6 is -5 points) is 22 as average when using the standar array. BUT it is not allocated as you want. About 6% will have point-buy total value value lower than 15. About 12% wil have point-buy total value higher than 30. About 46% wil have point-buy tota value of 19-23.
- The 15 point buy means that you char is viable. You may have some really low scores (as low as 5), but they are not in the scores your class really needs. You also may have 18 in all your abilities, but this is as probable as if you roll 3d6 6 times. Even a single 18 is only attained is you roll that with 3d6 (1/216).
- Optimization and min-maxing. Some players may want to use a point-buy distribution of 16 14 14 9 8 8, hopìng that they will roll at least average scores for those lower scores. The average point value would be 23.5. That's little gain, and they may find they are playing a 5 wis fighter or wizard. The 16 cap in scores for the point buy means they are not able to buy the 18 score: they have to roll for it.

[Orfamay Quest]

Kthulhu wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

the campaign would have to be altered to account for the lack of wealth

Why is it that WBL slaves seem so incapable of understanding that not using WBL does NOT necessarily mean LESS treasure?

Well, one reason is that having too much wealth tends to break campaigns hard, in a way that too little wealth doesn't.

To use one of two extremes, a 20th level fighter with the wealth of a 1st level character is still a very effective fighter. He has no worse AC than a starting character, and substantially greater hit points, attack bonuses, special abilities, and whatnot. While he might not be able to deal effectively with "level-appropriate" encounters -- without his golf bag of magic weapons, he can't overcome DR/obscure and his AC allows him to be hit at will by high-level foes, he would probably find lower-level monsters an interesting challenge. (I'd be interested to see how an equipment-less 20th level fighter did against a group of stone giants or something.)

On the other extreme, a 1st level fighter with the wealth of a 20th level fighter will be dead as soon as he encounters something that can hit him. While he'll ROFLstomp anything level-appropriate (his AC bonuses will keep him from being hit, and he can hit goblins at will with his +10 mace of sharpness) as soon as he finds something that can hit AC 30, he will probably die in one hit because he doesn't have the hit points.

There's a very narrow window between an encounter that's worth rolling the dice for and a TPK when wealth exceeds WBL by a substantial fraction.

You get the same effect, only more so, with a wizard. A 20th level wizard still has all his spells, even if he's still AC 10.

Most experimental game masters are smart/experienced enough to know this; if they're going to abandon WBL, it usually means they're trying to run a low-equipment game, because that provides a different kind of fun that will last more than an hour or two.

[HangarFlying]

I think something like this could be fun if the campaign was designed around this and the players understood that there would be a high character turn-over rate. At that point, it would be less about story and more about "how long can I make this character live". There is a place for this type of game, but it has to be the right place.

[Orfamay Quest]

HangarFlying wrote:

I think something like this could be fun if the campaign was designed around this and the players understood that there would be a high character turn-over rate. At that point, it would be less about story and more about "how long can I make this character live". There is a place for this type of game, but it has to be the right place.

Sounds like Dwarf Fortress.

[John Kerpan]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

I think something like this could be fun if the campaign was designed around this and the players understood that there would be a high character turn-over rate. At that point, it would be less about story and more about "how long can I make this character live". There is a place for this type of game, but it has to be the right place.

Sounds like Dwarf Fortress.

Or like ADoM (Ancient Domains of Mystery).

The concept is actually very fun, and the strategies used to succeed in these games I think highlights what is crucial in sandbox type games, and how players can thrive without WBL expectations (either way).