|
In 2nd edition, the only "worthless" character really was someone who doesn't have a single 9 in their attributes. And that was because you didn't even qualify as a fighter, thief, cleric, or wizard. Yes, higher attributes helped. And yes, low attributes hurt you in some way. For example a wizard with 9 Int has fewer maximum spells known per level, lower maximum spell level known, and a much harder time learning new spells. But they were still fully capable of contributing. High strength didn't really affect melee as much as you might think until it got into the 16+ range. Most of the benefits/penalties were carrying capacity and the chances to break down or force open a door. You get the idea.
And if you weren't a warrior, it didn't matter if your Con was 14 or 34. You got an extra +2 hit points a level, and that was it. Of course you did get bonuses or penalties to poison and disease saves based on con. But these didn't matter as much as your level when it came to saves. High attributes were more a concern because you needed rather difficult to roll arrays for classes like Paladin, Bard, or Druid. A specialist wizard was easier to make, but still might require 2 attributes to be rather high. Of course, you also had to roll your level 1 hit points too. So it was fully possible to make a fighter with 1 Hit Point at level one.
That said, there's nothing wrong with rolling attributes. Several rather good systems use dice roll systems of various types. Palladium Games uses 3d6 down the line, with an extra 1d6 if you rolled a 16-18, and possibly another 1d6 if the bonus die comes up as a six. Thus giving a range of 3-24 or 30 for attributes. D&D and Pathfinder by default uses 3d6 down the line for stats, but provides several alternate rolling methods or even a point buy system for attributes if you don't like random stats. Hideouts and Hoodlums is rather fun, and uses 3d6 down the line too.
Systems that fully use point buy such as Gurps, Champions, or Mutants & Masterminds are great for giving you full control over making your character. If it doesn't turn out how you like, you weren't trying hard enough. But they also tend to use a checks and balances system. Spend too many creation points on attributes, and you end up either taking a lot of disadvantages/flaws to afford skills, or you have little to no skills/powers/advantages.
Even a hybrid system like Pathfinder's point buy option tries to have checks and balances, but tends to encourage the idea of a "dump stat". And honestly, I'm not a fan of the dump stat. I've taken a low attribute (sometimes lower then intended) before, and will do so in the future. But it ends up in a case of "all fighters are idiots who couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag, and all casters are weak spindly things that can barely pick up a book."
|
|
Dwarven druid with a pet can be functional as long as you've got a 12.Or a gnome summoner with an eidolon, or an elven wizard/arcanist summoner... but what you're doing in those cases is consigning your crappy ability score array to what is essentially a supporting cast-member to the real character, the pet. Whose stats don't depend on the luck of your dice.
But beyond the functionality of the rolls, consider what the arrays might suggest about the character's backstory and personality. That to me is the real benefit of using a random roll setup. I made a character for Heroes Unlimited 2nd Edition once and rolled 30 for Intelligence, the absolute maximum possible. I then rolled my character's education level and power category randomly, got "never graduated grade school" and "hardware: Analytical"
What this told me was that my character was a natural genius who probably couldn't focus in school. It was too boring, she'd learned this stuff and beyond on her own. In fact, it told me her self study had touched on pretty much everything, especially in scientific and engineering fields. The power category was basically "you're an inventor who can build anything even if not quite as well as more specialized inventors, figure out how to use anything from ancient magical artifacts to the most advanced of alien devices, oh and you have a bit of a specialty in making armors/power armors". This despite never graduating grade school.
|
But beyond the functionality of the rolls, consider what the arrays might suggest about the character's backstory and personality. That to me is the real benefit of using a random roll setup. I made a character for Heroes Unlimited 2nd Edition once and rolled 30 for Intelligence, the absolute maximum possible. I then rolled my character's education level and power category randomly, got "never graduated grade school" and "hardware: Analytical"Dwarven druid with a pet can be functional as long as you've got a 12.Or a gnome summoner with an eidolon, or an elven wizard/arcanist summoner... but what you're doing in those cases is consigning your crappy ability score array to what is essentially a supporting cast-member to the real character, the pet. Whose stats don't depend on the luck of your dice.
That's one of the best-case scenarios. In my experience, Alice might roll two 18s but Bob's highest stat is a 12. Play a second campaign together after the first; serious Bob, who likes to play competent characters and contribute, ends up with an awful array a second time. Bob will be likely to quit your group and go play with someone who doesn't subject them to the whims of the dice so he can actually have fun. And then Alice can't have fun, because she doesn't have anyone to play with.
You raise an interesting point, though. Why do you dislike dump stats yet celebrate the rolling of low ability scores? To me, a dump stat is a chance to play someone who's actually below average at something. I've always felt that someone with all 10's or above is a little bit of a Mary Sue, personally; someone who's pretty good at everything and has no weaknesses. I had figured that exposure to rolled ability scores would make people more open to dropping ability scores in a point buy, so I'm curious.
|
|
I dislike dump stats because of the mindset behind it. Such as "I'm a (insert class), I don't need charisma so I'll put it as low as I can and pump up this other stat". This creates cookie cutter builds, and it's all for a slight mechanical advantage. Or someone going "I only get two skill points to begin with, so I'll dump Int and just make a human".
The dump stat culture encouraged by point buy stats encourages seeking a slight advantage for as minimal of a penalty. You end up with a slew of dumb and uncharismatic fighters just so they can hit a little harder. They aren't taking a low stat because it fits the person they are envisioning, they take it just because it will raise something else.
I recently played a Hideouts and Hoodlums adventure with a character who had 7 Int and 5 Wisdom. The rest of his attributes ranged from 9 to 12, with charisma being a shocking 14. Combined with rolling the absolute minimum possible for hit points (3), many people would have considered the character to be unplayable. Me, I took these rather low stats (especially mental ones) and his astonishingly high starting funds (rolled max possible), and came up with the idea that he's a stunt man who stars in a group of movie serials called The Brick Wall. A serial that follows the adventures of the title armored shield wielding hero. Keep in mind this is a game set in the 1930's and 40's.
Due to his lowish Intelligence and horrible wisdom, he keeps mistaking real crimes for the stunts he's suppose to be doing as promotions for the movie serials. His armor and shield are fully functional because he REALLY needs them to actually survive some of the stunts he preforms. But he's actually good at his job, and can pull off a good enough screen presence to draw a lot of fans of the serials.
At one point in the adventure he was talking to his boss at the studio, explaining why he wasn't at the publicity stunt. The following dialog came about.
Boss: "Why in Sam Hill weren't you at the stunt? I should fire you right now!"
Brick Wall: "I... uh... Sorry boss. I thought the fire was the stunt. Thought the script got changed again and nobody told me."
Boss: "You WHAT?!" *radio broadcast mentions that movie icon Brick Wall was involved in catching an arsonist* "Seriously Sam? Again? Keep this crap up and you're going to ruin the studio's reputation!"
Brick Wall: "Uhm... boss, I'm kinda still investigating the arson. I have a lead, don't worry! This should be wrapped up by tomorrow, no problem. Plenty of time for next Wednesday's shoot. Besides, uh, wouldn't it be great publicity if the Brick Wall was real? Can I borrow the helmet with a radio built in tonight?"
If it hadn't have been for the weird confluence of low Int/wis, average physical stats, good charisma, and being rich... I'd likely have never come up with the idea of a slightly dim witted actor who keeps blundering into real crimes, thinking they're stunts for his movie serials. Seriously, after catching the arsonist he then returned, handed the crook to a police officer (thinking the police, fire fighters, and other superhero were all fellow stunt men), then bowed and said to the crowd of bystanders
"Thank you for watching the performance! For the further adventures of The Brick Wall make sure to go see Brick Wall vs the Screaming Skulls part one, in theaters next Saturday!"
|
|
That said, there's nothing wrong with rolling attributes. Several rather good systems use dice roll systems of various types. Palladium Games uses 3d6 down the line, with an extra 1d6 if you rolled a 16-18, and possibly another 1d6 if the bonus die comes up as a six. Thus giving a range of 3-24 or 30 for attributes. D&D and Pathfinder by default uses 3d6 down the line for stats, but provides several alternate rolling methods or even a point buy system for attributes if you don't like random stats. Hideouts and Hoodlums is rather fun, and uses 3d6 down the line too.
So, the thing about Palladium is that it turns the age old "Really, I rolled 3 18s!" into "Really, I rolled 3 30s!"
In theory, I think that 3d6 straight down can result in interesting characters if it results in a character you'll enjoy playing. I don't think that's where I'm at these days personally and I've always seen dice abuse when people make characters.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
^ As fascinating as this discussion of rolled stats is, let's take it back to PFS.
I am pleased as punch that PFS removes rolled stats as a point of contention! I disagree that everyone of a certain class will dump a stat. Lyric the Singing Paladin admittedly did dump wisdom, but I thought that suited her trusting nature. However, she has a 12 intelligence, which I thought important for a curious Paladin.
Some people min-max their attributes. Others don't. My casters usually start with a 16-17 in their caster stat, after racials kick in. I've never had anyone start with a 20 attribute in PFS.
____
- I trust that you know your own character (with a small exception for people trying out a pregen to test a class or to help the party);
- I trust that you have a variety of abilities that you'll use to help the party;
- I trust that you have something you can do in combat, even if it is just a magic missile wand (plink, pink) or an aid another;
- I trust that you have something you can do out of combat;
- I trust (okay, this is sometimes just a vague hope) that you have gear and backup plans for those times when your primary schtick is made useless by the scenario, so that you won't just be running away or twiddling your thumbs. See the 2017 list of PFS items that can save you for ideas;
- Most importantly, I trust that you care about others on your team, just like I care about you, and that we'll all find a way to work together.
That's my ideal trust list. What is yours?
Hmm
|
I see issues, such as the yellow Tengu, as a matter of "you can unless the the rules say that you can not" versus "you can only if the rules say you can." This would be less about trust and more about one's general philosophy toward PFS.
Its also about the reskinning vs. fluff vs. campaign consistency as well.
There are rules for what a Tengu looks like. There are also descriptions of Tengu dying their feathers. Animals that are albino often present as yellow.
Then there is campaign consistency. We've discussed that a bit in another thread. Some people want to immerse themselves in Golarion lore. Some people don't care about that and just want to play with the numbers on their characters. Some people just want to create interesting characters that have nothing to do with Golarion lore. None of those is particularly a wrong way to play the game. The main issue is a respect issue in regards to how you interact with people who have a different way/reason of/for playing.
For me, I think it shows a certain level of disrespect for the campaign and the campaign world, to go off-script, as it were.
And I've found, that people who are willing to disrespect the game world in such a way, are the same people who tend to be willing to bend the rules. This is not always the case though. Just a tendency I personally have noticed.
Yet, I still trust them until given an explicit reason to not trust them. But I will hold some suspicion inside when I see red flags and be a bit more vigilant and discerning toward how that player presents themselves at the table. I try to make this invisible to the player.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
- I trust that you know your own character (with a small exception for people trying out a pregen to test a class or to help the party);
- I trust that you have a variety of abilities that you'll use to help the party;
- I trust that you have something you can do in combat, even if it is just a magic missile wand (plink, pink) or an aid another;
- I trust that you have something you can do out of combat;
- I trust (okay, this is sometimes just a vague hope) that you have gear and backup plans for those times when your primary schtick is made useless by the scenario, so that you won't just be running away or twiddling your thumbs. See the 2017 list of PFS items that can save you for ideas;
- Most importantly, I trust that you care about others on your team, just like I care about you, and that we'll all find a way to work together.
That's my ideal trust list. What is yours?
Hmm
Like the list. My trust requirements are less mechanics based and more 'spirit of the game based.'
That's basically it, and everything else I hope for in my games comes from that perspective.
|
|
Even when I was first starting to roleplay I viewed it as a colab story telling session. Sure Hero Quest and similar simplistic introductory rpg like games were an "us vs him" experience. But even then it was about the story more then about the Dungeon Master trying to kill the players. Yes, the monsters did their best to kill the players. But each game was a storytelling session. A basic storytelling session where the story was given at the beginning to explain why the heroes need to kill X monster. But the published scenarios DID have a story to them.
The old West End Games ghostbusters rpg exemplified the idea of gaming as a storytelling session. The GM wasn't allowed to kill the players. Not unless they did something terminally stupid, and refused to back down after being warned three times about the action. THe example given for this rule was a nuke going off underneath the Ecto 1. Yet the players are blackened (maybe radiation poisoning for a few months), but otherwise fine. Unless they themselves put the nuke down there and armed it. Then you give three warnings, allowing them to retract the fatal action. Only if they still went through with it could the nuke atomize them.
That's the system I learned to GM with. ANd the lessons stuck with me all these years. I don't go out of my way to kill the players. Nor do I softball things. I can make hard adventures when I sit down to create one. But never impossibly difficult. I like to playtest the encounters I'm unsure about to see if they're too much for the expected party composition.
Not that you can do that in PFS. You play the scenario as it's written. If there's specific tactics listed, those get used unless the players completely disrupted the tactics. Even if using those tactics is a horribly bad idea, such as trying to cast a Polymorph Self spell in melee combat then fleeing. Can you say AOO storm? I knew you could!