D&D General Deck-based Ability Score Generation

[clearstream]

Coming out of a few threads on generating ability scores, and in particular conversation with @EzekielRaiden I came up with an interesting tweak to the deck-based score generation that I'd like to share. @EzekielRaiden made an argument for surprise - i.e. for not knowing what your total scores would be, and for each score being unpredictable. Dice achieve that through the independence of each result. I came up with another solution, as follows...

Make a 20-card deck from which you will draw 3 cards for each score without replacement, leaving 2 cards in the deck. For example - 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. This deck has interesting features -

• The range for the sum of scores is 60 to 66
• The range for an individual score is 6 to 15
• A character can have no more than one 15, and no more than one 6
• Scores will average to at least 10, and at most 11, i.e. 10.5

Here is another, a 14-card deck from which you will draw 2 cards for each score without replacement, leaving 2 cards in the deck. In this case - 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2. Some features are -

• The range for sum of scores is 54 to 66
• For an individual score is 4 to 16
• A character can have no more than one 16, and no more than one 4
• Scores will average to at least 9, and at most 11, i.e. 10 (for a 'harder' baseline difficulty)

Features of this deck-based method that I believe are desirable are -

1. Mitigates overshadowing - you cannot get a character more than several points better than another (although precisely where points fall can feel more or less exciting)
2. Unpredictable (suprising) - the distributions are 'hard' to analyse, and the draw is quite random seeing as you don't know which cards will be left in the deck
3. System-friendly, tunable range - the deck can be tuned to place scores inside the range your group find right, for eample 6 to 15 for the 20-card deck above
4. Fair - per another thread that makes a point I agree with, characters generated this way will feel fair compared with one another; a character with flaws more likely has strengths in compensation

Finally, a group can choose to allocate cards to scores as they are drawn - for 'organic' arrays - or assign them as desired - for concept-friendly arrays.

 

[Yaarel]

I like the approach. I have to think about the numbers.

I want a range that is mainly 10 to 14, tho a less likely 8 or 16 is ok.

So I would probably not have cards worth a 2.



Maybe draw two cards?

4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8

 

[Stalker0]

I like this idea a lot. Having just done something similar through a "alternate deck of many things" concept..... the players got to pick a stat and draw two cards, the sum replaced their stat (for good or ill). Was a lot of fun for the players, so I think doing that as a default concept could be fun.

For me, the main advantage of rolling is the chance to get a really high stat or one low stat that can be a fun weakness. I think the issue with rolling is when you get the character with two 18s or 3 stats below 10, that kind of thing. So a deck that automatically removes that I think has a lot of potential.

For the first deck, my issue is I can go down to 6 (which is fine) but I still can only get a 15 at best. That's basically point buy but worse. If I can get as low as a 6, I should be able to get as high as a 16 or maybe even 17. So perhaps swap two of the 5s with 6s in that deck. Gives you a shot at that high number, slightly increases your average, but provides I think a nice range of options.

I like that better than the 2 draw deck myself. I think 4s can be problematic. A 6 is a noticeable penalty, a 4 I think is very hard to roleplay in certain cases (what is a 4 int really mean? a 4 charism basically be someone who never talks or does anything but just follow what other people said)...I think that's a bit too much.

 

[clearstream]

I like the approach. I have to think about the numbers.

I want a range that is mainly 10 to 14, tho a less likely 8 or 16 is ok.

So I would probably not have cards worth a 2.



Maybe draw two cards?

4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8

You could try this 20-card deck - 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6. Drawing three per score, and leaving the last two cards in deck.

Scores range from 8-16
Scores total from 69-75
Scores average 11.5 to 12.5

A high array might look like 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9
A low array might look like 15, 14, 12, 11, 9, 8

What do you think?

 

[clearstream]

I like this idea a lot. Having just done something similar through a "alternate deck of many things" concept..... the players got to pick a stat and draw two cards, the sum replaced their stat (for good or ill). Was a lot of fun for the players, so I think doing that as a default concept could be fun.

I didn't mention it, but fun is also part of why I like this method. It's very easy for players to use. They don't need to know the complicated part, which is working out a good deck composition!

For me, the main advantage of rolling is the chance to get a really high stat or one low stat that can be a fun weakness. I think the issue with rolling is when you get the character with two 18s or 3 stats below 10, that kind of thing. So a deck that automatically removes that I think has a lot of potential.

For the first deck, my issue is I can go down to 6 (which is fine) but I still can only get a 15 at best. That's basically point buy but worse. If I can get as low as a 6, I should be able to get as high as a 16 or maybe even 17. So perhaps swap two of the 5s with 6s in that deck. Gives you a shot at that high number, slightly increases your average, but provides I think a nice range of options.

I like that better than the 2 draw deck myself. I think 4s can be problematic. A 6 is a noticeable penalty, a 4 I think is very hard to roleplay in certain cases (what is a 4 int really mean? a 4 charism basically be someone who never talks or does anything but just follow what other people said)...I think that's a bit too much.

Taking the deck I posted in reply to @Yaarel and swap in a 2 for a 3, and a 6 for a 5 - so you have 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6.

Scores range from 7-17
Scores total from 68-76
Scores average 11.3 to 12.7

A high array might look like 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9
A low array might look like 15, 14, 12, 11, 9, 7

Is that about what you were thinking of? It'd take a bit of effort to figure out the average array. Generating one at random I get 9, 12, 13, 11, 12, 13. Another, 14, 11, 14, 11, 12, 13.

 

[Stalker0]

I didn't mention it, but fun is also part of why I like this method. It's very easy for players to use. They don't need to know the complicated part, which is working out a good deck composition!


Taking the deck I posted in reply to @Yaarel and swap in a 2 for a 3, and a 6 for a 5 - so you have 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6.

Scores range from 7-17
Scores total from 68-76
Scores average 11.3 to 12.7

A high array might look like 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9
A low array might look like 15, 14, 12, 11, 9, 7

Is that about what you were thinking of? It'd take a bit of effort to figure out the average array. Generating one at random I get 9, 12, 13, 11, 12, 13. Another, 14, 11, 14, 11, 12, 13.

I would probably leave the extra 2 in there (aka three total). I think getting a 6 is a rare but perfectly fine result, as is the high rariety in getting a 17.

 

[GMMichael]

Here is another, a 14-card deck from which you will draw 2 cards for each score without replacement, leaving 2 cards in the deck. In this case - 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2. Some features are -

• The range for sum of scores is 54 to 66
• For an individual score is 4 to 16
• A character can have no more than one 16, and no more than one 4
• Scores will average to at least 9, and at most 11, i.e. 10 (for a 'harder' baseline difficulty)

I like this one better than the first; it requires only one deck. But it's weighted towards low scores. You might fix (?) this by removing a 2 and adding a 3.

You might add some zany options to make it more interesting:

• the jester allows you to steal a score from another player (in exchange for the next score you draw).
• the jack gives you a 10 total, even if it's the second card you draw.
• the queen is +1 and draw again.
• the king lets you look at the deck and remove one card.

 

[clearstream]

I like this one better than the first; it requires only one deck. But it's weighted towards low scores. You might fix (?) this by removing a 2 and adding a 3.

I prefer the shorter decks, too. They're more volatile i.e. produce spikier arrays. The one I am thinking of switching to is 13-card - 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2 - of which you draw twelve (six pairs).

Scores in the range 5-15 suit my campaign. The average is 10 so it's yielding characters that are going to have a slightly harder time of it than average. 10.5 after the TCoE ASIs.

You might add some zany options to make it more interesting:

• the jester allows you to steal a score from another player (in exchange for the next score you draw).
• the jack gives you a 10 total, even if it's the second card you draw.
• the queen is +1 and draw again.
• the king lets you look at the deck and remove one card.

The method is begging for wild cards and such like!

 

[Yaarel]

@clearstreams

Yeah, the tailoring the deck for specific ranges, looks good.




By the way, because high scores are worth way more than low scores, referring to "total scores" feels less helpful. If you convert this metric into a point-buy total, and compare the point-buy total of each deck, that would feel more helpful.

 

[Yaarel]

I would probably leave the extra 2 in there (aka three total). I think getting a 6 is a rare but perfectly fine result, as is the high rariety in getting a 17.

It is a matter of taste. Each table will probably evolve its own preference, or multiple preferences depending on the setting concepts.

For me, I like numbers that are low but non-negative. So, +0 to +3 is ideal. But a +4 or even a −1 can add flavor.



It looks like the new format will have all player characters add a +2 and +1, or else three +1s, on top of whatever scores get generated.

But this deck method could tailor to numbers to already be equivalent to this improvement step, and not do it.