Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8415178" data-attributes="member: 71699">I believe the problem is properly defining the spectrum a group want characters to fall in, and the features they value in selection. For example, I decided I wanted ability scores to net to +2, with nothing worse than -3 and nothing better than +3 at 1st-level. Additionally, I wanted to avoid overshadowing by having the ability scores for all characters sum to the same total. It was fairly straightforward to design a 12-card deck to draw from without replacement, drawing and summing two cards for each ability in the order drawn. I could instead have listed the complete set of arrays and have players roll for one at random for their character. Both give effective, easily generated, truly-random characters. (I suspect what you mean by truly-random isn't to do with random, but to do with yielding both arrays the group enjoys playing, and arrays they don't. That's a choice about the spectrum arrays will fall in, not really the generation methods.)If one defines the problem as - can I have characters, some of which have far lower modifiers than we want to play and some of which will be mechanically ideal - then any 'solution' is going to produce that. If one instead defines the problem as - can I have characters falling fairly across the power spectrum that we want to use - then good random solutions are available.The problem is having a clear enough definition for what = good in this context.Again, I don't believe it is the 'randomness' that is the heart of the problem you describe. The PHB methods have two shortfalls. Foremost the PHB doesn't tell groups why they should choose one method over another. It should start with motives, not methods. Second it offers only a very limited set of methods, when the 'tech' is available to offer more.</blockquote>

Verification