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: 8415681" data-attributes="member: 71699">You've somewhat misunderstood my post. I am arguing for PHB to present a number of methods, with the motives a group might have for using each method explained either there - in the PHB - or in the DMG.If that is an accurate gloss, then "true randomness" is just as correctly applied to the methods I've discussed, as to 3d6 down the line. Randomly select an array would be even more accurately true random, by that definition, because the distribution is linear. However, I don't think what you are labeling "true randomness" is primarily about the randomness.A group might like to allow low and high ranges. I'm mindful of [USER=6802765]@Xetheral[/USER]'s example, where the DM thought they wanted to do that, but when it came down to it, didn't want characters with nothing better than 10. I have never met a player who genuinely wanted to be overshadowed. I have met many who wanted to be surprised. It is easily possible to have the latter without the former. We can consider features such as -<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">volatility or swinginess (distribution, e.g. does the method produce spiky arrays?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">overshadowing (range from highest array to lowest array)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">control versus surprise (decks resist analysis quite well until you're down to the last few cards*, but not as well as independent rolls, standard array is an open book, assign in order is more surprising than allocate as desired)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">relationship with system baselines (i.e. the impact the expected modifiers will have during play)</li> </ul>Deck-generated characters can be volatile and surprising, while avoiding overshadowing. What you have described seems to include overshadowing as a necessary quality of surprise: I don't think it is.Why not continue to offer more than one method? In the current PHB, the standard array is 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 (76pts), the probable array for 4d6k3 is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 (74pts) , a middle-ground point buy array might be 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 10 (74pts). I believe adding a deck-generation method, and slightly down-tuning  the other three methods, would give four extremely solid methods that would serve almost any group. But why use one over another? Groups would benefit from better explanations.I've never heard that, but mileages vary. What I most frequently hear from players is a desire to have flaws as well as strengths. I'd say they have been about split on control. Perhaps two thirds in my experience would be happiest if they can allocate at least three of their scores as desired. Less than a third prefer to let the scores fall where they may. That said, almost all have been happy to go with DM preference.Our experiences diverge, in that regard. However, I am not advocating for all groups to use the same method. What I'm advocating is the addition of a method, and proper explanation in the books of the motives for choosing each. Generally, the argument is over the distributions rather than the ranges. Meaning that the methods can be tuned to distribute in different ways within the same range.It's worse than that, even, in that the baseline system does not tolerate well some of the extremes possible with 4d6k3. Point-buy gives strong arrays that also work well with the baseline system. I believe both methods are over-tuned by a few points, especially considering it is now the norm to give players 3pts to distribute. From an average of 10.5 we now have averages of 13!*The array is still surprising, even if the last draw is not: one can differentiate between surprise per roll, and surprise about the array. And design for either.</blockquote>

Verification