'Balancing' rolled characters

[Praeco]

Balance can help inexperienced GMs as it means that there are less variables to factor in when trying to allow various people to get the spotlight. It is also a good thing when playing a combat heavy game - CR is formulaic so balance allows the user to calculate it accurately. D&D 3 does very well providing options to allow this.

If I am going for a more role-play heavy experience, I am happy to chuck balance out the window. Roll the dice, and allow the potential character flaws you might receive to show through. I like the recent LOTR character rules a lot because they offer a nice alternative for this type of play - the characters rely on flavor rather than balance.

 

[diaglo]

Bushido. i loved that game.

if you want unbalanced try the old percentage dice for stats like in the original Marvel SH or Top Secret

 

[BlackMoria]

Our group uses a character 'matrix'. A matrix takes longer to create but allows for a flexible choice of stats and quick followup characters. Each player creates their own matrix.

To create the matrix, we use 4d6 drop the lowest. Roll 6 times (like you creating a character) record, but don't assign to a stat. Now repeat this process 5 more times.

What you have is a 6 x 6 grid of numbers. Now the player can create a character based on 14 possible 'rows' of numbers.
(six rows down, six rows across, 2 diagonals).

In all the time we have used a matrix, no one has been unhappy with their character stats. Out of 14 choices, everyone has never failed to come up with a character with better than average stats.

The matrix remains useful in that all replacement characters (due to deaths, whatever) come from the remaining choices from the matrix. Most of my players usually will plan out their second and third string characters, so that if a character bites it and is not recoverable, they have a second character almost ready to go.

Another idea, for those collecting ideas to make character generation more equitable with dice.

 

[Cullyn]

I always think it's strange when I hear that groups roll for stats, but that they do things like "if you don't like your stats, roll up a new set" or "I always add a few points to the person with the lowest stats" or "the person with the lowest stats gets more ability increases.'

Why not just use point buy? People want to roll stats, but they also want there to be a modicum of balance between players. In other words, "I want all my players to roll for stats because it's fun and creates "realism" but really I want all the characters to be within 5 points of each other and I want all characters to have a point buy total of at least 36."

What's important is that all players use the same method and accept it beforehand. I have joined groups that "rolled for stats normally at home," which meant that when I rolled once for my stats at home, the other players had all rolled multiple times for their stats at home. One of them even had marked on his character generator program sheet that he had rolled 26 times for his incredibly high stats. Not surprisingly, my character had the lowest stats with a point-buy total of 35, which at the time I thought was lucky.

Point buy is good. It's fair. Inter-player competition is a real factor to consider. But if you insist on rolling, have players do an honest roll in front of everyone and stick with the results. What's the point in gambling if there is no risk? (Or is that the point?)

Of course, creating characters always ends up being a matter of personal and group opinion and there truly is no 'best' method. Only what makes the group on a whole happy.

However, I'd like to add that the main reason our group doesn't use any type of point buy system, and instead uses the "if you don't like your stats, roll a new set" system is that with point buy you are always assured to have a low stat/high stat system or all average stats unless you set the point buy to a stupid high number. There is a limited amount of play room provided by this system. With the rolling method (and I do make my players roll all these dice in front of me) that I use there is always that random chance that you get both low, high, and average scores. However, the players is always assured that s/he will get a set of stats that are of his or her own choosing. Because of this, I will also not coddle the players by giving them anything extra if they roll low stats, because that is what they chose. I believe that's about as 'fair' and 'balanced' as you can get.

Besides, it's always fun as a DM to watch a player have that internal struggle when they've rolled a set of stats that includes a 17 and an 8.

Well, now I'm up to four cents.

 

[Cullyn]

I really do like the concept behind the 'matrix' that BlackMoria describes. I think that could really be useful not only in the fact that it allows the players to plan ahead, but that could be very useful for DM creation of NPC's as well to give NPCs the same chance at stats as the PCs.

I do believe that I may suggest trying that in my next campaign startup. Thanx for the idea BlackMoria.

Well, make that six cents now.

 

[billd91]

Ultimately, the only real balance I think you need between player characters is 'screentime'. Make up the adventures so that nocharacter is always a supporting player and everyone has a chance to be the star with interesting stuff to do. Whether they take that chance, then, is up to the individual player but you've provided a balanced game.

 

[jester47]

I think the "roll and keep what you get" is somthing you either get or don't get. I think the difference is that the people that get it come to the table with no expectations, while the people that don't get it have already formulated in thier minds what they expect from the game and thus have created a character concept that fits that expectation. Random rolling has a way of throwing out a character concept. Either way is perfectly legit, but I think that random (with an eye towards some workability) is good.

The way I do it the worse case scenario (that is the case with the minimal bonuses) is 13, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10 (or so I think). This is because I follow the rule that if none of the stats are over 13 the set is thrown out. The funny thing about this method, which is basicly the one given in the PH with a few tweaks, is that the lower your rolls the more unacceptable a low roll becomes. With higher rolls you can absorb more low rolls and still have a passing set of stats.

Aaron.

 

[Cybern]

I had some bad experiences about all that balance thing. In my group, we never did real campaigns, so we all created characters, and each person would end up DMing for 3-5 sessions, then pass on to the next. As it happened, we did not always created characters together, some used old characters, and balance issues were common. One had 18 17 16 16 13 13, while another had 16 14 14 12 9 8, and it only mattered in combat situations.

As we played other games like Heavy Gear, Vampire and Shadowrun, we got into that balance thing. With 3.0, we got ourselves a point buy system, as we had not seen the official one. Ours can be described in one sentence :

Total +8(+9 +10 whatever) bonus, half odd/half even stats (ex.: "18+4 17+3 13+1 12+1 10+0 9-1" is equal to "15+2 14+2 14+2 13+1 12+1 11+0). The even/odd thing is for level stat bonuses.

As I discovered the official system, I found it really odd. Why is a mainly +2/+1 stats character the equal of a +4/shnut one? I get the idea (wich is ALMOST EXACTLY the same as in Heavy Gear, but in DnD, especially in 3.X, every stat is important (and I won't get into the Half-Orc rant).

Do you really like the official point-buy system? Why not only limit the total bonuses ? And, if I may, why are there stats anyway (the +x is enough, IMO)

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Urbannen
I always think it's strange when I hear that groups roll for stats, but that they do things like "if you don't like your stats, roll up a new set" or "I always add a few points to the person with the lowest stats" or "the person with the lowest stats gets more ability increases.'

Why not just use point buy?

Do you not see the dichotomy? Wanting to limit the point spread and filter out some of the extremes does not mean I am happy with having everyone cut from the same exact cloth... and I most assuredly am not. Further, it rewards some character types more than others. Also, higher point totals do not always equate to a better character... having a few points wrapped up in a suboptimal spots adds "character" to the character and helps differentiate them from some all-too-frequently tread ideal version of a particular point-buy character. Forcing rolls can help tone down the painful insistence on using certain stats as "dump stats". This makes characters more realistic and flavorful IMNSHO.

People want to roll stats, but they also want there to be a modicum of balance between players.

We can acheive a modicum of balance without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are gamers. We are (generally) smart.

What's important is that all players use the same method and accept it beforehand. I have joined groups that "rolled for stats normally at home," which meant that when I rolled once for my stats at home, the other players had all rolled multiple times for their stats at home. One of them even had marked on his character generator program sheet that he had rolled 26 times for his incredibly high stats. Not surprisingly, my character had the lowest stats with a point-buy total of 35, which at the time I thought was lucky.

That's sort of a bad method. If multiple rolls are going to be tolerated, the GM should lay down the law on how many are good. If certain point ranges are to be tolerated, that should be established too.

Point buy is good.

That's debatable.

It's fair.

Not as fair as you might think. Some character types benefit more from it than others.

Inter-player competition is a real factor to consider. But if you insist on rolling, have players do an honest roll in front of everyone and stick with the results. What's the point in gambling if there is no risk? (Or is that the point?)

(Shrug). I feel a little funny saying "we have to see your rolls", even though there are one or two players who I probably should say that too. I guess I prefer to be trusting. If you have a point range (or pattern or whatever) you want in your game, the GM should set it and follow it.

 

[allenw]

I think you are missing the point. some people are just more gifted genetically then others. This is evident in the world arround us, why should it not be so in the game as well?

In the game, some races/species are "more gifted genetically than others," but if someone wants to play one, it's going to affect their ECL. If one otherwise-human species has an average stat bonus of +4, and another has +11, they'll have different ECLs. My proposed "fix" doesn't even go that far; a high-stat character earns experience as if they had an ECL, but unlike an actual ECL race they don't need a higher experience total to increase in level.

Well, that kinda supports my view. How many campaigns have one or more characters that are a level or two behind the others?

Plenty. But (at least in 3.5 and/or FR) the lower-level characters get more experience, because it's harder for them to do stuff. That's my whole rationale for adjusting experience for high or low stats: if you've got significantly higher stats, encounters are generally less challenging for you than for someone with lower stats, so you should get less XP for them (or the low-stat person should get more).