Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6404710" data-attributes="member: 4937">I played that way for a long time myself.&nbsp; But, I should point out that even choosing to play that way is itself the beginning of creeping away from random and toward 'above average'.&nbsp; Why are you choosing 4d6 keep the best three (probably rearranging to taste)?&nbsp; Why not if you really like randomness and diversity go straight up 3d6 in order?If IIRC, the average on 4d6 keep three goes up from like 10.5 to 12.7, but the really big thing is just how much less common it makes truly crippling scores of 7 or less and how much more common it makes truly useful scores of 16 or higher.&nbsp;&nbsp; This means that you probably don't end up with a character that has significant flaws in 1e terms and are more likely to have a character with a real advantage.&nbsp;&nbsp; And in my experience, it was characters like that that got played with.&nbsp; I never actually saw a lot of people trying to play characters with sub par stats. Goofs are mentioned in my rant.&nbsp; I'm not entirely opposed to goofs, but well... they aren't really involved with the rules primarily.Again, this is all randomness mitigation.&nbsp; You can't truly claim you like random if you are doing more and more to make sure the results are decidedly non-random and that everyone at the least gets a functional character.&nbsp;&nbsp; Eventually, down that route you are just deceiving yourself.&nbsp; Once I realized that, I gave up on random stat generation.This is a good example of what I mean.&nbsp;&nbsp; You claim to like random because it gives you diversity.&nbsp; But if you really like diversity, why are you making Bob #3 when Bob #2 dies?&nbsp;&nbsp; Point buy doesn't prevent diversity.&nbsp; It just highlights for you what you really want.&nbsp;&nbsp; And if you are making Bob #3 to replace Bob #2 whenever the rules allow you to.... diversity isn't really your highest priority.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6404710, member: 4937"] I played that way for a long time myself. But, I should point out that even choosing to play that way is itself the beginning of creeping away from random and toward 'above average'. Why are you choosing 4d6 keep the best three (probably rearranging to taste)? Why not if you really like randomness and diversity go straight up 3d6 in order? If IIRC, the average on 4d6 keep three goes up from like 10.5 to 12.7, but the really big thing is just how much less common it makes truly crippling scores of 7 or less and how much more common it makes truly useful scores of 16 or higher. This means that you probably don't end up with a character that has significant flaws in 1e terms and are more likely to have a character with a real advantage. And in my experience, it was characters like that that got played with. I never actually saw a lot of people trying to play characters with sub par stats. Goofs are mentioned in my rant. I'm not entirely opposed to goofs, but well... they aren't really involved with the rules primarily. Again, this is all randomness mitigation. You can't truly claim you like random if you are doing more and more to make sure the results are decidedly non-random and that everyone at the least gets a functional character. Eventually, down that route you are just deceiving yourself. Once I realized that, I gave up on random stat generation. This is a good example of what I mean. You claim to like random because it gives you diversity. But if you really like diversity, why are you making Bob #3 when Bob #2 dies? Point buy doesn't prevent diversity. It just highlights for you what you really want. And if you are making Bob #3 to replace Bob #2 whenever the rules allow you to.... diversity isn't really your highest priority. [/QUOTE]

Verification