Determining Ability Scores

[kaomera]

One of the things that gets me kind of excited when thinking about old-school gaming is "3d6 in order" ability scores, but then again I mostly DM'ed. Now, I didn't really use straight 3d6 in order much, in AD&D we usually had 8-12 players start, each with three characters, and then pared that down to 6-8 PCs by 2nd or 3rd level. So with PCs with higher scores favored (both by the rules and by the players) in terms of survivability, we usually ended up with pretty decent characters. But even rolling 3 characters each it was often as fast if not faster than fiddling with placing ability scores (and we did eventually switch to Method I). I never really felt bad about players not getting to play "the character they wanted" because I didn't really like players who would always play the same character, and I wanted them to have to try new things. In any case we let players swap characters if they wanted, so it probably wasn't that much of a problem.

But, at the same time, one of the things I kind of like about 4e is that the "default" is point-buy. Characters are balanced overall, they don't seem that cookie-cutter, and you don't need to worry about unplayable / hopeless characters. I think that this might be in part because while ability scores are still important, so are a lot of other things on a given character sheet. When every character can get an 18 there's no real "Oh, wow!" factor to seeing a Fighter with an 18 Strength, but then again there's less need for that when each character can have different feats, powers, and skills (maybe not so much special, but definitely different).

So I'm planning on running some Labyrinth Lord in the near future, just to scratch that "old-school DMing" itch. And I'm trying to reconcile these two ideas. I think the most obvious choice would be "4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired", but for not-terribly-logical reasons I have a bit of a dislike for "Method I". I know I could just stick to 3d6 in order, but that in turn seems a bit "harsh". I guess I'm mostly interested in a player's perspective here... (And I'm also posting this on the Goblinoid Games forums, but because I've played 3e / 4e and I think a lot of my prospective players will have too I wanted to see what the posters here thought of this issue.)

 

[The Shaman]

Flashing Blades uses three-dee-six in order, but the sum of all the attribute scores must equal or exceed fifty-four and players are allowed to swap points on a two-for-one basis.

It generates perfectly playable characters in my experience.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I just began a new Labyrinth Lord campaign tonight. Previously, I'd been using either the straight 3d6-down-the-line method (for gritty, low fantasy); or, for a more epic fantasy game, 3d6 nine times with the players allowed to keep the six best rolls and place them where they wished to.

Tonight, though, I wanted to keep the game rather mid-to-low-powered and balanced, and so I went with the "standard spread" from D&D 3.0. That is: 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15. When you use this spread with Labyrinth Lord or BECM, the modifiers come out to -1, nil, nil, +1, +1, +1. I like that, because there is a single penalty (which the player can focus on as a "character flaw"), two averages, and three bonuses, but no adjustment more powerful than plus or minus one. It helps keep a lid on stat creep; and on those situations where the lucky player that rolled an 18 severely outclasses all the more average PCs.

 

[Hussar]

I wonder how many people actually used 3d6 in order in AD&D. It wasn't the default system. Method 1 was 4d6 drop the lowest. I remember being pretty jazzed moving from Basic/Expert D&D (where 3d6 in order was the default) and being able to play characters with much higher stats.

 

[Crothian]

We used 3d6 in order for a few years. I think it wasn't until we got UA and saw some of their ways to do it that we changed.

 

[Chainsaw]

Back when I DM'd 2E for my little brother and friends in the late 80s (5-6th grade), we used 3d6 in order a FEW times, but almost always used 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste. Plus, I usually let them keeping rolling over and over again until they got a set of scores good enough to be fairly successful at their chosen class/concept.

Very often I only had two players (my brother, whatever friend was over) and, for whatever reason, I skimped on magic items, so I needed the players to be quite strong. For example, we also used max hit points at first level - a mage with 1 hit point and a thief with 3 hit points didn't do so well when exploring a tomb. Not exactly your dynamic duo. I would have run things differently if I'd had 4-5 players and a balanced mix of classes (usually not the case).

People still died often though and, like I said, there wasn't much magic weaponry (certainly no "magic shops"), so it wasn't very monty-haul/munchkiny despite the generous character creation.

 

[Ariosto]

3d6 in order is not even among the options in 1st ed. AD&D. The default assumption is that folks would like to see Druids, Illusionists, Paladins and Rangers -- maybe even Monks and Bards -- in the game without having to wait years for anyone locally to roll them.

(The chance of rolling a Ranger that way is about 1 in 567, for instance.)

There's no such great problem of prerequisites in LL or B/X. In the original D&D set, ability scores make very little difference at all.

 

[drothgery]

Heck, my college groups played 2e as 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1s; arrange to taste, add a few bonus points; and you can make two-for-one swaps after that. This may have something to do with why I became a point buy advocate .

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I can understand where you're coming from. Part of the fun is being able to learn how to deal with whatever you happen to have, instead of just being able to choose whatever you want. Method I is a good compromise, but once you start adding extra rules like "reroll 1" and "swap points between scores"... it's essentially the same thing as point buy, but with a random number of points.

May I suggest Method III? Roll 3d6 six times, take the best result, and that's your Strength. Repeat for all six scores. No switching, no arranging as desired. You get to be stuck with whatever the dice give you, but chances are what that is isn't terrible.

Here's a result using Invisible Castle:

Strength (3d6=6, 3d6=17, 3d6=6, 3d6=9, 3d6=13, 3d6=10)
Intelligence (3d6=10, 3d6=13, 3d6=8, 3d6=9, 3d6=12, 3d6=17)
Wisdom (3d6=10, 3d6=8, 3d6=11, 3d6=9, 3d6=9, 3d6=10)
Dexterity (3d6=10, 3d6=15, 3d6=15, 3d6=11, 3d6=9, 3d6=6)
Constitution (3d6=13, 3d6=11, 3d6=11, 3d6=7, 3d6=16, 3d6=17)
Charisma (3d6=9, 3d6=11, 3d6=9, 3d6=15, 3d6=10, 3d6=11)

So that's
Strength 17
Intelligence 17
Wisdom 11
Dexterity 15
Constitution 17
Charisma 15

Admittedly, that's VERY good, but I'm also clearly lucky here. I rolled 16+ four times in 36 when that's a 10/216 chance (1 in 9 when it's actually worse than 1 in 20), 15+ seven times in 36 (better than 1 in 6 when it's actually worse than 1 in 10), and they're spread out so that more abilities get the good scores. Try it yourself and see if you like it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

One thing to consider is that the bonus structure in Classic D&D (and LL) is different from AD&D. Keep that in mind when considering the AD&D "methods." For example, in AD&D, you need a 16 Str before you get a +1 to damage, and a 17 before you get +1 to hit and +1 damage. But with Classic D&D, you need a 13 Str to get +1 to hit and +1 damage, 16 Str would get you +2 to hit/damage, and an 18 would give you +3. In general, you don't need very high stats in Classic D&D, compared to AD&D.

The other thing to consider is your approach in creating PCs. One approach is "see what the fates give you; the challenge and the fun is to make an interesting and successful PC from there." In other words, you look at the randomness as part of the fun and part of the challenge. Here's what the dice have given you: can you create an interesting PC it? Can you handle it? The other approach is "envision the PC you want and build that PC." The fun, there, has nothing to do with fate: it's found in creating the PC "in your head" and then translating that vision into the game's terms.

Either approach can be viable. For the "see what fate gives me and rise to the challenge" approach, it's hard to beat 3d6 in order. You just have to accept, up-front, that making something cool of the hand you're dealt is part of the fun and part of the game. (Actually, with this approach, the toughest challenge isn't a PC with low scores, but rather a PC with nothing but average scores.) That goes for the party as a whole, too. Instead of building a Fighter, a MU, a Cleric, and a Thief, all with tailored stats, you might end up with stat arrays that might suggest three Fighters and a Thief. But Classic D&D doesn't have the stat requirement rules of AD&D, so maybe you'd end up with a party where the MU has Int 12 and Str 15 -- but that's part of the fun.

With "envision your PC and build him" it's hard to beat some kind of point-buy. Randomness just gets in the way of building the PC you want, in this case.

In other words, my advice is to either embrace the randomness and go with 3d6 in order, or to reject the randomness and go with point-buy. Pick your approach and run with it.

FWIW, in a traditional D&D campaign, I prefer the "random challenge" approach. But for other games or specifically focused/themed D&D campaigns, point buy might be more appropriate. YMMV, of course.