Less flexible ability rolls.

[Jhaelen]

I don't consider it realistic that every party of adventurers has a rogue, a cleric, a wizard, and a fighter.[...]
The main reason I came up with this idea is that it is more realistic, and thus hoping to guide the game into being focused on role playing more than mere statistics.

Well, I'll stop before I enter badwrongfun territory but whenever I see someone arguing about realism and D&D in the same paragraph I cannot help but chuckle.

D&D is about everything _but_ realism. If you are really interested in realism, why don't you pick a different rpg system? Harnmaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Rolemaster, etc. - any of these would probably be a better fit for your preferences!

The common counter is of course 'but D&D is flexible enough to support any play style'. To this I can only say, yep, a swiss knife can be useful in many situations but it cannot ever replace a proper toolbox.

If you still want to go forward with your plans (and I'm pretty sure you will!), I'd advise the following:
1. Make sure your players are on-board with your ideas. Unless they're as interested in your idea of realism as you are, there's going to be trouble.
2. Be prepared to adjust your encounters to allow unorthodox party compositions to survive.

As a parting comment:
Have you considered that it is actually the result of 'natural selection' that most (successful) parties consist of the four iconic classes?
It's simply what works best, that's why _I_ consider it highly realistic that most parties have a similar composition.

In my games I allow my players to play whatever they want. If that results in a dysfunctional party, I point out the potential problem but ultimately don't care, because it is a self-correcting problem:
Party members will die until they end up with a team that works well together and is able to deal with the variety of situations that may come up in a typical adventurer's career.

Of course, experienced players will realize this right away and take care to work together when creating new characters to make sure they will end up with a viable party.

 

[Pergentile]

I hope to god you are a very good DM, or I can see you ruining D&D for a group of players. . .

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Random ability scores aren't my cup of tea, but some groups enjoy them. I wouldn't force characters to roll for race under any circumstances; let them decide what race and class they want to play based on their ability scores. In general, I would say that the less of your character you get to determine yourself, the less you're going to be capable of putting yourself into that character's head.

I had a Storyteller try to tell me to roll for my character's sexual orientation once.

 

[Rhun]

I do allow point buys as well if a character goes that route. I think that all 12's is 24 points... I remember setting it up that I would give 24 to 27 points. Roll a d4 to determine...

See, I like this because it gives a bit of variety, without making a huge difference between PCs. There is nothing worse (IMO, of course) than a game where three of the PCs are closely matched in ability scores, and then the fourth PC has managed to roll just monster scores. Or a situation where everyone rolled better than you, and is clearly superior.

It happens, and it happens a lot. Actually, there are examples in every single game that I am currently playing in where abilities were rolled.

 

[Tharkon]

For the OP: Do you think that your players would be willing to go to an older (or an older school) game, such as OD&D or Swords and Wizardry? That might also help you to accomplish what you are looking for.

I don't think any of them are familiar with AD&D or Swords and Sorcery, which I think you're referring to, and I only know them by name.

D&D is about everything _but_ realism. If you are really interested in realism, why don't you pick a different rpg system? Harnmaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Rolemaster, etc. - any of these would probably be a better fit for your preferences!

As above except in this case even the names are unfamiliar.

Make a few characters and see?

I will try that. I am actually surprised I did not think of it my self.

I do allow point buys as well if a character goes that route. I think that all 12's is 24 points... I remember setting it up that I would give 24 to 27 points. Roll a d4 to determine... Or drop that to 21 to 24 points for 5 scores and still roll for the Chr (I didn't try that yet.) No one tried for this route though, they all still rolled.

D&D Point Buy Calculator

I am gonna bookmark that link, although I know the pointbuy system by heart. The normal 4d6, drop lowest die system equals between 27 and 28 point in the point buy system, without even calculating in the fact that they may reroll if their scores are below a certain minimum (total mod +0, must include one score of 14+ in the standard rules) which might explain your players preferring it over 24 points. But talking about point buy... I can't find it in the rulebook anymore.

Have you considered that it is actually the result of 'natural selection' that most (successful) parties consist of the four iconic classes?
It's simply what works best, that's why _I_ consider it highly realistic that most parties have a similar composition.

I have thought about it a little bit, although mostly just as a way to accept how characters are created in a standard game, not necessarily of how I'd want players to be created in a game I'm DMing in. Whether this applies is also dependent on how the players end up forming a party. If they just happen to be captured by the same criminal, or just happen to be escaping the same burning city then this might not apply as much. In the latter case it is not even unlikely to restrict the characters to one or two races. My campaign is probably going to start in a way similar to the former.

I had a Storyteller try to tell me to roll for my character's sexual orientation once.

I had not even thought about that, but since for the same reason as gender I would not do that. While it is possible to some degree for everyone to roleplay a different personality a bit. I think you'd need very experienced people to roleplay different genders or sexual orientation.

See, I like this because it gives a bit of variety, without making a huge difference between PCs. There is nothing worse (IMO, of course) than a game where three of the PCs are closely matched in ability scores, and then the fourth PC has managed to roll just monster scores. Or a situation where everyone rolled better than you, and is clearly superior.

I can see this problem.

Also I'd like to point out that in this particular campaign the classical 4 iconic characters rule probably doesn't go up anyway since I will be removing the following PHB classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Most of these classes will be replaced by NPC classes I am currently designing: Performer, Priest and Scholar I've come up with so far. But I don't expect any player to want to play these as they will be equal to if not weaker to the Adept class, which is also removed. This is because in this campaign magic is a concept unfamiliar to most mortal races and although some are studying this, it is a slow process that goes at the expense of about everything else. To make up for the lack of classes I am selecting some classes from other books. CW's Swashbuckler will give some use to Intelligence for example. And the CAdv's Ninja and Scout will put a use to Wisdom. For the Paladin and Ranger I will be using UA's spelless variants, and although not particular important for statistics the Paladin will be renamed to Cleric. To fix the problem of healing I might make a variant of the Brew Potion feature to allow for alchemical versions of some potions to supplement the Paladin's Lay on Hands ability.
I didn't think this would matter to question about the ability scores, and I also wanted to know what people's thoughts where without this information, that's why I did not mention it right away.

 

[the Jester]

While I'm a fan of "roll in order and switch two" type things, I'm not a fan of rolling your race randomly.

 

[Aluvial]

Well, I'll stop before I enter badwrongfun territory but whenever I see someone arguing about realism and D&D in the same paragraph I cannot help but chuckle.

D&D is about everything _but_ realism. If you are really interested in realism, why don't you pick a different rpg system? Harnmaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Rolemaster, etc. - any of these would probably be a better fit for your preferences!

But I get the OP's intentions. He wants something more realistic, in terms of the D&D multiverse... which is a tall order. But I get the "more real" aspect of what he is shooting for. He doesn't want to play game X, he wants a realistic D&D game. I agree that is tough to produce without a few (or more than a few) house rules. But I don't really like games that follow the RAW to the letter; I have to tinker with them.

Changing the rules to suit your style is just good being a good DM. You want a particular world, you are putting the bulk of the time into it, and you can have the rules reflect whatever you want your world to be. I don't have players who spend time outside of the game on game things (yet I have players who have been coming to the same table, every week, for over 20 years) like I spend on designing the world that they are in. If you want it this way, then that's a good way to make it. The players will bend to the system that you set for them because they want to see what you can do.

The OP wants a "realistic" world. I like that too. Sure, realism immediately deflates in a world with just one, say mind flayer, in it, but "realism" to me, means something a bit more difficult than the average D&D rules. You can adopt rules that make the average person, well... less than the normal average.

Here's the other thing. Roll the characters up this way... if you are striving for realism and the problem is that they are steamrolling the challenges (I think that might be what you are worried about)... then just up the challenges a level. Your group is ECL 6, so you start by throwing 7's at them. They are walking over those... then give them 8's. Don't give them credit for 7's and 8's, give them credit for 6's. Eventually, you up the challenges until you kill someone. That's a good thing.

Always kill a charcter before they hit 4th level. I like killing a guy at 3rd level. Then, he's not too far behind the others when they roll up a guy one level lower then the party average (that's how I handle that). Hell, kill the whole group... but then just story it away later... That is D&D realism. The fact that there is Wish in the game just means to me that anything in a D&D world is possible, you just have to accept that realism for D&D is death for the PC's. PC's should die more often. For whatever reason, my 3.x games don't result in much death. Not nearly as much as my 2nd edition games did. I never really noticed until I looked at game reports that I wrote 10 years ago (still playing 2nd for a bit before we moved over kicking and screaming into 3rd). I was killing guys weekly back then.

Try this. Overchallenge the party. Kill them. Then have them roll up new characters with an even tougher rule set. They whine. That's ok. Then have the newest batch meet the old batch (who are still alive for whatever reason). Perhaps they were all raised by the BBEG and have even regained the level back. The new group rescues the old group. Then ask them. Which character do you want to play? Your old guy (with a sligtly more favorable rule set) or their new guy (with your even more realistic (meaning tougher) creation rules)? Maybe you'll be surprised.

I see "realism" as PC death. Kill a few PC and the players will think your world is more "real" too. Monsters should eat PC's. If a world with magic and monsters doesn't have a high death count, then something is a bit wrong. Always describe death as close as you can to real world approximations as you can. A character who is bleeding to death (house rules of some kind) because his arm has been torn from its socket, should die. What good is a death trap if it doesn't kill something?

Am I ranting on and on? Hmmm, maybe somebody will read this...

Aluvial

 

[Dandu]

I can't imagine what a PC is going to do when they break a bone, considering that the only spell which can heal those is Regenerate. A fighter who realistically breaks his leg jumping down a hill is going to be laid up for quite some time unless the party has access to a 13th level cleric.

 

[Aluvial]

Also I'd like to point out that in this particular campaign the classical 4 iconic characters rule probably doesn't go up anyway since I will be removing the following PHB classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Most of these classes will be replaced by NPC classes I am currently designing: Performer, Priest and Scholar I've come up with so far. But I don't expect any player to want to play these as they will be equal to if not weaker to the Adept class, which is also removed. This is because in this campaign magic is a concept unfamiliar to most mortal races and although some are studying this, it is a slow process that goes at the expense of about everything else. To make up for the lack of classes I am selecting some classes from other books. CW's Swashbuckler will give some use to Intelligence for example. And the CAdv's Ninja and Scout will put a use to Wisdom. For the Paladin and Ranger I will be using UA's spelless variants, and although not particular important for statistics the Paladin will be renamed to Cleric. To fix the problem of healing I might make a variant of the Brew Potion feature to allow for alchemical versions of some potions to supplement the Paladin's Lay on Hands ability.
I didn't think this would matter to question about the ability scores, and I also wanted to know what people's thoughts where without this information, that's why I did not mention it right away.

I see where you are going now. I don't think your system is too harsh for what you are doing. I might make it even more strict.

Roll up a few ability point arrays. And then have them roll off for the arrays. Say you have 4 players, then they can roll off for who roles first for the array. Then you roll for the 3 left, then the 2 left, then finally, the last person gets the last one. Two arrays are +6 ability modifier, and the other two are +5. After they roll for races and arrays, then let them apply the racial trait to their array. Then, they can pick their class. The arrays that you use should be completely set. Don't let them switch two scores at all. The only real choice they should have is between two races (and their racial modifiers) and then their class.

I like it, and I would like playing in this game. I like the idea that you are going to reduce magic to near nothing, and that your players have little to say about "how they were born." They do get some say in what profession/class they were in. I would definitely find a 0 level variant for this type of game. Start them at negative XP, or just redesign the 0-point for your XP chart (your new chart makes 500 xp for instance, the point for first level). Make them earn that first class. Give them some small amount of racial HD at the 0-level. Elves and half-elves get 1d3, halflings and gnomes get 1d2, dwarves and humans get 1d4, and half-orcs and the like get 1d5. Their first class will mean more to them if they do this. If you pull off the world, then the players will be very rewarded when they defeat that first big encounter. The sense of reward is greatest when you are just over ordinary. The PC's will be more special then the average Thorgar, but they will not just steamroll over the world like an old-school comic book superhero.

I like the feel of ordinary heroes. Definitely kill a few of them early. Heck, I would have a wagon roll over one of them at 0-level as they try to rush across town with a message to their master. This type of death will make the world seem tough and that will make success even more worth it when it finally comes!

Aluvial

 

[Aluvial]

I can't imagine what a PC is going to do when they break a bone, considering that the only spell which can heal those is Regenerate. A fighter who realistically breaks his leg jumping down a hill is going to be laid up for quite some time unless the party has access to a 13th level cleric.

You are right, but in a game like this, you would have to just lay in bed and heal. You might get some of the achemical chicken soup to help things a long just a tad bit faster then regularly healing, perhaps an expensive pultice that just gives you a rash, but otherwise, you are leg propped up in the inn, hoping that you can get back out there and scrounge some coin to pay your mounting tavern and whoring bill. If you can't pay that bill... well, you better have made some good friends, becuase otherwise, you are going to be hauled off to the stocks for being a debter... and that's a bad, bad place to heal that broken leg.

Where do I sign up? I love the idea. I may just have to change my upcoming Kingmaker campaign. My players are getting bored anyway... this will make driving off/killing the stag-lord even more juicy.

Aluvial