Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3748815" data-attributes="member: 18549">This would make me shoot for having the highest hubris score.  I would win, you see, having the highest score.  I think I would increase my abilities beyond what I thought I wanted just to make sure I had the highest score.This, not so much.Currently, I use point buy, but here's a system I've used in the past to good effect:The players all have the same stats, and they are generated communally.  They each roll 4d6, and drop the lowest die.  If there are less than 6 players, the DM rolls the extras until there are 6 ability score values.  The players themselves are numbered (usually in the order they sit around the table).  These constitute "array #1".  The players then vote on whether they keep the scores or try again.  If they try again, they scrap all the scores and roll a completely new set, array #2.  However, player #1's contribution to array #2 is fixed.  Whatever he rolls, that number stays in all future arrays.  The players then vote on whether to keep array #2.  If they don't, player 1 doesn't get to roll again since his contribution is now fixed.  Player #2's roll for array #3 is the next one to get fixed.  And so on.On each rejected set of stats, an additional ability score value is fixed before the players know what it will be.  So they gamble between the possibility of getting better scores (a diminishing chance) and ending up with multiple crappy scores getting fixed.  When I tried it for a campaign, I think we got to array #5 before we quit.  I noticed that if a good roll gets fixed, the players are more likely to reject the array, because they have a good roll "in the bank" and can afford to gamble against another good roll coming up.I think the results came out to about 34 or 36 points, but I don't have them anymore to check.</blockquote>

Verification