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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9018067">There were always extreme edges with anything. We once had a player in our group who regularly made suboptimal and slightly annoying characters (to the point that they were hard to adventure with). That could be a problem just as a mismatch between "roleplayters" and "min-mixers" could be a problem. Things like making the worst fighter in the world. That can be entertaining in the right group but as with anything the vibe of the play group matters. But what I found is there was a lot more openness to characters who weren't all that great because people were putting more of a premium on story and the interior world of the characters (rather than what they were capable of). My point is more about making the default in 2E, Method I---roll 3d6 straight down, no moving scores around. People sometimes forget the impact that had on the kinds of characters you could play. That naturally led to characters who simply weren't optimized. And sometimes even choosing a sub-optimal character (because it may at least have felt like a more interesting choice than an incredibly middle of the road Fighter or Thief). Wheres both 3E and 1E used methods designed to make more capable characters. 3E and later editions are totally different. With those you often start with a character concept and build it (or at least with a class you would like to play). But with 2E, using Method I, you couldn't even anticipate what class you would be eligible to play until you rolled all your stats. In fairness they listed the other methods as options (a lot of things in 2E were options, so on top of being default what I just described, it also tended to vary wildly from group to group depending on what options they chose).</blockquote>

Verification