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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7211070" data-attributes="member: 6778044">So this is an interesting statement, because it's pretty much exactly how we developed our system. Look at the goals, and choose or design what works for your goals. And I totally agree, if the standard array or point buy meets your goals, then use it.But there are a few fallacies in your statement that continue to come up, and while it might be true at many tables, it certainly isn't at mine, and can be addressed in any system - random, point buy, hybrid (like the Moldvay basic).1. Forcing players to play characters they may not want to play. I don't think I'm alone here in saying that even though I prefer rolling that I would never, ever force a player to play a character they do not want to play. That includes stats. That's why the standard array is always an option at my games.2. That rolling gives higher than standard array most of the time. First, I'd dispute this because statistically it can't be correct. Observationally, I'd suggest that people tend to remember the ones that were higher than normal. Particularly if they are the type of player that has a focus on ability scores, character builds, etc., it's probably more noticeable. Not all folks rolling are doing so because they might roll higher than the standard array. I'm sure some do. I'd say to some degree, if that's the goal, then they should be held to the result of their roll.And that's probably where this does become a problem and present an uneven distribution. If people aren't playing in good faith, and they are rolling simply to get around the limits, or roll higher than the standard array, then yes, that will skew the numbers. If they aren't required to stick with what they roll (see #1), then they won't be "happy" until they see something they think is better.But that's also easy enough to address with the design of the random rolling system. For example, if you don't want anybody to have lower than an 8 or higher than 14, then start with 6 + 2d4. They can't exceed the standard array's limits, but they still might be able to roll a little better than the standard array. Or you can set a total point limit, and value anything above a number (like 15) as counting as two points, or whatever variation you want. Of course, if rolling randomly isn't important to you for other reasons, this is more complex than just using the standard array.Perhaps that's a good test to understand why a particular player does roll randomly. If the option for me was 6 + 2d4 or standard array, I'd still roll. Because it's not about rolling high for me.3. Mechanical and balance issues. What I think some are really saying is that you want everybody to have the same number of points to work with, potentially with some flexibility and boundaries. That at the end of character creation, everybody's numbers add up to the same total. That's one method of balance, but not one I agree with. In many of these arguments, a single point of difference is virtually game breaking to some folks. And I just don't agree with that. But if it's that important to the group, then yes, there will be no random generation system that will meet those goals.Your example of the Moldvay basic is interesting, in part because it's a hybrid random/point buy system. But your objection is that people used it to make sure every fighter had an 18, etc. But that's simple enough to eliminate by the design of the system. They said you couldn't reduce an ability below 9, and you could just as easily introduce a roll that says you can't increase an ability above 15 or 16, or something like that. If so, you could roll an 18, but not buy it, and that would address your overabundance of 18s.That's not evidence that rolling was bad, especially since it then let you SKU the roll probabilities by altering the abilities. But the design of the system might have been poor. On the other hand, that was the line that eventually let you become a god, and from an old AD&D guy, BECMI always seemed to favor the (super) heroic type of fantasy, and that very well may have been intentional.I don't recall BECMI well enough, but in Holmes basic, only your prime ability had any sort of benefit, outside of Constitution (which you couldn't modify) and Dexterity (which you couldn't lower) which would grant you a +1/-1 modifier to missile attacks. Other than that, ability scores were virtually useless from what I recall, so there was no reason to maintain anything higher than a 9 Intelligence or Wisdom unless those were your prime abilities. So the design intent was different.</blockquote>

Verification