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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7263576" data-attributes="member: 29398">An all-over-the-place reply to stuff here...Well, to be picky, you haven't.  The dice have, via random chance.Fair point; I'd forogtten about the low-average-high ratings from 1e - even though I play and DM it, and give most species stat ranges rather than fixed numbers, I haven't used those actual terms for ages - to the point I'd forgotten they were even there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  So no human commoner can have Int less than 10?Hey, can we please have this idea ported over to the real world somehow? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />More seriously: dumb rule.  I guess the 5e designers wanted to give DMs places to practice their shiny new rulings-not-rules powers...And you know, I can get squarely behind what [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] says here.  A character really should be more than just the sum of its numbers.I guess the question then becomes one of how important and how persistent that meta-game perspective is at any given table, because if it's low then stats aren't important...which means balancing them out isn't that important either...which means you can roll the dice without fear... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />What Oofta says here also points to another whole can of worms: does everything about a character need to be somehow reflected in the mechanics, or can the underlying mechanics be largely the same (and very simple) with personality and characterization representing the in-play differences?  In 1e, most Fighters are mechanically very similar once you strip the paint off - and this isn't a problem at all provided players give their characters enough character to in effect bury the mechanics in personality.  But - and I think this started in late 2e and certainly came into vogue with 3e - players started looking for mechanics to reflect their character ideas, leading to (in 3e/PF) an overcooked skill system, boatloads of prestige classes and an avalanche of feats; some of which are still around in 5e and all of which do very little other than complicate the game and (for someone like me) get in the way.Either way, there's still a number of char-gen methods available in 1e and most noteworthy for this discussion is that they all involve rolling dice.In 0e, you mean?  In 1e the players roll, based on whatever option the DM is using for that game.This points to yet another big change over the editions, though (man, we're hitting 'em all today!): in early editions what went on behind the DM's screen was a mystery to players.  As time has gone on more and more of the game mechanics have been both exposed and moved to the player side.  A clear example of this is that before 3e the DM had a combat matrix that determined your fighting capability (which she could tinker with if she wanted!); in 3e this information and mechanic moved to the player side: your BAB was right there on your sheet.Both as DM and player I prefer the mystery.Lan-"buried in personality, on a good day"-efan</blockquote>

Verification