Random Height and Weight

For humans at least, I think one could use real world BMI as a baseline for healthy folk-- assuming, of course, that BMI maps roughly into CON (eg, "healthiness"). If you assume that DEX roughly correlates with "skinniness" and STR with "bulkiness" (and therefore weight), you might be able to figure out some upper- and lower-limit values for someone with a "average or better CON". Then just stretch that out to include the less healthy folks in the population.

The tough part would be coming up "real world" BMIs for non-existent races like elves and dwarves. But even that's somewhat guessable, at least from stereotypes: elves average out to lower BMIs (because they're thinner) while dwarves have higher healthy BMIs (shorter, but much denser).

Aargh, if I wasn't going out of town tomorrow, I'd try to do djinn up a table or three.... Maybe in a few days....
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You'll notice, in this scenario, something that Water Bob (the original poster) has already responded to you with:

You'll notice, that i was answering to frankthedm, and specifically to the: "If you just let Players pick their weights..."

It's the player's call. He's looking for a more in-depth random roll chart for those who want to use it.

I don't think that's unreasonable, nor do I think the notion is useless, as the large majority of people realistically do follow certain guidelines is real life, which a random chart that incorporates physical stats would reflect. Making it optional also accepts the possibility of exceptions to the rule, which Water Bob has already made clear he plans to allow.

It's useless because the combinations between physical abilities and body mass/height/weight are so many and varied that it is impossible to portray them by a chart with a + for Str and a - for Dex. That would probably require complicated algorithms to achieve.

Why not let players choose..? Its accurate in respect to players' needs, and the DM has always the final word.
 


This is not always the case.

A Tennis player has a pretty strong swing, but he's not bulky.

Swartzeneger could never serve as strongly as Federer, and Arnie is three times bigger than Federer.
Yup. And Federer's Dex is likely a lot higher than Ahnold's, too.

I've seen plenty of tennis matches and cage fights. That's why I said "roughly correlates with" rather than "is". These are game stats we're discussing here, not reality. There will be some slop in the figures. ;)
 
Last edited:

Yup. And Federer's Dex is likely a lot higher than Ahnold's, too.

Not too difficult to imagine! I think most ppl on this world are more dexterous than Arnie ;)

On the other hand that doesn't mean that a guy more heavy than Federer, is necessarily less dexterous...

That's why I said "roughly correlates with" rather than "is".

Correct. I missed that.



...yet is this "roughly" so important so as to somehow incorporate it in a weight table?


... don't know...IMHO its not all that important in the game.......
 

...yet is this "roughly" so important so as to somehow incorporate it in a weight table?

... don't know...IMHO its not all that important in the game.......
But in the OP's game? Yes, it is. That's why he's asking here! And that's why it's stilll an interesting thing to ponder, even though it's not something I'm likely to get my own players to agree to.

But, if it helps him or someone else who plays a gritty game, then extra XP all around! On me! ;)
 
Last edited:

Jimlock said:
You'll notice, that i was answering to frankthedm, and specifically to the: "If you just let Players pick their weights..."

That's true. However, in the situation where both is allowed (picking and rolling randomly), how can you still be against that? Optional rules like this are literally tailored to help people play their preference, not to kill options.

It's useless because the combinations between physical abilities and body mass/height/weight are so many and varied that it is impossible to portray them by a chart with a + for Str and a - for Dex. That would probably require complicated algorithms to achieve.

Why not let players choose..? Its accurate in respect to players' needs, and the DM has always the final word.

I'm advocated doing what Water Bob proposed... letting people choose if they want to, roll if they want to, or roll and modify. Direct me to where I said otherwise, if you think I did.

Additionally, no complex algorithm is necessary once you allow all three options (pick, roll, or roll and modify). As long as it's roughly accurate for what you want in your game (in terms of average ranges), than the three proposed methods allow for what you're looking for, and for what someone else might be looking for.

Not too difficult to imagine! I think most ppl on this world are more dexterous than Arnie ;)

On the other hand that doesn't mean that a guy more heavy than Federer, is necessarily less dexterous...

No one is saying that. You have the rolling table, for averages. You have roll and modify, for customization within or slightly out of the average. Then, you have pick and choose, which allows you to be as far as out the average as the GM allows. Why you'd oppose this is beyond me.

...yet is this "roughly" so important so as to somehow incorporate it in a weight table?

... don't know...IMHO its not all that important in the game.......

As a completely optional rule that makes people happy? I think the small amount of work that would go into such a table that would make someone else happy in the game is not a bad thing. Is happiness important? I think so. Is the table necessary for that? Nope, but why you'd advocate against it is, again, somewhat baffling to me.
 

Additionally, no complex algorithm is necessary once you allow all three options (pick, roll, or roll and modify). As long as it's roughly accurate for what you want in your game (in terms of average ranges), than the three proposed methods allow for what you're looking for, and for what someone else might be looking for.

What is the point of rolling and then modifying the roll when you can actually set the numbers as you like?

No one is saying that. You have the rolling table, for averages. You have roll and modify, for customization within or slightly out of the average. Then, you have pick and choose, which allows you to be as far as out the average as the GM allows. Why you'd oppose this is beyond me.

As a completely optional rule that makes people happy? I think the small amount of work that would go into such a table that would make someone else happy in the game is not a bad thing. Is happiness important? I think so. Is the table necessary for that? Nope, but why you'd advocate against it is, again, somewhat baffling to me.

The way i see it, rolling for Height/Weight is like rolling to see in which ability each ability score will go... Like having rolled... say 16,8,11,6,13,12 and THEN roll to see which ability takes what...randomly.

Players should be concerned about how tall or how much their characters weight. It's part of what their characters are.

When i create a character i like to know/imagine how he looks like. From head to toe. What his hair looks like, what his clothes look like, how tall he is etc. etc. There is now way I'm leaving this to luck. Just as I decide if my character is smarter than he is strong, I also decide if he is short or tall.
It's all part of character creation.

Even when I DM, my players do the same. That's how we play.

That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.

I was merely trying to point out the following facts:

1-Str does not necessarily mean "stocky", nor does Dex necessarily means "skinny". Therefore by applying modifiers based on ability scores is misleading.

2-Weight/Height numbers do not affect the mechanics of the game. Even if what frankthedm said makes some cense, it's hardly something that can break the game. If the players are such munchkins that are willing to pick the lowest weight possible so as to profit from weight limits and mounts' carrying capacities, I bet that the DM will have bigger problems with his players than this...

3-Weight/Height are part of what a character is. Such ineffectual numbers should be left on the players to define, so that they create characters as they picture them. Rolling can bring numbers that go against a player's will. Even if a player does not care, and is willing to roll, he should be impelled to decide on his own so as to get a better idea of the character he is making.

Again: That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.
 

What is the point of rolling and then modifying the roll when you can actually set the numbers as you like?

Because you don't have an exact idea on how you want to look, or because you aren't feeling too particular about it currently, or because you aren't good with a height to weight ratio based on stats, or because you want to, etc.

The way i see it, rolling for Height/Weight is like rolling to see in which ability each ability score will go... Like having rolled... say 16,8,11,6,13,12 and THEN roll to see which ability takes what...randomly.

You see it differently from me (and probably everyone in my group, and likely other people in this thread). It's not the same, as the ramifications are much, much less than stat allocation.

Players should be concerned about how tall or how much their characters weight. It's part of what their characters are.

I think players should have fun. To this end, if they will have fun rolling on a chart, even if you don't think they "should" than more power to them.

When i create a character i like to know/imagine how he looks like. From head to toe. What his hair looks like, what his clothes look like, how tall he is etc. etc. There is now way I'm leaving this to luck. Just as I decide if my character is smarter than he is strong, I also decide if he is short or tall.
It's all part of character creation.

Awesome. Some people don't do this. The idea that they're doing it wrong because they aren't doing it the way they "should" is baffling to me on something like this.

Even when I DM, my players do the same. That's how we play.

And I wouldn't recommend otherwise for you, because there's no way you "should" go about this.

That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.

But it is saying they're not doing it the way they "should" and I think that's a bad thing to say.

I was merely trying to point out the following facts:

1-Str does not necessarily mean "stocky", nor does Dex necessarily means "skinny". Therefore by applying modifiers based on ability scores is misleading.

No, but lithe builds tend to be more agile than bulky builds. Strong builds tend to be more bulky than skinny in nature. These are theoretical optional guidelines, set within a game. They will produce something like elves living for 350-750 years, except the range will be smaller, stats will come into play, and above all, it will be optional. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, and they're allowed by the very nature of Water Bob's suggestion of implementation.

2-Weight/Height numbers do not affect the mechanics of the game. Even if what frankthedm said makes some cense, it's hardly something that can break the game. If the players are such munchkins that are willing to pick the lowest weight possible so as to profit from weight limits and mounts' carrying capacities, I bet that the DM will have bigger problems with his players than this...

I agree. On something so unimportant, the idea that some groups adopt an individually optional rule (not even an optional rule that affects the entire group!) is somehow objectionable is ludicrous to me.

3-Weight/Height are part of what a character is. Such ineffectual numbers should be left on the players to define, so that they create characters as they picture them.

Not all players have a set mental image of their character. Your players do. My players put personality first, and create build that reflect that. Neither group is right. I think suggesting that other groups "should" do it the way your group does is wrong.

Rolling can bring numbers that go against a player's will. Even if a player does not care, and is willing to roll, he should be impelled to decide on his own so as to get a better idea of the character he is making.

First of all, if it's optional to roll, and optional to change it after you roll, then it cannot go against a player's will. Period. They have complete control and final say over it.

Secondly, some players have an idea of what they want, but they don't know the specifics yet. They should be allowed some help if they want it, since it's literally hurting nothing since it's something as admittedly mechanically unimportant as character appearance.

Do you know how many times I've played something like Oblivion and stayed at the character creation screen hitting the "random features" button or the like on appearance, just so I can see a potential theme I like and run with it? In basically every game that allows that option. Especially in games that allow multiple races, such as in D&D.

You know what's more fun than spending ten minutes choosing my appearance? Actually playing the game when I'm done. Anything that makes that decision both fun and interesting is a good thing in my mind, and an individually optional rule that allows for this is nothing but a good thing.

Again: That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.

I think you're still saying people "should" be doing it another way, which reeks of badwrongfun or One True Wayism to me. As much as I disagree with Dandu's idea of play on these boards, I've never said he should play differently, nor do I think I should say that. To his credit, he's never said I should play differently. I think that level of courtesy is vital to a constructive discussion.

As always, play what you like :)
 
Last edited:

Forgive my "shoulds". Perhaps they sound more "heavy" than intended.

I stated that:

That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.

...and I closed by:

Again: That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.

In hopes of making it clear that this is not a factor that differentiates a good play from a bad play.

Either you read too much in those "shoulds" or I failed to express my self correctly. In case it's the latter,

I sincerely apologize.

(No sarcasm/irony intended)
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top