D&D General She Rolled Two 18s.

[Zardnaar]

I actually asked for- and got to play- a 1Ed human fighter named Bear: all physical stats maxed, all mental stats at 6. Essentially a gentle giant type who was the bodyguard for the party’s thief.

Fun to play...because of the RP dynamic, not because of the stats. Bear did what he was told, and that sometimes put the thief’s goals and objectives ahead of the party’s.

I had a player like that. Always played a fighter named Arnold. Used that drop 2 points raise a point rule to get a low intelligence as possible and an 18 strength.

Tended to die alit, he got one to level 14, told the DM he was invulnerable and died the following week in a pit trap.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In Bear‘s case, the thief set events in motion that resulted in both of their deaths- Bear’s heroically, the thief’s, cowardly.

 

[Zardnaar]

Heh oh well.

I went a bit easy on her as it's kinda my fault she died as I messed up an encounter. Not in dice rolling just replacement character in ballpark.

Letting her start with a staff if healing as the others have better items, there's some awesome stuff coming up that she won't benefit from to much. Dragonslayer Lance's, dragon armor things like that.

There's a pair of dragon siblings they're trying to politic around.

 

[GreyLord]

That's interesting. I started with 2E, and the both times in recent years I tried gaming in 1e games they insisted on 'playing it by the book' and rolling 3d6 in order.

It did feel like a tedious and masochistic exercise both times.

That's actually not really...by the book either (unless one ignores the advice specifically given on characters rolled with 3d6 only prior to the Methods given for rolling characters).

He suggests instead the following as four alternatives for player characters...

The Default, or Method I is

All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

Method 2 has all scores being rolled and arranged as Method 1 but 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 are used.

Method 3, has it so that each ability score is rolled in order with 3d6, but you roll 6 times for each ability score and keep the highest out of the six rolls for each score

Method IV has 3d6 rolled to generate 6 ability scores in order for 12 (yes, that's TWELVE) characters and then you select whichever one you want.

None of them were roll 3d6 in order ironically as the generating method. (I should add that he does mention to generate playable characters by rolling 3d6 it is a little discouraged and indicated they are marginal and tend to have short life expectancy). When the PHB came out I suppose one could have used the OD&D method (if they were old enough to even have been playing that, but I find most people were not part of that crowd), but technically the methods to rolling came later in the DMG (page 11 of the reprints). With OD&D later on, there were various ways of generating Ability scores so...not really buying that they were from that era of gaming.

More normally those who play it that way got their start with either BECMI or BX and kept generating scores with those methods rather than what was suggested in the AD&D books from what I gather (the 3d6 in order method).

In generating ability scores the AD&D PHB actually references the DMG as telling what methods should be used to generate ability scores.

HOWEVER...as Gygax basically said the books were more like...guidelines...anything could be by the book...but 3d6 rolled in order wasn't really one that was suggested for AD&D. (He did go over a bell curve of 3d6 on pages 9-10 however).

 

[Don Durito]

That's actually not really...by the book either (unless one ignores the advice specifically given on characters rolled with 3d6 only prior to the Methods given for rolling characters).

He suggests instead the following as four alternatives for player characters...

The Default, or Method I is

All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

Method 2 has all scores being rolled and arranged as Method 1 but 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 are used.

Method 3, has it so that each ability score is rolled in order with 3d6, but you roll 6 times for each ability score and keep the highest out of the six rolls for each score

Method IV has 3d6 rolled to generate 6 ability scores in order for 12 (yes, that's TWELVE) characters and then you select whichever one you want.

None of them were roll 3d6 in order ironically as the generating method. (I should add that he does mention to generate playable characters by rolling 3d6 it is a little discouraged and indicated they are marginal and tend to have short life expectancy). When the PHB came out I suppose one could have used the OD&D method (if they were old enough to even have been playing that, but I find most people were not part of that crowd), but technically the methods to rolling came later in the DMG (page 11 of the reprints). With OD&D later on, there were various ways of generating Ability scores so...not really buying that they were from that era of gaming.

More normally those who play it that way got their start with either BECMI or BX and kept generating scores with those methods rather than what was suggested in the AD&D books from what I gather (the 3d6 in order method).

In generating ability scores the AD&D PHB actually references the DMG as telling what methods should be used to generate ability scores.

HOWEVER...as Gygax basically said the books were more like...guidelines...anything could be by the book...but 3d6 rolled in order wasn't really one that was suggested for AD&D. (He did go over a bell curve of 3d6 on pages 9-10 however).

I think there's a certain perception among some that 3d6 in order is the 'proper' way to do it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Many women in my circle would have found that humourous too, especially the roleplayers.

Secondly I don't think you should be white-knighting this thread by being the self-appointed spokesperson for what many women may or may not like. That is far worse than some 'pretend-crude' comment.

I had to google white-knighting. That's funny. Is that like being woke? Or is it like cancel culture? I don't get the mob mentality and up in arms nature of these buzzwords... I'd rather come up with my own opinions, based on reason.

Listen, I didn't like those comments. If you like them, or don't, or just don't care... honestly immaterial to me. To me, personal, objectifying comments about complete strangers to complete strangers is just poor social skills. It propagates a standard of behaviour that I don't like to see. You can be funny or cool or whatever effect you're going for and not be disrespectful at the same time. If you can't do that, you have some work to do on the way you socialise and interact with others. Plain and simple. I have a couple of teenage daughters. I'd prefer they grow up in a world where a person objectifying another is not funny.

 

[Sadras]

I had to google white-knighting. That's funny. Is that like being woke? Or is it like cancel culture? I don't get the mob mentality and up in arms nature of these buzzwords... I'd rather come up with my own opinions, based on reason.

It is not mob metality, it's allowing one to be more succinct.

Listen, I didn't like those comments. If you like them, or don't, or just don't care... honestly immaterial to me. To me, personal, objectifying comments about complete strangers to complete strangers is just poor social skills. It propagates a standard of behaviour that I don't like to see. You can be funny or cool or whatever effect you're going for and not be disrespectful at the same time. If you can't do that, you have some work to do on the way you socialise and interact with others. Plain and simple. I have a couple of teenage daughters. I'd prefer they grow up in a world where a person objectifying another is not funny.

I'm hundreds with people have a personal opinion and expressing it, I'm not so forgiving if they assume the position of speaking for all or many women. In this instance many being more than one's immediate circle.

 

[Lanefan]

You can be funny or cool or whatever effect you're going for and not be disrespectful at the same time.

Heh - I'd rather just be equally disrepectful to everyone; that way nobody feels left out.

 

[keynup]

I wasn't planning on reviving the derailment, but if its already off the tracks . . .

Talking to a random women about her "pair of big ones" would be creepy even if she was wearing 12 inch hoop earrings (or some other large items she had).

But

This is clearly not the case. This entire conversation started with talking about a pair of 18's. It's one thing to misunderstand if something has 2 meanings, but to insist on that the worst possible interpretation without any justification, is completely disrespectful to the person making the comment.

I find it annoying when people assume the worst, when it could have been solved by simply asking for clarification.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'm hundreds with people have a personal opinion and expressing it, I'm not so forgiving if they assume the position of speaking for all or many women. In this instance many being more than one's immediate circle.

Why do you feel I'm standing up for many women? This is white knighting right? I'm speaking for me, nobody else. I'm sure you mean well, but I find this assumption you've made quite strange.