Stat Generation - your wierd and wacky ways

[StreamOfTheSky]

Should probably add, if people think 2 18's is kind of high, these attribute distributions are for high-powered games. i just find them more amusing.

 

[Nyaricus]

Streamofthesky, like i said - this thread isn't about whether you like rolling for stats or not, its just for fun to see who likes what. Your cutting little comments hidden in "examples" don't do your points any justice; the fact that you continued on with your rant without even addressing Man in the Funny Hat or my comments is insulting - on top of insulting us in the first place. I don't like point buy, and i doubt i'd use the "we're all adults here" method either (mainly because the guys i play with are . . .well, not adults) - but i am not going to start saying that "dice-rollers are little whiners" if i like those ways of stat generation. Learn some manners, then repost your "critiques".

 

[Shellman]

We played with using a base of 10 and rolled a d8 for each stat once in a high-powered. campaign. We've also used stats that were arranged ahead of time (ex. 16,15,14,13,12,11) arranged as we chose.

Those numbers equal a 36 point stat buy.

My group plays using a 32 or 36 point buy all the time because we have all been gaming for too many years, no one wants to start out lower than 5th level anymore. but thats just my group.

 

[IndyPendant]

This is a post about ways to have fun with stat generation - not an anti-PB thread. If you like point buy, then thats all you really ahd to say - as you can see, people obviously like random stat gen - which is really no more random then any other aspect of the D&D game, other then the fact that it stays with for your career.

This...is actually a good point. I chimed in with an anti-pointbuy post, without actually offering what I do (and have done) myself for chargen--and that didn't address the OP's question. Sorry about that. I'll get to describing one thing I've done--that didn't work very well--at the end of this post.

One quibble tho: "the fact that it stays with you for your career" is a very big deal. As Stream pointed out--no other die roll affects your char so completely and permanently. Even hitpoints average out over time (in theory). This should not be so blithely tossed out and then dismissed out of hand.

If you have a character that is truely un-playable, then you should have the right to a re-roll. Players don't whine and pine all the time, or everytime about this. If they do, its probably more meta-game then not, and thats something you need to address out of game. Sorry you have had such a bad experience with this, but its just one other intersting aspect of D&D - a game that is based on dice, should start with dice. There, i said it. And the fact is, i could say many more things about your post about players and how they "always act." But i won't, because you are obviously stuck in quite the rut. My condolences.

The problem here is that everyone's idea of 'unplayable' is different. That is a lot of what I meant when I said the player that can wheedle the best is often favoured by random statgen.

In rereading the post I made, I've realized it had a...highly antagonistic tone. I honestly did not mean to state that players or GMs are evil for preferring random statgen. I was very careful to word my post so that the attack was aimed at the *concept* of using random statgen, and not the players (if you reread the post, you'll clearly see that)--but failed to clearly state that fact out front. Thus, the tone does not come over very well at all, and I apologize for that.

To reiterate: I did not intend to attack the players for using random statgen. Only the concept itself. I have very strong opinions against random statgen, and will argue long and hard against it if/when it comes up in any game I'm involved in--but I won't think less of the GM/Players for using it. It just would be a huge incentive for me to quit the game. : )

I have seen far more creative, memorable characters using random generation than I think I could ever hope to see with point buy. However, while I greatly dislike point-buy I do not despise anyone who prefers non-random methods as you seem to despise anyone who fails to conform to YOUR preferences. The fact is that random methods and non-random methods each have their faults and benefits. Do not make the mistake of thinking that we all need to conform to a unified method of play.

See, my experience has been the opposite. Given random statgen, the people who most seemed to enjoy their char--and make them the most memorable--are the ones where the weaknesses fit the concept already. Unless you're talking about laughing at how the clumsy ranger failed his balance check and toppled from the bridge into the pit of lava or something (to pick an extreme example)--which is rather like kidding on the square.

And I never said that people had to agree with me. Again, my post was perhaps too strong, and could have been worded more clearly, but I stated right in the beginning that this was my opinion, and concluded by stating that I would never GM a random statgen game and probably not PC in it. Never did I actually state that everyone should do as I say. (This is a common difficulty people face in a debate: the perception that an attack on the *idea* is a demand to conform. Mine was not. It was just an--admittedly strong--description of my own thoughts on random statgen.)

And this...Is a clear contradiction in your position.

Actually, this is incorrect. As you directly quoted in your own post, I was only countering the idea that similar stats result in cookie-cutter chars. I never stated stats were unimportant. They are very important. But whereas in previous editions stats were one of the biggest things that differentiated two chars, that is simply no longer true since 3e. So the cookie-cutter threat is a weak justification for random statgen.

I believe Li Shenron has it right, when he says that random statgen is popular primarily because that's the way it's always been done. However, just like the QWERTY keyboard layout is *terrible*, yet we're stuck with it simply because that's what we're used to, random statgen isn't good simply because it's always been used. On the other hand, random statgen is also a lot easier to get rid of...: )

Now, to (finally!) respond to the OP's request: I have actually GM'd a straight 1-for-1 80-point statgen method. (Where the chars could have 18, 18, 14, 12, 10, 8 for example.) I'd have to say it didn't work too well. It contributed to chars that were a bit too powerful. Not enough checks for the balance. 80/1-for-1 isn't quite the same as standard point-buy, because there aren't the increasing costs for higher stats. Imo, the best chargen method I've yet seen is the usual pointbuy, with a 28-36 range, depending on how (un)heroic you want them to be.

But then, I tend to be a rather lenient GM when it comes to stats for chargen. I give players 3-5 full sessions where they have pretty much complete freedom to redesign anything about their char they don't like, before locking them down. The way I look at it: barring permadeath, ideally they'll be 'stuck' with that char for years. So give the players a little time and freedom to tweak their chars until they are just right for the player.

But...*shrug*. Your game, your rules.

 

[Nyaricus]

evening, IndyPendant

well, first off, thank you for reiterating your positions. I would just like to say that probably Man in the Funny hat said it best:

But wait - if you use point buy then you don't get whatever stats you want for your character. You abide by limitations set by your chosen method of generation. Myself, I find point buy to be Draconian in disallowing some characters to have better stats than others (because I do not consider it in ANY way unfair for one player to have a character that is superior to another character.) It also tends to result in unacceptably formulaic characters (a tendency exhibited with any method that allows a character to be "designed").

either way, this stands true. And, since D&D is the way it is, that's the way it will be. Tradition is tradition, and although we are now using d20's for rolling instead of reffering to THAC0, D&D remains very much the same - in both flavour (medieval fantasy-based game) and mechanically (such as rolling to see in you "hit" etc).

I have one quibble myself though, about your quibble:

One quibble tho: "the fact that it stays with you for your career" is a very big deal. As Stream pointed out--no other die roll affects your char so completely and permanently. This should not be so blithely tossed out and then dismissed out of hand.

The fact is, your stats stay the same with rolling/random gen or with Point Buy - either way you abide by limitations set by your chosen method of generation. I was not "tossing it out" - merely stating that i was well aware of that facet of the "problem", and i knew that someone would exploit that fact before i could say otherwise - what i was doing was merely reiterating the obvious. What you start with is what you end with, unless you live long enough to change that fact (+to stats, magic items, wish spell, etc).

Anyways, perhaps the obvious thing to do is to agree to disagree. It is admirable that you like something that is held "within the minority" as StreamoftheSky said. Thats cool - and the fact is, D&D players and DM's are oftentime seen as a minority group; but that truely doesn't matter, does it? This is a pastime that captures many a person's wildest dreams, and screams at them go on adventures into the darkest chasms and mighiest mountains on that quest. Some are ignorent (still) of what it is. I once had a girl, whom i was courting, who didn't want to go out with me because i was (and still am) atheist, and because "D&D is a satanic game". Give me a break. Her loss , anyways.

Still like my rolling for stats though

 

[genshou]

I'm doing a standard point-buy (28) with a modification on ability increases. Instead of getting a straight +1 to an ability, players get points at certain levels. This way it's more difficult to increase your higher stats (which makes a certain amount of sense).

2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th = +1 points
12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 20th = +2 points

This is similar to what I use.

From another thread (some parts edited/added):
Ability scores are rolled as normal. Some players end up getting lucky, others get the shaft. However...

At 2nd-level and each level thereafter, the PC can spend points as per the point-buy rules, to increase their scores. They start with 25 "effective points" at 1st-level, and get level/4 (round up) points each time they increase in level. If this is compared with the point-buy values of the character's actual, current scores and they are found wanting, they get to buy ability score increases by spending those points.

Some caveats:

• If a character has remarkably high ability scores, they can sometimes end up getting no increase for many levels! To cover this, make sure that a character gets at least the +1 to one score every 4 levels until their effective points reach the actual value of their scores.
  
• Characters cannot increase any one ability score by more than one point per level. Thus, if you start with 0 points, (or less, if you use the option that scores of 7,6,5 and so on are -1,-2,-3 points and so on on the point-buy chart), you will be able to increase every score by 1 every level until you've got heroic scores, but you can't get a sudden jump in a single level.
  
• When you use this rule, you have to keep track of racial, inherent, magic item, etc. bonuses to ability scores somehow, as they don't factor into the point-buy values. This makes for a bit more book-keeping, though truthfully no more than I normally do anyway. But certainly not for everyone.

 

[genshou]

I think the ability generation method varies with the type of campaign. Most of my campaigns are the "little guy swept up in the big events" model and I always toy with the idea of rolling 3d6 and assigning the first to Strength, second to Dex, etc. I've never had the courage to force my players to do it, though, and was wondering if anyone actually has. I think it's fairly realistic and players would then put a lot more thought into what they would be effective as, but I imagine it creates unbalanced parties. If no one has a high Wisdom, for example, the party is without a cleric, which is doable, but a party without a fighter, for example, or any spellcasters is in trouble. I think it might work a lot better in a d20 Modern game and if I ever GM one of those I might try it out.
My question got a little lost in the middle so I'll repeat it here: Has anyone actually ever tried the 3d6 (or 4d6, drop lowest) roll six times and apply the first to Str, second to Dex, etc. method?

I've toyed with this idea as well, but using the rules explained in the above post. The characters would start out less than stellar, but afterward would become very heroic as time went by.

To be a bit fairer, though, I grant retroactive skill points and languages. Though that's a bit off-topic.

Edit: Tacking on some other stuff to "save on postage"

We did that once, quite recently actually, but in addition to the 3d6 we all got some generous bonuses derived from the parents' stats (playing the children of our old characters in that campaign).

Bye
Thanee

This is one way in which I have gained some gaming mileage from the Complete Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. The method they made for generating the ability scores for children is the best I've seen yet!

I just thought I'd chime in with my opinion on this, because it's a strong one.

I really don't understand how it could be considered 'fun' to have stats you don't want for your char. Pointbuy already comes with checks and balances--and you can have weaknesses where you want them, instead of forced upon you. Random statgen tends to favour those who are simply lucky, or those who can whine and wheedle the GM the best. Those who favour random statgen seem to think that if the party has two fighter types, one of whom is clearly superior stat-wise to the other, the weaker character's player is considered 'immature' if he can't 'suck it up' and enjoy the character.

Bullcrap. Utter, complete claptrap.

This mindset seems to translate to "Keep the players down. Never let them play quite the character they want. Give the character a flaw the player hates. If the player doesn't like it, that's his problem. What a wuss." I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to play under a GM like that. (And I have in my early years, before I learned to be picky. Many times... *shudder* : )

The fact is, it is perfectly natural to compare your char to others. And if the *only* reason why his char is better than yours is due to six rolls of the dice...you're going to have problems with that. And for something your character would have to live with for the rest of its existance! Sure, if you're mature, you can rise above all that--but why should you have to?

One of the biggest claims in support of dicerolling stats is that pointbuy and similar methods produce 'cookie-cutter' chars. Now, this was sort of true in previous editions of DND, where stats, gear, level, and HPs were pretty much the only things that differentiated Fighter A from Fighter B.

However, in 3.0 and 3.5e, this is no longer the case. Stats are a very minor aspect of a char. There are races, classes, skills, feats, prestige classes, chosen spells, etc etc. It would be *very hard* for two different players to create the exact same character. They would have to really work at it!

Random statgen is an insult to the player (you're not a good enough roleplayer to allow your character any weaknesses!) and it's mean-spirited (like an adult holding a candy just out of a toddler's reach. "Yes, these are the stats you *could* have--but The Dice Gods Say No!")

Random statgen will never, ever appear in a campaign I run. And the game would have to be otherwise VERY good for me to even consider accepting it as a player.

I agree entirely. But if you used my method (or a variant thereof which grants less total points over time), would that change your attitude even a little? Just curious as that's the intent for which I made that system in the first place, to make things nicer for people like you and I, while still allowing for characters to be "good" or "bad" at lower levels.

 

[Nyaricus]

HA HA HA

a reference to The Complete Guild to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (!!)

damn, was that a funny book - I never saw the section on children getting stats from their parents though; I'll have to re-read it

 

[mirivor]

I am a brutal DM that prefers character power coming from experience and levels as opposed to uber-stats that make a 1st level fighter the offensive equivalent of a 4th level fighter, so my method is straight 10s and 12 points to buy stats up on a point-for-point basis (Max 18 before racial adjustments).

 

[Conaill]

Paging Man in a Funny Hat... paging Man in a Funny Hat...

Just want to make sure you saw my response above, as it seems like you may have misunderstood howm many (or rather how few) 18's the "mirror" method actually generates...