The top 100 'Sacred Cows' of Roleplaying

[tahsin]

#16 - Rolling stats.

Ok, now I'm confused. So you mean to say you don't like rolling stats?

I'm not trying to open something up. I just don't understand if you think "Rolling Stats is a sacred cow" and the belief in this should not be a sacred cow or what am I missing?

 

[buzz]

Everybody has different ideas of fun. And, by extension, so does every group. So while a rule may fit perfectly and enhance the fun for one group, they may drastically take away from another's. Since the game wasn't written purely with buzz or shilsen in mind, it will include rules that hamper our individual enjoyment of the game. I think it goes without saying that the GM alter stuff to suit the individual group. But having it mentioned doesn't hurt in any way.

I see what you're saying, but don't agree 100%.

It can depend on the design. HERO and GURPS, e.g., have so many "dials" available for customization that including such a disclaimer makes more sense. The designers have no idea exactly what you're going to use the system for, so make sure to state that you throw out what doesn't work for your intended purpose.

But I also see the same text in far more focused games. Ideally, I think that if the product: is making its goals clear, presenting rules that support these goals, and explain adequately how the players and GM should best use those rules... there should be no disconnect.

E.g., Spycraft 2.0, iirc, does not have text like this. What it does have is a very tight system, and a GM chapter that, instead of providing general advice like most games, actually provides the nuts-and-bolts for tweaking the system (Campaign Qualities), designing missions, and so forth.

Dogs in the Vineyard is at the opposite end of the spectrum from SC2.0, yet it does the exact same thing.

Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine. I've seen more than a few games where, to me at least, it's obvious that the rules do one thing, but the stated goal does the opposite. "Here are some rules for bullet trajectories and tactical movement... but it's really a game about story, so ignore them if they get in the way."

Just seems silly to me.

 

[Galethorn]

Ok, now I'm confused. So you mean to say you don't like rolling stats?

I'm not trying to open something up. I just don't understand if you think "Rolling Stats is a sacred cow" and the belief in this should not be a sacred cow or what am I missing?

Ostensibly, rolling stats has two ultimate outcomes...

1. Some party members are just plain 'better' people than others, which can work, but can also sow resentment ("His paladin is stronger, wiser, tougher, and more charismatic than my fighter! He does the same damage as me, destroys undead, and can heal himself!")

2. You 'level' the playing field enough, with rolling 4d6-lowest and the like, that the difference between characters' overall stats is pointlessly small.

That said, with D&D, I'm not exactly a fan of the point-buy system, either. If anything, I'd go with standard arrays, but those have their flaws as well.

 

[buzz]

Ostensibly, rolling stats has two ultimate outcomes...

Randomness in chargen can be a good thing if the system wants to emphasize "realism," in the sense of modeling the vagaries of fate during a lifetime. I'm thinking of lifepath mechanics for real Sim-y games like Traveller or HarnMaster. I.e., making an "interesting" PC that fits the setting is given more weight than making a powerful PC. Ergo, rolling the dice is part of the fun.

In D&D, though, I tend to agree with you. The system rewards competent characters, so you might as well give everyone a level playing field to sart with.

 

[zakon]

All female characters must be insanely good looking or look like men (Naull, anyone?)

Characters must always be perfectly in balance with each other, usually with the least powerful member of the party....

PSYCHOS will...(wait, wrong thing)

Dwarves must be drunk, violent, or both.

Elves must regard the rest of the world with utter contempt, or at least be french (kidding!)

Kender are evil (NO! Kender are the best race ever made!)

Orcs must all have subpar intelligence and be savage. (I killed this one in my campaign setting)

Kobolds are morons with no craftiness (TRAPS?? HELLO! I killed this one in my campaign setting too. There are two kinds of kobolds in my campaign setting, and one of them gets +6 INT, +4 CHA)

 

[big dummy]

So, what are those sacred cows of roleplaying that get your goat?

Balance. Very overrated to the point of ruining everything else.

BD

 

[Thomas Percy]

Experts and commoners must have better BAB when they advance a level.

 

[big dummy]

I agree - and don't try that in my world - they have an exchange rate. The only real universal currency is gems. (sorry the rogue in me coming out)

Actually, in many historical periods, precious metals were used as bullion currency, i.e. by weight, without any regard to what was printed or stamped on it. Thats why the Vikings for example used to cut silver or (much more rarely) gold artifacts into equal portions of "hacksliver" so they could divide up loot by weight. They also traded coins with established civilizations like the Khazars, the Byzantines and the Caliphate of Spain on the same basis (i.e. weight and relative (apparent) purity of the metal).

BD

 

[Tiberius]

Ok, now I'm confused. So you mean to say you don't like rolling stats?

I'm not trying to open something up. I just don't understand if you think "Rolling Stats is a sacred cow" and the belief in this should not be a sacred cow or what am I missing?

I, for one, hate rolling stats with the fiery passion of ten thousand Hells (with the exception of WFRP). I very greatly prefer when all characters start with an even playing field, and are shaped solely by the choices of the players. Very little will turn me off from a game faster than having characters of widely disparate power levels as the result of a random roll.

It also doesn't help that random stat generation doesn't seem to like me. In creating a character for a Conan game (using 8+1d10 to generate the stat, after having my arguments against random generation ignored), I ended up with 9, 10, 10, 16, 18, 11. The others started with (after racial mods) 18, 16, 18, 14, 12, 11 and 18, 15, 16, 12, 12, 9. The DM wondered if I have a [Lawful] subtype, given how much the dice disliked me (and how much I disliked the dice).

 

[big dummy]

52: the DM and players are competing against each other.

53: Every encounter should be scaled so that the party can always defeat it after a moderately challenging fight. I.e. players should never have to run away from a monster because they apparently live in a universe where anything more dangerous than they can handle magically stays away from them.

54: Chainmail binkinis. Especially when worn by sexless barbiedoll women.

55: the more spikes or serrations a sword has, the bigger the axe blade or hammer head the tougher and meaner the weapons. I'm so sick of an otherwise good painting or drawing ruined by 3' wide axe blades and 40 lb hammerheads and swords with more spikes than a cactus on steroids. Doubly so for any extra blades or striking surfaces...

56: A human at high enough level can absorb sword strokes and arrows without worry

57: Players can never die