TSR's "subliminal" message about PC power level

[Hammerhead]

I recognize Fonkin Oddypeak (Hoddypeak in other places). Both "fonkin" and "hoddypeak" are archaic English words that both mean, essentially, stupid or slow-witted.

Hey, Fonkin is a great name for an NPC. Just be sure to make his last name start with an A, for handy abbreviations.

 

[Quasqueton]

There is a statement in the AD&D1 DMG saying that DMs should choose ability scores for NPCs rather than rolling them, and that high-level NPCs should have high ability scores because [paraphrase]: “How else could they have attained high level.”

I’ll quote the passage fully, later tonight.

And, yes, the pre-gen characters in Isle of the Ape have crazy good ability scores. One human has a 19 in an ability, if I remember correctly. (I did a forum write up of those characters in another forum a couple years ago.)

Mordenkainen’s stats (and some others) are listed in more than one place in AD&D1 – at least in the Rogue’s Gallery, Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure, and . . . what was that third place? EGG specifically said that the MFA stats were accurate when I asked him about it, on this very forum.

Also, don’t forget that EGG wrote the expanded roll methods in Unearthed Arcana. EGG and company obviously played super-ability-score characters, and I don’t think he ever (to my immediate memory) said anything negative about such characters.

Quasqueton

 

[frankthedm]

There is a statement in the AD&D1 DMG saying that DMs should choose ability scores for NPCs rather than rolling them, and that high-level NPCs should have high ability scores because [paraphrase]: “How else could they have attained high level.”

Yep, body count was pretty high in 1e dungeons, PCs would often get a few tries at rolling high ability scores. An unexeptional character stood a low chance of seeing too many levels.

 

[Glyfair]

Yep, body count was pretty high in 1e dungeons, PCs would often get a few tries at rolling high ability scores. An unexeptional character stood a low chance of seeing too many levels.

I've seen argument keep cropping up that in early editions of D&D that character statistics weren't really that important to the playability of the character. I take it you'd disagree with this argument? (And yes, I'm saying that a character that has a low chance of surviving isn't terribly playable).

 

[Hussar]

Also, don’t forget that EGG wrote the expanded roll methods in Unearthed Arcana. EGG and company obviously played super-ability-score characters, and I don’t think he ever (to my immediate memory) said anything negative about such characters.

Oh, how I loved rolling 9d6 for primary stat generation. Made making paladins really, really easy.

 

[frankthedm]

I've seen argument keep cropping up that in early editions of D&D that character statistics weren't really that important to the playability of the character. I take it you'd disagree with this argument? (And yes, I'm saying that a character that has a low chance of surviving isn't terribly playable).

Mayhap i should have said players may have been less cautious with poor stated PCs, and more cautious with high ststed characters.

 

[hong]

Most of the name elements have a meaning in Old English.

Indeed, I'm Croodling my Beek Gwenders RIGHT NOW, ikywim et al.

 

[grodog]

It's also worth noting that in OD&D and AD&D, stat changing was much more common: tricks, traps, gods, demons, etc., could regularly fold/spindle/mutilate/augment PC stats: B1, WG4, Castle Greyhawk (the real one), and various other modules enabled these stats changes (for better, or more often, for worse). So, just because Robilar and Mordenkainen had multiple 18s, doesn't mean that they started off with those stats.

 

[Thomas Percy]

You can't use game rules everytime in your life
It's like building a house strating from the chimney.
They are NPC, heroes of novels.

Try to make stats for middle aged pope John Paul II to see that pointbuy is pointless in real life.

 

[jmucchiello]

A more interesting study to me would be to compare primary modifiers based on ability score. What is the to hit bonus for the listed strengths and compare that to the 3.x equivolent. So a 1e 17 Str becomes a 3.x 13 Str. Alternatively you could use the damage modifier for Str. Dex use the ranged to hit bonus, Con use the hit point bonus (for fighters), Wis use the saving throw bonus, Cha use the influence percentage divided by 5. Int is tricky since knowing languages is skill based in 3.x. Might have to leave Int as is.