Which method do you use to determine ability scores?

[Airwolf]

I guess this qualifies as a high power type game or at least semi-high power.

We use 4d6 - discard the lowest, but the players can reroll any 1's and arrange as desired.

 

[dream spawn]

For my campaigns I'll give the players a choice. They can either do 4d6 drop the lowest (they will usually pick this, but I make them roll it in front of me) or 36 points for buy in.

 

[drnuncheon]

We generally use variants of 4d6 drop lowest - that's what I did for both Freeport and ToDW.

For the Planescape game, five of the characters were 'converted' from a MUSH that used the method of 4d6, drop lowest, if you don't like it you can completely reroll up to two times, but no going back to a previous roll.

Even though most of us wound up taking our first roll, the stats are pretty insane (this is after 3 level bumps, but without equipment):

Cleric: Str 10, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 18, Cha 14
Sorcerer: Str 8, Dex 13, Con 13, Int 18, Wis 12, Cha 20
Ftr/Rog: Str 14, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 13
Monk: Str 16, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 18, Cha 10
Paladin: Str 16, Dex 9, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 19

I often wonder if the dice code on that MUSH was a little wacky.

J

 

[uberkitty]

We roll 4d6 (discard lowest) 6 times, twice (making two columns) -- players can choose one of the two columns or risk all, toss out those two, and roll a third, which they then have to take.

I would hate a point buy. It makes everything so calculated, rather than joyously random. You don't get to choose how innately able you are at various things in life -- why in D&D?

 

[Tiberius]

I would hate a point buy. It makes everything so calculated, rather than joyously random. You don't get to choose how innately able you are at various things in life -- why in D&D?

I do it in no small part because I find nothing joyous in randomness, and indeed hate it, especially when it comes to stats. I use point buy (or most recently, standard array) for a couple of reasons. Primary among these is for the fun of the players. Sure, it can be enjoyable to have a character who rolls up a character with 18, 18, 18, 17, 15, 13 (which I have had happen in my first 3e campaign), but what about the other players, who might have a top stat of 14? Such an ubercharacter is unbalancing, and can cause the death of the others due to the inevitable "arms race" that develops in an attempt to challenge him. Better, in my opinion, to have the characters start with a finite pool and design the character they want rather than risk abominiations like the (admittedly extreme) example above.

I also like the idea of ensuring the characters have weaknesses. One of my players disagrees with me on this (as he thinks that a) the PCs are automatically heroes and b) that heroes are supermen by default), but I prefer stories that involve less perfect or more normal characters. While the story of seven great heroes doing battle with a dark god for the fate of an empire is cool, I find the stories about humble monks defending their monestaries against all-but-impossible odds, triumphing (or not) by virtue of their skills and overcoming their weaknesses rather more compelling. By using the standard array, a character is guaranteed to have a medium to high score (14 to 17, depending on racial boni) and a low to average score (6 to 10, again depending on racial modifiers). These build into the character weaknesses, which can become story/character building fodder. At the very least, it can provide some offset for their strengths, to ensure they are vulnerable in some way.

-Tiberius