FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Lanefan, I agree that low Wis is waaaay more fun than low Int.
I'm not asking you to spend hours doing anything. Quite the opposite, in fact. You've said that if characters use normalized arrays, "they're still the same in fundamental ways that I will quickly notice". If you have to spend hours crunching numbers in order to "notice", I think that's a pretty good indicator that you didn't actually notice -- and that if you'd spent those hours doing something else you might be perfectly happy playing with these characters.If I don't care about Ratskinner's method enough to read it, what makes you think I'm interested in spending hours reverse-engineering your method from seven samples, like some kind of mathematical puzzle?
Sure, I can do this, but again I'm confused, because I've already given you lots of samples, even some unlabeled ones for you to guess at, and you have been dismissive of them. If you need a script to generate enough samples to guess if a method is normalized, isn't that again a pretty good indicator that you can't "quickly notice" if it is?How about instead, YOU spend a few minutes or hours coding up a web page with a generator for your distribution, which might or might not be using a normalized method or 4d6 drop lowest; and if I can guess whether it's generating normalized samples I'll tell you? (And if I get it wrong, congratulations, you've got a normalized method which will have fooled me, and which would presumably work as well for me as a random method.)
I'm not asking you to spend hours doing anything. Quite the opposite, in fact. You've said that if characters use normalized arrays, "they're still the same in fundamental ways that I will quickly notice". If you have to spend hours crunching numbers in order to "notice", I think that's a pretty good indicator that you didn't actually notice -- and that if you'd spent those hours doing something else you might be perfectly happy playing with these characters.
Now, there is a way you might quickly notice in which these arrays are the same, and it's that they all total 74. So it seemed reasonable to me that this was the sort of similarity you were talking about.
But when I started to talk about totals directly, you contradicted me and said that arrays with the same total can be very different.
This is all I'm asking: for you to clarify whether you think the total is a constraint on this "attribute space" of the sort that bores you, or not. Because right now I'm more than a little confused.
Sure, I can do this, but again I'm confused, because I've already given you lots of samples, even some unlabeled ones for you to guess at, and you have been dismissive of them. If you need a script to generate enough samples to guess if a method is normalized, isn't that again a pretty good indicator that you can't "quickly notice" if it is?
What we did ages ago was take the percentile stat increment idea first seen in Cavaliers in the 1e Unearthed Arcana and apply it to all classes.
The write-up on how this works in my game is here: http://www.friendsofgravity.com/gam...blue-book-in-html/decbluebook3.html#increment
You can easily tweak the average rate of stat advancement by changing what dice get rolled each level.
Hope this helps!
Lanefan
Well apparently any thread I make is good for at least a dozen pages.
It a gift. The gift of Zard.
How many players are going to enjoy playing with one arm already tied behind their back, especially if it's a long-running campaign? One-shots, deadly 'old school' campaigns, etc - IMO these are where most people are more comfortable with random generation of stats.
Do one asking why Greyhawk is "loved". I'd do it myself but I don't think I have quite the touch to get it over that dozen or so pages.
As long as the characters are roughly equal, it's all good. The DM can adjust up or down as needed. I have never seen a campaign with unbalanced characters work out very well. The trick is to figure out a way to level the playing field. I have seen some very good ideas in here about how to do that.