Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7134518" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Five of these arrays are normalized. Five are not. You can probably spot a couple of the non-normalized ones; I didn't cherry-pick them to look normalized. But I'd be frankly incredulous if you told me that exactly half of the arrays are interesting to you while the other half bore you to tears (you say "kind of boring", but since you're saying it's worth the risk of player dissatisfaction to avoid them, I have to assume you mean something stronger).1: [15, 9, 9, 15, 12, 11]2: [8, 15, 9, 12, 16, 15]3: [12, 15, 12, 14, 4, 12]4: [12, 16, 9, 17, 15, 13]5: [13, 9, 14, 11, 18, 9]6: [14, 10, 14, 14, 9, 11]7: [15, 7, 8, 15, 13, 13]8: [14, 4, 14, 13, 11, 13]9: [10, 15, 12, 14, 8, 13]10: [11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 15]Rolling for stats still produces arrays that cluster around a mean. It's quite probable that a party of rolled PCs all have scores which total to within a few points of each other (probably in the low 70s), and are homogeneous according to various other metrics. Would this party bore you too? Given the way the probability works, can I say that rolling is itself a normalization method, just an unreliable one?I think rationalization of this sort is worse among those playing with randomized scores (normalized or otherwise -- this isn't about that). With point buy or a standard array, you're putting the score you want into the ability you want, so presumably it's a decent fit for your character concept. With dice, you might end up with with a 7 or 8 in Intelligence when the character you had in mind would really be better suited with an 11 or 12, and that's when you start rationalizing.PS: 8 Int probably shouldn't be interpreted as 80 IQ. Assuming 3d6 generates a bell curve, it's at a rather higher point on the curve. And a mere -1 on Int checks doesn't really represent severe mental incapacity all that well.</blockquote>

Verification