Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9088376" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Snarf, I think this is one we might want to check the fanzines on at some point, because I guarantee that people were experimenting with variant score generation methods prior to seeing them officially presented in 1979.In this <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/q-a-with-gary-gygax.22566/post-1272927" target="_blank">Gary quote</a> he says &quot;players would keep rolling until they got more viable numbers&quot; and he attributes that to &quot;when AD&amp;D made stats more meaningful&quot;, but of course we know that Greyhawk made stats more meaningful in 1975, three years before the PH came out.&nbsp; So I strongly suspect he was misremembering the timing on that.The AD&amp;D charts definitely assume you're rolling in some more generous manner or rolling up a bunch of characters.&nbsp; Gary says right before them that to be viable a character will normally need stats that include at least two of 15 or better, which 3d6 down the line will not reliably provide, of course.I also read that passage from the DMG more the way Kenada does.&nbsp; That 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste is the primary method.&nbsp; I read Gary as referring to methods I-IV as &quot;alternatives&quot; to 3d6 down the line simply because he's expecting his readers to already be familiar with OD&amp;D and used to 3d6, but he's explaining that it's not really a suitable method for AD&amp;D due to the increased importance of high stats and the expectation of the ability tables that you'll have at least a couple of high numbers, so here are some methods which DO work for AD&amp;D.&nbsp; If the reader insists on sticking with 3d6 down the line, they CAN do that, but the characters will suck. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f606.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":LOL:" title="Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :LOL:"&nbsp; data-smilie="17"data-shortname=":LOL:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mannahnin, post: 9088376, member: 7026594"] Snarf, I think this is one we might want to check the fanzines on at some point, because I guarantee that people were experimenting with variant score generation methods prior to seeing them officially presented in 1979. In this [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/q-a-with-gary-gygax.22566/post-1272927']Gary quote[/URL] he says "players would keep rolling until they got more viable numbers" and he attributes that to "when AD&D made stats more meaningful", but of course we know that Greyhawk made stats more meaningful in 1975, three years before the PH came out. So I strongly suspect he was misremembering the timing on that. The AD&D charts definitely assume you're rolling in some more generous manner or rolling up a bunch of characters. Gary says right before them that to be viable a character will normally need stats that include at least two of 15 or better, which 3d6 down the line will not reliably provide, of course. I also read that passage from the DMG more the way Kenada does. That 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste is the primary method. I read Gary as referring to methods I-IV as "alternatives" to 3d6 down the line simply because he's expecting his readers to already be familiar with OD&D and used to 3d6, but he's explaining that it's not really a suitable method for AD&D due to the increased importance of high stats and the expectation of the ability tables that you'll have at least a couple of high numbers, so here are some methods which DO work for AD&D. If the reader insists on sticking with 3d6 down the line, they CAN do that, but the characters will suck. :LOL: [/QUOTE]

Verification