Why no low?

[Janx]

In 2e, I had a player gritching about his stats. We were in FR at the time.

I did research and math. Even averaged the stats of all the published NPCs I could find

3d6 generates an avg of 12.5
4d6, best 3 gives 13.5

The avg. Npc had like 14 or 15 (pretty high).

The whiner had the highest of the group (I forget the # but it was around the dice avg.

I think part of the

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In 2e, I had a player gritching about his stats. We were in FR at the time.

I did research and math. Even averaged the stats of all the published NPCs I could find

3d6 generates an avg of 12.5
4d6, best 3 gives 13.5

The avg. Npc had like 14 or 15 (pretty high).

The whiner had the highest of the group (I forget the # but it was around the dice avg.

I think part of the

Look out- THE ASSASSIN GOT HIM!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The oldest versions of D&D did use the low end of scores a lot more. Many (not all, but many) games were run with the basic assumption that you played your scores as they lie, you did what you could with the character class/race you were allowed given the scores you generated and the order they fell in. The rules generally supported and expected this approach by attempting to balance the greater power of certain classes against the rarity of them even appearing. The approach taken in Holmes basic for example was 3d6, in order, and then in order to try and qualify for one class or another a few 2-for-1 point trades were allowed between some abilities, otherwise you played only what you qualified for. It WORKED a lot better than in any later editions because there simply weren't bonuses for high scores in every ability. There weren't even to-hit/damage bonuses for strength, and it described no particular mechanics where even having high stats had much of a bearing on the ongoing game (with a few exceptions like xp bonus for high prime requisite scores).

Every version since then has brought stat inflation - made stats more important, given them more significance, altered what they did/didn't do for your character in ways both large and small. For a long time there was a fair amount of exploration of different methods of generating stats in order to CIRCUMVENT the restrictions the game was otherwise trying to maintain on the rarity of certain classes, as well as to consistently obtain the bonuses that were now offered for high stats and avoid the penalties that came with low stats.

With 3rd Edition that attempt at enforcing rarity of classes as a balancing measure had been abandoned - but it had also saddled ALL stats below average with penalties, ALL stats above average with bonuses and adopted the philosophy that a signficant part of the game was about mathematical optimization of your characters abilities. That is, it made those low scores POISOINOUS - things to be avoided at all costs because the game was TELLING you so. To support that there were even MORE ways being created by players to generate ability scores that avoided the lows and emphasized the highs.

That's pretty much where 4E is at as well - the low end of the scores are to be avoided at all costs because the approach that the game takes is that players are SUPPOSED to avoid them at all costs. It's just a matter of how you creatively go about doing that - unless you actually defy the design philosophy and assume that low scores can still be embraced to some extent especially as roleplaying cues.

 

[Gort]

I wouldn't really mind things being standardised - Gamma World does a fair bit of this by making sure that you always have a decent attack stat. Basically a character should be playable within the framework of the game. If this means taking away a couple of options that only really serve to allow people to make fighters who can't swing a sword or wizards who can't cast spells while simultaneously making character generation and record-keeping simpler, I say go for it.

I think the 3-18 sacred cow needs to go, too, along with rolling stats in general. Nobody ever sticks with their rolled stats - there are myriad clauses such as "assign them as you like", "oh, those are bad, reroll them" and the eternal favourite "my guy commits suicide, can I make a new one" that always ensure that the PCs are on the high side of stats.

I really wouldn't mind seeing something in a class like Elite fighter - Your long hours of sparring have paid off. Your strength score rises to 4, and you gain the Athletics and Endurance skills. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing only three stats - Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence, determined by your class.

 

[Crothian]

Depends on the people playing. In the current game my paladin has a 7 Wisdom and the Wizard I think has three scores less then 10.

 

[Water Bob]

I think the 3-18 sacred cow needs to go, too, along with rolling stats in general. Nobody ever sticks with their rolled stats - there are myriad clauses such as "assign them as you like", "oh, those are bad, reroll them" and the eternal favourite "my guy commits suicide, can I make a new one" that always ensure that the PCs are on the high side of stats.

Not in my game. I allow 4d6, drop lowest, no arrangement--you get what you roll, unless you want to give up a Fate Point (Conan RPG), in which case, you can arrange to taste. So, there's a cost to arranging to taste.

We see a lot of low stats on the PCs.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think the 3-18 sacred cow needs to go, too, along with rolling stats in general. Nobody ever sticks with their rolled stats - there are myriad clauses such as "assign them as you like", "oh, those are bad, reroll them" and the eternal favourite "my guy commits suicide, can I make a new one" that always ensure that the PCs are on the high side of stats.

Rubbish. We always do. So do many others.

If you have ever played OD&D (or something very similar), or even another game altogether, that has similar stat-rolling rules (e.g., Dragon Warriors), then you'd be quite familiar with "3d6 in order".

With many systems, stats don't mean so much anyway (as they might in 3e, 4e, or whatever). So yes, you might have "crappy" stats, but it will hardly matter, if at all.

I wouldn't mind seeing only three stats - Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence, determined by your class.

Interestingly (to me, at least ), I tried this, with Dragon Warriors, and it worked very well. The three stats only part there, anyhow. Not determined by class (i.e., Profession), but rather, the other way 'round, as usual for such games. Going from Strength, Reflexes, Intelligence, Psychic Talent and Looks, to Strength, Reflexes and Psychic Talent was a great idea... if I do say so myself. The game required almost *no* adjustments, having made that alteration. Weird, but there you go. And yes, I can certainly see D&D - if with a few more adjustments - benefiting from having fewer stats.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like a "balanced" spread.

That is, -3, -2, -1; +1, +2, +3.

But I'm clearly sick and twisted what with my aberrant ways.