3d6 in order

[Finarvyn]

Anyone actually do this?

Page 10 of Men & Magic gives a wonderful example of a rolled out character with the comment that "this supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric, but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that class".

This just seems strange for any campaign where players were encouraged to care about their characters and keep them alive for a long time. What is to stop Xylarthen (name of PC in the example) from charging into a troll's lair just so he can try a re-roll and get better stats?

[crimhthanthegreat]

In three of our OD&D campaigns we do exactly this. Roll 3d6 in order and use what you roll. I have 3 six sided dice that I have had for years and I roll very well with them so often I just roll up the characters stats and hand them it. It works well for us.

In the other campaign we roll heroic characters instead.

Note in three campaigns we don't use the Greyhawk stats, we only use those in the heroic campaign. If you don't use the Greyhawk stats, then the numbers aren't that big of a deal.

[WSmith]

In any version of D&D I play today, after years of all kinds of other schemes, I only allow for 3d6 in order. This is a staple of what makes the PC the unlikely hero.

The comment is interesting because in an "arrange to taste" game, the player would have moved the stats around to accomodate his desire to play a MU. In the VOL I text, the player used the scores and choose the role he wanted anyway.

[foster1941]

For OD&D it's either "3d6 in order" or "ability scores optional" -- the player chooses which scores he wants to roll, everything else is assumed to be average. The adjustments are small enough, characters come and go quickly enough, and "party balance" isn't so important, that you can get away with using this method.

It doesn't work (IMO) for AD&D, though, where adjustments are bigger, characters are more durable, and the rules/adventures tend to assume a more balanced party (with at least one member of each of the 4 primary classes). For a long time I advocated using DMG Method IV for AD&D (which is, essentially, still 3d6 in order but generating 12 characters and picking the best) but lately I've come to think that even that isn't enough -- an AD&D character pretty much needs 2 stats (and, even moreso, the right two stats) in the 15+ range to be viable, and you're not likely to get that using Method IV. I'm not sure what method I'll go with in future AD&D games -- perhaps Method I (4d6-L, arranged to suit -- which is pretty much the default, but I don't really like because I think arranging to suit leads to cookie-cutter characters -- the fighter will always have highest score in Str, 2nd highest in Con, 3rd in Dex, 4th in Cha, 5th in Wis, and lowest in Int, etc.) or even the infamous Method V from UA (which is fun because, while you're pretty much guaranteed to get at least a couple really high scores, there's still the possibility of getting stuck with a really low score -- and as someone who's been playing a Str 3 character for the last 2 years, I can attest to the character-building power of having to compensate for a really low stat; it adds a whole new element of challenge and fun to the game, plus it gives you a built in roleplaying hook).

Anhow, sorry to have spent so much of this post talking about AD&D rather than OD&D. Feel free to "smite" me...

[Finarvyn]

Must ... not ... smite ... foster... :-)

Okay, so you mentioned AD&D, but you did so by mentioning a valid point which is essentially edition-free so I'll let it slide through.

Clearly the need for high stats is conditional upon the types of bonuses given for high stats. You could have made the same argument by pointing out that Supplement I Greyhawk brings in exceptional stats and in general boosts the number of bonuses given out to players. Clearly in this case (and in AD&D and so on) players feel a need to "roll well", which tends to lead to artificial ways (like roll 4, keep 3) to make the dice rolls look better.

They need this because later versions of the game tend to inflate monsters so characters need to keep up in order to stay alive.

[mauricio]

An extra 10% in XP is essentially irrelevant.

[Finarvyn]

mauricio said:

An extra 10% in XP is essentially irrelevant.

Depends upon how the DM runs the campaign. If levels are only awarded at convenient stop-off points, it's possible for two similar characters to be on opposide sides of the cutoff when levels are handed out. This might mean that one player gets the advantage of the higher level for several adventures.

[serendipity]

admin said:

What is to stop Xylarthen (name of PC in the example) from charging into a troll's lair just so he can try a re-roll and get better stats?

In one game I was in, a player--I'll call him Barry-- didn't like his character's stats and spent a great deal of time grousing about it and about the game in general. Finally, he charged a dragon (and lost, of course). The DM refused to let Barry roll up a new character, saying he'd played out his part in this adventure. ;D

I think Barry's actions showed he wasn't really interested in role playing, just in having a gronk character that could kill anything and everything. Of course, I could be wrong. He could be the sensitive, misunderstood sort.

[murquhart72]

Although Gary hated the idea, I either let players choose their Ability scores, or (more often) have the give me a character concept. Then I choose for the character, based on that concept.
If the above fails, it's BTB, Baby!

[meepo]

These days I prefer 3d6 in order, but am always willing to make changes to that mindset if the players object.

[ffilz]

I've been tossing this around. I've generally been shying away from random attributes due to inflation effects I've seen (as the campaign goes on, stats slowly inflate - due to weaker characters dying or being abandoned by players, and, if any sort of "hmm, those rolls don't look very good, try again" determination is made by the GM, even that inflates). I recently ran a few sessions of AD&D (well, sort of, lots of house rules) that I used the following system:

To generate characteristics roll: 1d4, 1d10, 1d10, 3 x 4d6 take the best 3. The 1d4 is (1-3) a 17, (4) an 18. The 1d10s are (1-6) 16, (7-9) 17, (10) 18. Arrange the 6 rolls among STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA.

The intent was to give characters with decent mods (given AD&D's very top loaded attribute bonuses).

For Men and Magic's attributes, random rolling wouldn't be too bad. Greyhawk does heighten the desire to have very high attributes (18 percentile strength is really bad in this sense and I'm inclined not to use it, I had abandoned it for AD&D).

Part of me would like to go with a simple roll 3d6 (or perhaps 4d6 take the best 3), perhaps with no re-arranging, but to go there, the effect of a high attribute would have to be minimal (at which point one wonders why bother having attributes at all).

Frank

[crimhthanthegreat]

admin said:

Must ... not ... smite ... foster... :-)

Okay, so you mentioned AD&D, but you did so by mentioning a valid point which is essentially edition-free so I'll let it slide through.

Clearly the need for high stats is conditional upon the types of bonuses given for high stats. You could have made the same argument by pointing out that Supplement I Greyhawk brings in exceptional stats and in general boosts the number of bonuses given out to players. Clearly in this case (and in AD&D and so on) players feel a need to "roll well", which tends to lead to artificial ways (like roll 4, keep 3) to make the dice rolls look better.

They need this because later versions of the game tend to inflate monsters so characters need to keep up in order to stay alive.

mauricio said:

An extra 10% in XP is essentially irrelevant.

The numbers don't matter unless you are using Supplement I Greyhawk with the exception of the 10% experience bonus. It is significant in my games and my players are always happy when they have a character that can qualify for it. I have never had a problem with anyone having a character commit suicide so they can reroll a character. I suppose it was just assumed by everyone that this practice would not be rewarded so they never went there.

[oldgeezer]

admin said:

Anyone actually do this?

Page 10 of Men & Magic gives a wonderful example of a rolled out character with the comment that "this supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric, but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that class".

This just seems strange for any campaign where players were encouraged to care about their characters and keep them alive for a long time. What is to stop Xylarthen (name of PC in the example) from charging into a troll's lair just so he can try a re-roll and get better stats?

Anybody who did that would be thought of as "weak in the knees". Remember, we were all wargamers, and a large part of wargaming is the realization that not all die rolls will be in your favor, and winning anyway.


Old Geezer

[ffilz]

In the old days, we almost never had a player suicide a PC. We did usually allow ditching really bad characters (I think Holmes Basic suggested that). I suspect things might be different today though. With more and more players being used to being able to create the character they want I could see more resistance to bad characters. But it might just take the occiasional: "sure, you can switch your Dex and your Int so you have a viable MU." Combined with a does of "sure, you can reroll that PC who has nothing better than an 8."

Frank

[crimhthanthegreat]

My players (and I myself) would play it out no matter what we rolled. If we had straight 3's across the board we would play it out and not suicide. It's not about the numbers.

[calithena]

I don't mind above average characters, but I like the 'feel' of 3d6 straight.

If you want to make sure everyone's minimally competent, just give the player the option to reroll if either (a) the stats total to 60 or less, or (b) if no prime attribute score (S/I/W/D) exceeds 12. So that way you're guaranteed a minimally competent whatever, but you still get the randomness and 'spread' of 3d6.

If you want people to be able to choose class, you can add one 'swap' to the method above, and then they can have the prime attribute they need, but it's still pretty random. I prefer not to use this last step, but it's a compromise that's there if someone just really hates clerics or whatever.

And of course if you get an interesting below-average character (maybe high int but very sickly, or whatever) you're allowed to keep that if it strikes you - you don't have to reroll just because it's low.

[coffee]

I don't have a problem with 3d6, as long as it's the DM rolling it for me.

Dice hate me when it comes to character creation. They always have.

(Warning! Digressing into AD&D for a moment here; smite me if you must)

I remember when Unearthed Arcana came out. It had a method of character creation for people who wanted a specific class. It gave you something like 9 dice for your prime req. I used it to roll up a fighter.

I ended up with a 16 strength.

That's just an illustration of how badly dice hate me.

But I play the characters anyway! That's just the way it's done!

[philotomy]

I've been doing 3d6 in order, lately. It's made for some interesting PCs. For example, the party has an Elf with average scores in Str and Int, but a very high Wis (which is basically a dump stat for an OD&D elf). It's also challenged me to find ways to bring out and use that high Wis score in play.

I think 3d6 in order works very well for OD&D (but less so in later editions where stats have more impact on play).

[coffee]

Y'know, I think what amuses me most about this discussion is the very, very D&D-centric house rules.

I mean, in every other game I've ever played (and I've played a lot, but I always come back to D&D), you just roll up your character the way it says in the book. And that's it.

AD&D (and later versions thereof) is the only game I've ever seen where multiple methods of generating character stats exist.

I think it's a bit of a warning sign; things are not normal here! So I prefer to avoid the whole thing and play the Original D&D and use the original 3d6 in order. Sure, your stats won't be as high as an AD&D character's, but you're not playing AD&D, so it's okay!

18s are as rare as they should be. It was really something back in Greyhawk days, to be able to play a Paladin, because not only did you get a 17 or 18, but you got it in Charisma. (In 3d edition, anybody can play a Paladin. I think it really waters down the "specialness" if you just let anyone have one.)

[ffilz]

I've seen house rules for character generation in quite a few game systems. In GURPS and Champions, though not with random attributes, GMs have imposed house rules beyond things to set the direction of the campaign (things like no more than this many points of disads rather than). I used alternate rolling systems in RuneQuest (and they may have even suggested some of them).

Frank

[Rhuvein]

Hmm, nothing like rolling up some ability stats to get you pumped up about the game. Just for fun, I rolled the following:

STR 9
INT 9
WIS 12
CON 8
DEX 12
CHA 11

OK, cleric.

But with that DEX, I immediately thought of the GH supplement and the thief class. Nice to know you can use that supplement if you feel strongly enough about having them.

I guess I'd still like to try the game with the 3 main books, so would stick with the cleric.

[Finarvyn]

calithena said:

I don't mind above average characters, but I like the 'feel' of 3d6 straight.

In an ideal world I might agree, but when you put personalities in with the character sheet I often have problems because many of my players have favorite classes they like best. I prefer "3d6, arrange to taste" just for that reason.

As far as the averageness I agree with your philosophy, however. ;D

[thorswulf]

I usually let players roll 4d6 and drop the lowest for whatever edition of D&D I play. The funny thing is that the most fun I ever had playing a character was a first level thief that was employed by a number of higher level characters. He had only 2 hit points.

Now I bet some of you are saying, "bet he didn't last too long." Actually one of the other characters, a fighter played by one of the regulars, kind of decided to watch over the new guy. I survived several encounters with some creatures that should of killed me! It was that orc with a two handed sword that got me in the end....

Most of the guys I played with over the last couple of years were so awful about wanting mega characters, I eventually just gave up AD&D, and 3ED&D. These systems are nice for power gamer dorks, but not for me!

My cousin has a daughter who is 12. She loves to read science fiction and fantasy! I decided I'd give her my old Basic and Expert rules and some dice and see what she will do with it. Her dad and his brother gamed with me from time to time when we were teens, so who knows? I have to wait a few years before my daughter tries a game. Right now she'd probably eat the dice!

[Finarvyn]

I'm lucky enough that my group is willing to play whatever I want to run, so I don't tend to have quite the powergamer problem. Also I'm lucky enough to have gotten my kids into D&D early in life, and they prefer my style of gaming as well. Ah, mind control....

[Deleted]

I've always been an advocate of 3d6 in order. IMC, I do allow a player who has rolled up a character with less than a -2 modifier (for all ability scores combined, mind you) the opportunity of a re-roll...once. If that roll is also sub-par, well, they just have to accept it & move on (I do, however, allow them to start off with maximum hit points at 1st level). I think I'll roll up a character now, too:
STR12, INT12, WIS11, DEX8, CON17, CHA9
Pretty decent. I'm thinking Magic-User. He/She is of average strength, reasonably intelligent, can be persuaded somewhat easily, is clumsy but healthy enough to take it, & is perhaps unsure of themselves & their abilities.
The bottom-line of all this is that, as a player, would you derive more enjoyment from the feeling of "You know, I knew Ulthgaar could kick that monster's a*s", or the feeling of "Wow, I can't believe Ulthgaar just kicked that monster's a*s!!!" I'll take the latter any day

[tgamemaster1975]

I usually run it as 3d6 in order, no rerolls, and you roll your hit points at first level, no rerolls, and no max hit points at first level. It has always worked well for us.

[angantyr]

I believe one set of 3d6 in order is best, but I do not object to allowing them to roll up an additional set or three if the numbers just don't "speak" to the player. Though I would encourage them to keep what they rolled and try to make something of it.

Its a fine line in some cases - while I don't want to see them re-rolling until they get super-duper-uber-mensch, I'd like them to be content with their character. After all , this is a game and the object is to have fun. Don't want them to be miserable with a character they have no interest in playing, but do expect some reasonableness on their part, too.

[Deleted]

admin said:

Anyone actually do this?

are there people who don't???


str, int, wis, con, dex, cha

start all pcs at lvl 1.

[calithena]

Welcome, Diaglo! Keepin' it real for the old school...

[philotomy]

Glad to see you, here, Diaglo! I was wondering if you'd show up.