3d6 in order

[mahrundl]

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?

If I ever get to run a game (lack of time and players ), I'd do 3D6 in order, HP as rolled, starting at level 1.

What's to stop Xylarthen from charging into a troll's lair to get a re-roll? Um, the fact that he'd be dead?!? He's in the game at that point; unless the character is actively suicidal, why would he be charging into a troll's lair?

Now, if the player tells me that she is going to get her character killed at the first opportunity, well, there are many ways to prevent that. And if she fails, it would be pretty boring having her character restrained or committed to an asylum (since the character is obviously sick or possessed) while the rest of the party was out adventuring! ;D (OK, I probably wouldn't actually do that. But if I couldn't get her to even give the character a try-out, I'd be wondering why she was there in the first place.)

If she rolls a character that she don't think is viable, I'd ask her to play the character until it dies in normal circumstances. If she is willing to do that, and the character does die early, I'd be reasonably generous about the replacement character. If the initial character survives, it's all gravy...

However, if the player wants to re-roll so badly that she won't even do that, I'd probably let her. Her old character would become an NPC in the party, and we'd see who fared better... ;D

[thorswulf]

I play miniature wargames with John McEwan about once a month. John is the owner/operator/sculptor/Designer behind McEwan Miniatures, or Reviresco as it is called these days. He is also the creator of Starguard, the first science fiction miniature wargame rules ever published in this country (1974).

We talk about what it was like in the early years of the hobby, and how it has changed so much since then. Buried in his stuff are original Guidon publishings of various rules. Now this is like the best thing in the world for any gamer with an historical perspective!

John said they used to play a lot of Chainmail and D&D back in the early 70's. He and some of his gamers created variant rules based and inspired by these games. I have played some skirmish games with these rules and you can definately feel the influence! John also added a set of rules for character creation ala D&D for smaller games. He didn't bother with hit points, damage came off Constitution! Monsters had fairly high Strength and Constitution scores! He also designed a set of "Calypso" rules for random game generation- he made it ap as tthey went along!

The reason I mention all of this is that his alternate rules used a straight 3D6 roll for attributes. Secondly, the wargaming background really is seen more clearly when the rules are examined. Sometimes I think younger gamers forget that D&D is a very elaborate skirmish wargame for use with miniatures at it's heart. Don't get me wrong, I like both role playing and roll playing games!

[korgoth]

Hey, friends.

I've been looking over my OD&D books (I've got the OCE box) lately and I was surprised to note that the stat order is: str, int, wis, con, dex, cha. Like, con and dex are not in the order I expected! Very strange.

So... and hopefully this is not too off-topic... do most folks here use this order, or the later order that places dex before con?

[calithena]

Good catch, Korgoth.

[WSmith]

Yes. When playing OD&D I use that lineup. When playing Classic D&D or AD&D*, I stick to S-I-W-D-C-Ch.

*Anytime I reference AD&D, I mean 1st edition.

[korgoth]

Thanks.

I guess it's an opportunity to retrain my brain. On a probably unrelated note, arguably Dex is more important than Con in later editions of D&D (because over time a 5% or 10% reduction in successful attacks would outweigh the equivalent hit point bonus). In OD&D, especially with the lower hp totals in general, Con seems to be far more important than Dex.

To get back on topic, I like the 3d6 in order method (though my experience is with Classic). However, depending on the size of the group I was DMing for, I might allow "3d6 and arrange". Fortunately stats don't have a whole lot of impact on OD&D so it's really not that vital anyway.

[Finarvyn]

korgoth said:

the stat order is: str, int, wis, con, dex, cha.

I make up character sheets on Word docs for most of my campaigns, so that I can jazz 'em up with cool pix and graphics and such.

Strength, Intelligence, Wisdon, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma. That's the only order I play.

I can understand why they are grouped into the mental three and the physical three, but since there isn't a mega stat that combines the physical or mental there isn't really a need to re-arrange the order. Learned it that way 30+ years ago and am too stubborn to change.

[Falconer]

I absolutely do prefer the stats be rolled in order and NOT re-arranged as desired. For one thing, if the stats are not interchangeable, it once and for all removes the concern that the stats be balanced between each other.

Secondly, it makes interesting characters. Instead of deciding first that you wish to be a Fighter, and so putting your best score on Strength, your second best on Con or Dex, and your worst scores on the rest, you might come up with a character whose best stat is Chr, second best is Con, and third best is Int. It's fun to let the dice decide what kind of character it's going to be. Even if it's going to be a long-lived campaign, and even if you hope to have a long-lived character, in all likelihood you will have plenty more opportunities to create characters!

Finally, 3d6 IS better than 4d6 (drop the lowest), as I see it. Your median score will be lower with the former method than with the latter, but so will everyone else's. And any high scores that you may get will be all the more remarkable. Regards.

[Falconer]

I use Str Int Wis DEX CON Cha.

Because that's the order on the OD&D Character Sheet that I use. (PDF by me, based on actual TSR internal sheet.) Regards.

[coffee]

Thanks for that, Falconer. I have .jpg's of the original green and yellow ones, but yours will print out much nicer.

One thing I noticed is that, unlike later character sheets, there is no place for hit points on this one. I assume that people just used scratch paper to note damage and such.

[Falconer]

One thing I noticed is that, unlike later character sheets, there is no place for hit points on this one. I assume that people just used scratch paper to note damage and such.

I assume everyone filled out their character sheet differently. ;-) I think even if Allan posted a picture or description of Robilar's character sheet for us to study, we wouldn't really learn much from it because what would it be representative of?

Nevertheless, every player WILL want to notate their Max HP, at least, on the sheet. I usually print these out with ample top margin for this purpose, although it could also easily fit in the Experience field or one of the other large empty spaces. Regards.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I have always used the stats in the original order, no matter what version of D&D I play.

[ant]

falconer said:

Because that's the order on the OD&D Character Sheet that I use. (PDF by me, based on actual TSR internal sheet.) Regards.

Falconer, I think I love you! I've been scouring the web for this very thing. Thank you!

[Falconer]

ant said:

Falconer, I think I love you!

kewl. send pix?

[ant]

falconer said:

kewl. send pix?

;)

Back on topic, one of my gaming groups is keen to play a one-shot OD&D session. I've already laid down the ground rules and 3d6 in order is how we're going to play it. It took a little ... convincing ... for some of the players to go along with the idea but so far it's looking good.

[Finarvyn]

My big selling point is that every campaign I run is slightly different than every other. If this time I insist on 3d6 in order, my players cooperate because they know another game later on might use "roll 4, keep 3, arrange to taste" or some other method of generation. If I say we're running a particular rule in a given game, they're cool with it.

[oldgeezer]

falconer said:

I assume everyone filled out their character sheet differently. ;-) I think even if Allan posted a picture or description of Robilar's character sheet for us to study, we wouldn't really learn much from it because what would it be representative of?

It would be representative of the fact that it's an ordinary sheet of paper.

Robilar was not put on a "character sheet".

[Falconer]

Hrm, really? Because they sold "Robilar's Character Sheet" on eBay a little while back. It was definitely one of these sheets filled out. Granted it was a "reproduction," but I assume it was a reproduction of Robilar's sheet pretty much as it actually was at some point. Regards.

[dwayanu]

I've played without ability scores, but now prefer to use them as they are an aid in visualizing the character.

The point-trading scheme to boost PRs, or any other manipulation, I can do without. I'd rather get quickly into actual play.

Simply rolling up a character rather than "designing" one gives the player a different kind of challenge. The former is the kind of play I remember more from the old days: Here's your "pawn" -- let's see what you make of it!

[Finarvyn]

dwayanu said:

I've played without ability scores, but now prefer to use them as they are an aid in visualizing the character.

I agree. Having some sort of attributes is part of what seperates a RPG from a game of "make believe". If a character doesn't have clearly defined attributes of some kind, it's kind of hard to stay consistent.

Of course, some games like FUDGE use words to describe the attributes instead of numbers, but behind-the-scenes there are still numbers to back up the words.

[philotomy]

dwayanu said:

Simply rolling up a character rather than "designing" one gives the player a different kind of challenge. The former is the kind of play I remember more from the old days: Here's your "pawn" -- let's see what you make of it!

Yes, definitely. I think objections to rolling are often rooted in the assumption that players start of with a character concept. That's a valid approach, but I think it's just as much fun (or maybe even more fun) to take what fate gives you and see where it takes you. And if you have some low scores, well, everyone loves an underdog. Some of the most memorable characters in my games are the "flawed" PCs that never would have happened with point-buy, et cetera.

[dwayanu]

Here's a quote from the Call of Cthulhu rulesbook:

"One makes random rolls for characteristics for the same sort of reason that tennis players use a tennis net -- context creates meaning."

Another way to look at it is that random rolls challenge the player to create a meaningful context. In Traveller, a character is the product of many rolls; the process can be seen as generating not only abilities but a sketch of biography. A random planetary profile is likewise a spur to the imagination. Characteristics come up that one might not have though to combine.

[scogle]

I actually like the method just as it's presented in the LBB, though if someone rolls horribly I'll let them reroll. This is because I think stats should be more than just combat-modifiers, but actually something that influences how your character behaves (and this is pointed to in the OD&D rules as well). I don't really see it as restricting, and I'm not a real hard-ass about it or anything, but the way the stats are generated makes people think about it like that.

Besides, stats aren't super-important in OD&D anyway. I mean there are mechanics for them, but you can play a perfectly acceptable fighter with 9 strength, something impossible in ad&d.

[ffilz]

Jun 19, 2008 22:11:44 GMT -6 scogle said:

I actually like the method just as it's presented in the LBB, though if someone rolls horribly I'll let them reroll.

This sentence is slightly amusing considering the method in Men & Magic instructs the GM to roll!

That said, I plan to let the players roll, and like you, if someone is really unhappy with their rolls (after getting to swap one pair, and noting the point trading (for xp only in my game)), then I will let them re-roll.

Frank

[magremore]

Jun 25, 2007 8:38:44 GMT -6 Finarvyn 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".

Resurrecting a very old thread here, but I’ve been googling and not found the probably obvious thing I’m missing about Gary’s Xylarthen example, though several threads and blog posts discuss this paragraph and, more generally, adjusting ability scores in the LBB: Why would this character have progressed faster as a cleric? Since MU’s can use Wisdom 2-for-1 that's good enough to give Xylarthen "13" INT (for XP purposes), which would be the same 5% bonus that would be gotten as a cleric with "14" WIS.

More specifically to this (again, sorry) old thread, there would seem to be no need for this theoretical player (the general point and interest of the question still stand for a case with different scores) to kill this character off because with no special bonuses for high intelligence, the 11 INT magic-user and the 13 WIS cleric work their respective magics the same as a 13 INT magic-user and a 11 WIS cleric. Am I misunderstanding something about applying this basic "for purposes of gaining experience" rule?

[cooper]

This whole thread presupposes copious amounts of DM fudging of dice rolls. What keeps players from having their characters commit suicide to roll up a more favorable PC is the fact that what character ultimately survives low levels to attain the resources necessary for long term survival is almost entirely arbitrary and reliant on the fate of dice.

I think many people are actually playing A fate/story driven games while being under the misapprehension of actually playing D&D as it was written. It's not bad, it's just that it leads to questions whose answers are obvious if the premise of the game is understood. To whit:

If players are expecting a particular character they create to survive (aka the group is telling a story and the character won't die "needlessly"), then more care and customization of that character is to be expected and the player rightly expects to be able to customize this character.

In the game as written, The DM doesn't have to "stop" a player from killing his character, chances are high that that character will die through the normal course of a game. The game does not propose that survival and leveling is granted automatically. It isn't like school where you are guaranteed a degree if you show up. It's like an older, darker time in human history that survival was not guaranteed at all. So why not play a 11 intelligence wizard? There is no guarantee that an 18 intelligence wizard would live, or a 13 wisdom cleric.

People tend to have only 1 or 2 children in modern societies. You expect your children to live and you want to help guide their life's path. 300 years ago you had 15 kids and which one lived to adulthood was a crapshoot. What good is a "designer" baby if there is a high likelihood of that baby dying of typhoid fever in 2 months? Most people were just happy for whatever baby they had at the moment.

But! The moment God, science or the DM increases the likelihood of survival by fudging the dice of natural selection, the world is a different game.

[Zenopus]

Mar 24, 2016 19:44:52 GMT -6 magremore said:

Jun 25, 2007 8:38:44 GMT -6 Finarvyn 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".

Resurrecting a very old thread here, but I’ve been googling and not found the probably obvious thing I’m missing about Gary’s Xylarthen example, though several threads and blog posts discuss this paragraph and, more generally, adjusting ability scores in the LBB: Why would this character have progressed faster as a cleric? Since MU’s can use Wisdom 2-for-1 that's good enough to give Xylarthen "13" INT (for XP purposes), which would be the same 5% bonus that would be gotten as a cleric with "14" WIS.

Good points, magremore. I looked it over again & can't see any flaws in your logic. I'd guess it was an oversight or an editing error. Possibly the part about the character was written before the part about adjusting points was added.

[Mushgnome]

Mar 24, 2016 19:44:52 GMT -6 magremore said:

Why would this character have progressed faster as a cleric?

Magic users need 2,500xp to 2nd level, but clerics need only 1,500.

[Zenopus]

Possibly, but in that case why would they write "This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric" (underlining added for emphasis), when any and all players/characters would progress faster as a Cleric than a M-U?

[cooper]

I think the hobbyists nature of the product answers that as an Occam's razor.