|
|
Post by Geiger on Dec 13, 2011 20:36:07 GMT -6
reposted from dragonsfoot
Ok amigos, I need some help with a little idea. I believe I first saw this at these board a while ago. Sadly I haven't been able to find that post.
So, the basic Idea is that instead of rolling for ye old Str, Dex, Con, Int, etc. The PC's are assumed to be average in all their physical and mental attributes. There will be a list of keywords, Strong, Wise, Hardy, Agile, etc. and the player gets to choose a certain ammount (2? 3?) to modify their pc. Each keyword will grant a +1 to an attribute roll. Choosing from a list of weaknesses, like Clumsy, Frail, etc. will allow the pc to choose a a good trait. Further more adding the word "very" to the trait will either give + or-2 to the attribute.
Ex
Beren the Warrior
Strong (+1) and Hardy (+1)
Sorcerer Gydus Krun
Intelligent (+1) Wise(+1) Frail(-1) Agile(+1)
Gloin the Dwarf
Very Hardy (+2)
Kelek the Wise
Very Wise (+2) Hardy (+1) Clumsy (-1)
So I need help with the keywords lists both positive and negative, and any flaws or benefits of this idea.
Thank you for looking.
|
|
akooser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 150 
|
Post by akooser on Dec 13, 2011 21:10:08 GMT -6
I don't have a list in mind but I know Fudge uses a similar system and they have a list of attributes in the core rules (which are free) www.fudgerpg.com/goodies/fudge-files/core/Risus has a dungeoneering hack that uses this as well. Hope that helps. GURPS Dungeon Crawl series might be another one to swipe ideas from. ara |
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Dec 14, 2011 3:26:03 GMT -6
George Strayton's The Secre Fire already uses descriptors for Abilities (using the Moldvay/Mentzer approach). Example: Wisdom | Score | Descriptor | | 3 | Oblivious | | 4-5 | Reckless | | 6-8 | Foolhardy | | 9-12 | - | | 13-15 | Insightful | | 16-17 | Wise | | 18 | Enlightened |
And so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Dec 14, 2011 3:45:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by starcraft on Dec 14, 2011 7:07:18 GMT -6
I like your thinking, but to play Devil's advocate, let me throw in an experience I had when I tried to do this 15-20 years ago (or something similar at least). Unless you are prepared for a steady increase in bonus/penalty modifiers, I found (YMMV) that it created very carbon-copy characters. If (and I am making assumptions here - apologies if I am wrong) you make for a system that allows for -2,-1,0,+1,+2 as you possible modifiers, you are essentially rating everyone on a 1-5 scale with 3 being 'ordinary'. This may be what you want, I understand, but if not, you are saying there is no difference between Mongo the Mighty and Rexor the Mauler both of whom have a strength trait of Powerful (+2). Again, you might be cool with this, but in my experience it made for a system where a strength check (or any other check) was called for and all the parties had fighters with about the same strength, Clerics with the same wisdom etc... I ran into it again in the Neverwinter Nights PC game a few years ago. The game gave baseline stats and then gave you a pool to build from. Give or take a few points here and there, people spent x points on strength for fighters or intelligence for mages etc.,, I started to refer to the game as Clone Wars after a while. It was a dozen people running around with the same PC with a different name. Anyway, hope I didn't come off as a wet blanket or anything, I'd love to see what you come up with if you make it work! God knows the fact they I gave up shouldn't put anyone off it!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2011 9:05:16 GMT -6
Part of the vibe of OD&D was "You don't know what your character is until you roll it up," which is missing from any point-buy system. Part of the fun of the game is dealing with what you have; I think you miss a lot by buying your characteristics.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Dec 14, 2011 9:19:51 GMT -6
In my clone I am working on, I do something similar, keeping modifiers low. I stuck with D6s through out. What you are doing is expressing everything in a trait as you say. That's fine and even a little more descriptive rather than a number. Essentially, I say that 9-12 is average and has no bonus. 13-17 is well above average and gets a +1. 18 is legendary and gets a +2. Similarly, 8-4 is below average and gives a penalty of 1 and 3 is completely inept with a -2 penalty.
There iis not reason you could not simply use my distribution or something similar and based on a roll, assign the trait. Each character could get a roll for each of the traits and off you go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geiger on Dec 14, 2011 14:03:37 GMT -6
Thank you guys for the quick imput. Akooser, Azafuse, Ynasmidgard and Jacar (cool names by the way, especially if you list them next to each other ;D) Thanks for the ideas... starcraft, I hear you. I've been playing for twenty years+ and I've tried many house rules (both good ones and some terrible ones) I really do not mind having cookie cutter pc's in my campaign nor my players. Its actually very funny you use the "cookie cutter" meme as I had a discussion with a friend about the very same thing. In his case, he argued that any character before 2ed was verry CC, and that it was not until 3e that characters truly came out of the mold of sameness... "with out feats and kits and all the extra goodness, how can you differentiate between fighter a vs fighter b" I answered "roleplaying" Right now as is, I get turned off by the numbers on the stats. Im planning to use the roll dice and add bonus for action resolution, So the bonus and the penalties is really all I need. Thanks for the insight and you didn't come off as a wet blanket  (I hope I make myself understood as english is not my first language, many things do get lost in translation...) That said, If you guys can help me with some more descriptor ideas (especially negative ones) I would be ever so greatful |
|
|
|
Post by starcraft on Dec 14, 2011 14:23:46 GMT -6
Some ideas...
Strength
puny (-2)
weak (-1)
powerful (+1)
mighty (+2)
Intelligence
idiot (-2)
dim (-1)
smart (+1)
genius(+2)
Wisdom
fool (-2)
simpleton (-1)
wise (+1)
sagely (+2)
Dexterity
clumsy (-2)
slow (-1)
fleet (+1)
quicksilver (+2)
Constitution
sickly (-2)
fragile (-1)
robust (+1)
hearty (+2)
Charisma
despicable (-2)
boorish(-1)
engaging (+1)
inspiring (+2)
I'm sure others will have some ideas of their own....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2011 14:59:24 GMT -6
... he argued that any character before 2ed was verry CC, and that it was not until 3e that characters truly came out of the mold of sameness... I can't agree with that statement. Don't misunderstand, I've no problem with the rules variant your are proposing, but the friend you've quoted above is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by starcraft on Dec 14, 2011 15:23:03 GMT -6
I think I can understand why DuBeers would have that reaction.
That said, I think it's a different strokes for different folks kind of thing. Different iterations of the game (or any game ftm) speak to different people.
I suppose if 3E is what sparked someone to break out of a 'cc' game, then *for them* it was the edition that gave them options.
For me, no edition changed my play (I've played them all with the exception of 4th). It was ME who changed. I started to approach RPGs in general in a different way and decided rules-lite, high GM involvement was what I liked best. That led me back to 1974-Holmes stuff.
I have a soft spot for Moldvay too actually.
Metzer really doesn't grab me in the same way. AD&D still interests me quite a bit, and I may end up playing it again, but right now, I am enamored with the early stuff.
Not right or wrong - just what gives me what i want here and now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2011 16:05:45 GMT -6
Not right or wrong - just what gives me what i want here and now. Sure, and if he would have expressed his sentiment as an opinion I would have ignored it. Considering the edition to which this forum is dedicated, and the fact he stated his assessment as fact? No, not going to let that pass by without a challenge. I do appreciate your understanding, know it was nothing personal. |
|
|
|
Post by starcraft on Dec 14, 2011 16:11:22 GMT -6
Sure, and if he would have expressed his sentiment as an opinion I would have ignored it. Considering the edition to which this forum is dedicated, and the fact he stated his assessment as fact? No, not going to let that pass by without a challenge. Fair point. For the record, *opinion* I found 3rd edition to promote cookie cutter power gaming among a decent segment of its devotees, so I am not exactly rallying to defend it. *opinion* Cheers! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2011 16:20:08 GMT -6
For the record, *opinion* I found 3rd edition to promote cookie cutter power gaming among a decent segment of its devotees, so I am not exactly rallying to defend it. *opinion* I'll have to take your word for that, my only experience with v3.x was the Neverwinter Nights computer game (not the online AOL version, the standalone CRPG). I've read it was based on D&D 3 but there was some variation even from those rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 14, 2011 19:07:31 GMT -6
Not right or wrong - just what gives me what i want here and now. Sure, and if he would have expressed his sentiment as an opinion I would have ignored it. Considering the edition to which this forum is dedicated, and the fact he stated his assessment as fact? No, not going to let that pass by without a challenge. Who exactly are you arguing with? It's pretty clear that Geiger didn't agree with his friend since he's proposing a system that is less "differentiated" and distinguishes characters by role-playing. Also, I don't see any "statements of fact" - he merely stated his friend was "arguing", which is what you do when you want to convince someone of an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 14, 2011 19:16:15 GMT -6
To avoid "cookie-cutter" characters, how about random rolling for your # of +/-'s? d6: 1 - all stats average 2 - +1, -1 3 - +1, +1, -1, -1 4 - +2, +1, -2, -1 5 - +2, +2, -2, -2 6 - +2, +2, -1, -1, -1, -1 or something like that. And then roll a d6 to see which stat each applies to. Re-roll if a stat has already been modified (or modify twice for more fun!). Here's a sample character I rolled this way: rolled a 6 = +2 (dex), +2 (int), -1 (cha), -1 (str), -1 (con), -1 (cha). So, he's a weak, very intelligent, average wis, very dexterous, unhealthy and very ugly magic-user. Optionally, let them pick which stat the first bonus goes to so they pick their class. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2011 22:10:38 GMT -6
Who exactly are you arguing with? It's pretty clear that Geiger didn't agree with his friend since he's proposing a system that is less "differentiated" and distinguishes characters by role-playing. Also, I don't see any "statements of fact" - he merely stated his friend was "arguing", which is what you do when you want to convince someone of an opinion. He "merely stated" an opinion that derided a version of the rules supported by this board. There are plenty of places to go that one can talk about the newer versions of D&D. This is a place to talk about OD&D. If you want to slam it, this isn't the place to do it. Do you have further questions? E-mail me. I'll be glad to explain it it you in greater detail. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 14, 2011 22:30:20 GMT -6
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Dec 14, 2011 22:33:42 GMT -6
Who exactly are you arguing with? It's pretty clear that Geiger didn't agree with his friend since he's proposing a system that is less "differentiated" and distinguishes characters by role-playing. Also, I don't see any "statements of fact" - he merely stated his friend was "arguing", which is what you do when you want to convince someone of an opinion. He "merely stated" an opinion that derided a version of the rules supported by this board. There are plenty of places to go that one can talk about the newer versions of D&D. This is a place to talk about OD&D. If you want to slam it, this isn't the place to do it. Do you have further questions? E-mail me. I'll be glad to explain it it you in greater detail.  DuBeers just said the dude was wrong. I don't see the problem here. The dude was wrong. Have we all gotten so touchy, that an apologetic "YMMV" or "IMHO" has to be added to this statement to avoid controversy? Especially in a place where one would expect the majority of posters to at the very least, understand if not outright agree with that sentiment? |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 14, 2011 23:01:21 GMT -6
The Science Fiction games Starsiege: Event Horizon (I think that's the name; too lazy to go in the basement and look at the box) uses just the modifiers. You can roll up characters in the traditional way (3d6) but it just takes the modifiers and that's it.
No names for the rankings, though -- just "My strength is +2," sort of thing.
I haven't played it so I don't know how it plays.
And as far as your answer "roleplaying" to your friend, all I can say is "Amen, brother!"
I've heard complaints about cookie cutter characters in every edition of D&D. It doesn't matter what edition you play. What matters is what you do with it. (And that you have fun -- it is a game, after all!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2011 23:03:48 GMT -6
Oh, you want to quote? Here is one for you ... I come here to discuss OD&D and its variants. Anyone coming here and putting that edition in a bad light will get a challenge from me. I won't back down from that stance. |
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Dec 15, 2011 0:32:00 GMT -6
The Science Fiction games Starsiege: Event Horizon (I think that's the name; too lazy to go in the basement and look at the box) uses just the modifiers. You can roll up characters in the traditional way (3d6) but it just takes the modifiers and that's it. No names for the rankings, though -- just "My strength is +2," sort of thing. I haven't played it so I don't know how it plays. That happens also in OGL's True20 System, since 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 15, 2011 0:33:39 GMT -6
To avoid "cookie-cutter" characters, how about random rolling for your # of +/-'s? d6: 1 - all stats average 2 - +1, -1 3 - +1, +1, -1, -1 4 - +2, +1, -2, -1 5 - +2, +2, -2, -2 6 - +2, +2, -1, -1, -1, -1 or something like that. And then roll a d6 to see which stat each applies to. Re-roll if a stat has already been modified (or modify twice for more fun!). "Something like that" might be... the referee hands the player two green dice and one red die to roll. The player rolls 'em, with the green dice each giving him a +1, and the red die giving him a -1. The stat the adjustment applies to is determined by the result of each die; 1=str, 2=int, 3=wis, 4=dex, 5=con, 6=cha. (Someone else posted this idea, or something very similar, a year or so ago but I couldn't find it.) |
|
|
|
Post by Geiger on Dec 15, 2011 13:55:09 GMT -6
Zenopus and Starcraft: cool ideas, please keep'em coming ;D. Things are starting to take shape in my mind.
Ways of the Earth: Didn't that idea used fudge dice?
|
|
|
|
Post by apparition13 on Jan 1, 2012 1:10:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 1, 2012 2:03:21 GMT -6
Yes, I think that was it |
|
|
|
Post by Geiger on Jan 1, 2012 18:31:39 GMT -6
To be completely honest, I wanted to keep it very simple, just tags for the classic attributes. Thinking about a wee bit more I'm thorn about adding tags above and beyond the six. One one hand there are more that could easily be added, luck or will for example. But I don't want the list to get out of hand...thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by apparition13 on Jan 2, 2012 1:39:51 GMT -6
I guess the question I would have is what do you want the keywords to mean? If they are just labels for numbers, what you have is fine. The question for me is do you want to differentiate between different types of strong, or hardy, or agile, or whatever? So for example you could have a +1 healing (heals an additional point per day) vs. +1 healthy (+1 to saves vs. poison/disease), rather than a pure +1 hardy. Both make sense. With the former you keep attributes general; with the latter you allow for greater customization (I envision something like FATE aspects, though I think in terms of Over The Edge's descriptors), though at the cost of greater complexity. I might even go with +2 for more specific tags, since they are useful in less situations, but that depends on the dice used for the checks they would modify. Yes, I think that was it This is really handy for quickly doing NPCs. If the PCs decide to interact with an NPC, you can roll a few dice and get a feel for what they are like, which helps with characterization, even if you never need to use the attributes for a dice-roll. |
|
