Goodman Games

I didn't want to start a new topic. I'm about to start a game, but there's an issue:

ADMIN SAYS:
I thought this topic was taking on a life of its own, so it's a new thread now.

I like random generation.
My players like powerful, optimized pcs.

I thought that I could find a compromise for allowing them to roughly shape the character strong and weak points before hand, and then actually define them randomly:
Assign these scores to abilities as you like : 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7. Then roll 1d6 for each ability and increase it by the result.

What do you think?

An interesting concept. A couple of thoughts:

1. The "arrange to taste" approach instead of "roll in order" is fine and has no bearing on the type of dice used. I like letting the players pick order, although for my DCC games so far I've done it in order. Both ways should work just fine, depending upon how much you want players to control their own type of character.

2. The stat average of the above is 9.5, compared to a 2d6 stat average of 7, so overall with random rolls the character stats should average 13 instead of 10.5 (the 3d6 average).

3. No matter how lucky the dice roller, the character can never have more than one 18, but they have a 1 in 6 of getting one. (Using standard 3d6 there is a 1 in 216 chance of an 18 on any roll, with 6 rolls means 1 in 36 characters would have an 18.)

4. No matter how unlucky the dice roller, the character can never have a stat less than 8. In some ways I like this, but you also lose certain fun situations where a player has to deal with a character with a 4 agility or some similar stat. Your way produces more "serious" adventurers, the regular way can be a bit more comedic.

Overall not a bad idea. I'll have to dust off the dice and roll a few samples to see what they look like, but the stat ranges seem pretty good overall.

This was the intention. I know my friends wouldn't like to play underpowered characters. But I don't want them to play optimized characters.

Unfortunately, if your players are really that adverse to negative/underpowered characteristics you may have to just house rule in a "4d6 drop the lowest" method for character stat rolling. Seeing as how a lot of DMs do that for D&D, it shouldn't shake things up too much.

For me, Pilgrim points out the simple fact that DCC-RPG is a game. Games are suppose to be fun. If the folks playing this game like it, except for the 3d6 in-order stats, then that rule needs to be amended so the people around the table are having fun.

It's like Monopoly, I enjoy a long version of this game I grew up on (no auctioning of properties, one must land on the property to buy it), but most I know don't. So we have to compromise. We still play Monopoly, but we make the game a shorter version.

Nice! I'll have to keep this alternative in mind if my players absolutely hate 3D6 in order.

As pointed out, this give no penalty on average (since even 7, the lowest, +d6 averages 10.5).
I'm considering using 12,11,10 (skip the 9) then 8,7,6.

Pilgrim has a good point. You might just try "roll 4d6 keep 3" as an alternative. It'll keep things easier than having to tinker with base numbers and it shouldn't unbalance anything much. You can decide if "in order" is appropriate or not; if you let them arrange the final numbers it would allow for customization a lot like what you proposed originally.

HERE'S ANTHER TWIST:
Have your characters roll 3d6 to generate a set of stats and arrange them in the order they like. Have then write down the values of each die instead of just the total number. (This gives a set of random base numbers similar to your original suggestion.) Then, once the numbers have been placed, the player gets to roll 1d6 one stat at a time in order. If the d6 is higher than the low die in the actual stat roll then you replace it, if not the stat stays.

This is a lot like your original concept, but makes the base numbers more random and essentially uses the 4d6 approach but not until after base numbers have been placed.

Just a thought.

Your option is indeed similar in scope to what I proposed. However, when two mechanics both accomplish efficiently the same scope I tend to prefer the one that involves less rolls and less book-keeping, if you get what i mean.

Option A rolls 6d6 and keeps track of only 12 numbers (6 base values and 6 results)
Option B rolls 24d6 and keeps track of 24 numbers

But it's up to personal taste. It's already good enough that my idea of "semi-random" stats has not been classified as utterly stupid and useless
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: I wanted to try and generate a warrior with both "options", I leave any consideration to you all. I kept the same "modifying" dice rolls.
Warrior A
STR 12 + (2) = 14
AGL 10 + (2) = 12
STA 11 + (4) = 15
PER 8 + (4) = 12
INT 6 + (2) = 8
LUC 7 + (3) = 10

Warrior B (2,4,2-1,5,5-2,6,1-6,4,3-5,5,6-6,4,2)
STR 5,5,6 +(2) = 16
AGL 6,4,2 +(2) = 12
STA 6,4,3 +(4) = 14
PER 5,5,1 +(4) = 14
INT 2,4,2 +(2) = 8
LUC 2,6,1 +(3) = 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if anyone was wondering, I think the idea could be applied with lower base values, to create proper "3d6" characters. I think 10,9,8,7,6,5 could do. Or 9,8,7,6,5,4 if you feel really hardcore. At least you won't get a warrior with a STR or STA penalty.

In a game we just finished, we created characters by rolling 4d6 (drop lowest), and assign to an attribute. Then repeat, but this time there are only the 5 remaining attributes to assign it to. Continue until all 6 have been generated.

I've been playing around with this idea of yours and I think it has serious potential, but I don't like the 1/6 chance of getting a stat of 18. I fiddled with some of the alternatives and didn't like those much either... then it hit me.

what if you drop the numbers to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? Have the player assign these values to the stats in whatever way they like, then roll 2d6 for each stat. with the average of 7 on 2d6 then the values come out in the 8-13 range, while still preserving the chances of getting a 3 or an 18.

here's the first 6 sets of random numbers I got:

5, 9, 6, 9, 11, 9
9, 10, 14, 14, 11, 10
9, 9, 5, 10, 8, 14
13, 13, 12, 15, 11, 12
10, 6, 11, 11, 7, 13
7, 8, 9, 12, 12, 10

In all 36 rolls I got a 12 once, but it was being added to a 1. I also got a value of 2, but the calculated value was 7.

I think this could really work to bridge the gap between the folks who like powerful PC's and those who like less comic book PC's. The base idea that abk108 had is great, as it allows the player to assign relative importance to the stats based on the types of PC's they like to play. For groups that like really powerful PC's, they can double the numbers to 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12; then roll 1d6 for each.

I like to play wizards; so for me things would look like:
--------w/2d6 roll
STR: 1___10
AGL: 3___10
STA: 4___12
INT: 6___13
PER: 2___9
LUK: 5___11

--------w/1d6 roll
STR: 2___4
AGL: 6___9
STA: 8___11
INT: 12___18
PER: 4___6
LUK: 10___11


Any thoughts?

I proposed something like this as part of the funnel and was told is was insanely complicated.

Basically you write down the stat and the die numbers to get that stat. Over the course of the funnel if characters do Strength things or Agility things, the DM can give the player a bonus die immediately. They roll d6 and if it is higher than their lowest die in that ability, scribble it in and recalc the character with the new ability score. At the end of the adventure you can also give out additional d6 rolls, untied to specific abilities that the players can assign and then roll.

Not necessarily appropriate for the OPs group.

I remember when you proposed that. But what I need is something to create a 1st level character, somewhat in between 3.x and DCC. If I allow 4d6-L, what happens is that they'll have wizards whose higher stat is always int, warriors whose higher stat is strength and so on.
My idea is meant to allow the wizard to have an high int (12+3.5 = 15.5!) ... but it's not assured it will be the highest! Maybe the wizard gets 14 INT and 17 AGL, maybe the warrior gets 15 STR and 16 COS... They are still GOOD characters, but not really Optimized as with 4d6-L

LOL, we're going backwards I mean, that's where I started: base value (mine was 8,7,6,5,4,3) plus 2d6 (higher than 18 become 18)!! After a while, I thought that it creates much more "random characters", and I think your examples show that.
I would like to avoid characters like Wizard1 and Wizard4 (of your generated PCs) being in the same game. One would feel he's boss, the other would feel he's got nothing to add to the party.

The only other alternative that I could think of which meets the following requisites:
[list=]
[*] distribute BASE before
[*] random ROLL after
[*] PCs all have more or less the same stats
[*]smaller than 1/6 chance of a MAX / min score
[/list]

is this:
BASE 12,11,10,8,7,6 + 3d6(discard HIGHER and LOWER)
but it went agaisnt my principle of "less rolls is better"....

If i generate four Wizards you can see what i mean (I've used the 3d6-L-H formula on http://dicelog.com/dice ... good site!)

STR: 6___8
AGL: 8___12
STA: 10___12
INT: 12___17
PER: 7___10
LUK: 11___14

STR: 6___11
AGL: 8___12
STA: 10___12
INT: 12___18
PER: 7___11
LUK: 11___12

STR: 6___7
AGL: 8___10
STA: 10___12
INT: 12___14
PER: 7___12
LUK: 11___16

STR: 6___9
AGL: 8___11
STA: 10___14
INT: 12___16
PER: 7___8
LUK: 11___13

Well, going back to simplicity I like the basic premise of your original post and think that this is a better sequence than your original one.

Clearly I was having an insane moment when I proposed some of my alternate options.

I do understand where you are coming from, but I would like to caution everyone on adjusting the stats upwards too much.

From my reading of the rules, the DCC RPG is designed around very little stat bonus. That a character will have one bonus (with maybe a penalty). This bonus is usually small.

As you start to accumulate more bonuses, you run into situations where you can start to skew the system more than in other game systems. But if your players need better stats, then do what you need to have fun.

Not to start any sort of edition thread, I always thought that 4e was pretty much a joke because of the way that they treated bonuses. That they expected certain bonuses at certain levels to keep the 'balance' in play. (i.e. you have three great stats)

It is my thought that DCC is planned around a single +1 bonus in your primary area... anything beyond that is awesome, but not overpowering. Less than that is just more of a challenge.

Just be careful with the balance of the game if stats start to increase too much for the players. Encounters and challenges could become much easier for the players and change the entire feel of the game. Remember that a single +1 to hit means a GREAT deal more in DCC then in other game systems. The target AC's of your opponents will not be as inflated as in other RPG's.

I perfectly understand and I agree with everything you say.
I didn't mention that probably we'll end up playing D&D3.5 because I wasn't able to convey the awesomeness of DCC to my players (or, more easily, they just aren't the right players for this game), but i thought this debate could be useful even for DCC, so I posted it anyway.

@ abk108> By 1st and 4th wizard I assume you mean these:


5, 9, 6, 9, 11, 9
9, 10, 14, 14, 11, 10
9, 9, 5, 10, 8, 14
13, 13, 12, 15, 11, 12
10, 6, 11, 11, 7, 13
7, 8, 9, 12, 12, 10

When I generated these numbers they weren't assigned to stats, but using the previous assignments:

I like to play wizards; so for me things would look like:
--------w/2d6 roll
STR: 1___XX
AGL: 3___XX
STA: 4___XX
INT: 6___XX
PER: 2___XX
LUK: 5___XX

they'd look like :

Wizard #1
STR: 2___5
AGL: 6___6
STA: 8___9
INT: 12___9
PER: 4___9
LUK: 10___11
{by DCC standards this isn't that bad a character, a little bland perhaps: but no real disadvantages other than STR. In DCC wizards aren't supposed to want to be in combat anyway... so low STR is no problem there. It provides for lots of RP opportunities as well.}

Wizard #2
STR: 2___13
AGL: 6___12
STA: 8___15
INT: 12___12
PER: 4___13
LUK: 10___11
{this character would in fact be better off as a cleric... they will never be a good wizard, but they won't be a bad wizard either... & they'd be good in a fight. There is tremendous RP potential in this assuming the DM doesn't let you change it to a more suitable class. The DM could just as easily say: "Sorry, dude. You declared he was going to be a wizard so just live with it and make it work." In a DCC setting, this character is destined for greatness no matter what vocation they choose... if the player lets that be their excuse for being a "peacock" then, well that's a RP issue the players need to resolve.}

Personally, I'd love to play the wizard with these stats:
STR: 2___4
AGL: 6___9
STA: 8___11
INT: 12___18
PER: 4___6
LUK: 10___11

This is totally a "Raistlin" -style wizard, from the Dragon lance chronicles. From a DCC mechanics POV it really isn't that bad a PC; with a -1 willpower save being the worst of it. Again, the low STR becomes a source of RP as the players have to deal with the slow movement, and inability to get around the dungeon. However, when you need a mage, it's better that he's on your side... or at least that he's not against you for the moment.

We could quibble about which numbers to use all day long, but what I think is the best aspect of this overall approach is that the player gets to assign their priorities. If they want a warrior, then the 2 highest values are placed in STR & STAM, if they want to be a thief then they put the highest value in AGIL, etc. Then Fate comes along and fills in the specifics... sure, you may be the warrior's warrior with a STR 18 & STAM 17, but you might have an INT as low as 3: i.e. Conan

@ Hamakto > I agree with you on all points, that's why I think my variant has merit, it keeps the "Titans" to a minimum while not forcing the player into something they may not like or want through total randomness.

I think that players who insist on large stat values without any truly low stats (like things were in 0e, 1e, and 2e) are cheating themselves of some wonderful opportunities for RP.

I do think you nailed it on the head. It is easy to RP 18 in a stat... but the RP difference between 10 and 13 (+0 and +1) is not a very large difference to most players.

Many players need the crutch of exceptional to build a character around. But I think the truly memorable characters are not those with great bonuses... no great penalties. They are a time a dozen and possibly more shallow.

But those that make the most of their average stats are the truly memorable. The strategy, ideas, RP and everything come into play more if you cannot rely on a stat as a crutch.

For example, a character with 18 STR probably will not live as long as his buddy with 13 STR. That is because he will try to do too much and take the lead more often. He will push the envelope more and not play as smart as someone who is not as well endowed. I also have seen a tendency where RPing become more pidgin-holed the higher the stat becomes (not always, but many times).

Personally, I really like the following alternative method to rolling up characters for DCC RPG. You roll three sets of 3d6 in order... You pick the best set and start at level 1. It creates a pseudo funnel effect and you don't really monkey with probabilities.

But that is just the purist in me.

Point well taken, and I agree with this 100%, but on the other hand I can see where if folks want characters to be "heroic" they want to see some aspect of their character actually be above average. More so than what a standard "3d6 in order" might achieve.

"Call of Cthulhu" characters are designed to be average but Conan and Elric are not. Elric was exceptional in many ways but had some horrible weaknesses to overcome so Elric is probably more fun to play than Conan, but throwing a CoC character into an Elric/Conan story probably wouldn't be much fun at all. The character must fit the genre in order to be fun to play, and many folks associate "above average" with fantasy role playing.

Perhaps the secret is to have a starting range of base numbers such that one is automatically going to be low even if the rest are average or above.For example, let the base numbers be more like 12, 11, 10, 6, 2. This would allow a few stats to be pretty decent while at least one can be no higher than 8.

Not to be disagreeable here...

But... I have found that people can deal far more easily with no or low bonus stats... but a negative bonus (penalty) just drives them up the wall.

@Finarvyn : I see your point, and I like the "no better than 8" stat concept. You only suggested a series of 5 base values: 12, 11,10, 6,2.

@Hamakto : True. I know lots of people who'd rather play a 14,13,10,10,10,10 instead of a 17,15,11,10,7,5. But I guess it really is up to personal taste. I find roleplaying "extreme" characters easier than roleplaying the "average joe".

Why can't my "history" posts garner even a bit of attention that these pesky "math" posts do!??

You're right on this one!

Someday I'll learn to count. Okay, how about 12, 11, 10, 8, 6, 2?

History is hard to debate, since anyone can be "right." Math arguments are such that if a person is "wrong" everyone jumps on it!