Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jpyrich 02-01-06, 03:40 PM	In another thread we were discussing character generation and the merits of a point buy versus rolling dice for ability scores. This reminded me of one of the methods that I used a long time ago. This method created some of the most interesting characters I've ever seen. It also got some players to roleplay far more than they would have even done. I know that the method needs to be changed because back then only a 15+ in an attribute would give you any kind of bonus at all. I'd love some help working out the issues with this so that I can use with my next campaign. Before I talk about what I'm thinking about using, let me explain the old system. It was a variant system introduced in the original Unearthed Arcana. Each class was given a number of dice to roll for each ability score and only the highest three counted. For the least important arrtibute for the class, you rolled 3d6. The next you rolled 4d6. This continued until you rolled 9d6 for your primary ability (we had 7 abilities at the time). This sounded crazy to me at first and my group had a number of discussions about it. I ended up creating statistical models for each combination. For 9d6, the majority of the rolls are in the 15-18 range with roughly equal chance of any number. The model went from near zero results until around 12 and then spiked up and became nearly flat at 15. That's really what I want for a player's primary abiliy score. IIRC, 8d6 had the majority of the numbers in the 14-18 range but there was a significant decrease in the number of 18s. I can't remember the other models, but they were well within what I wanted so I adopted the system with some small changes. 1) Players had the choice of 4d6 and arrange them as desired, or use the new system. 2) If using the new system, the player had to announce race and class before rolling. 3) Players could arrange the dice rolls as desired. After all, not all fighters are stong. Some are nimble. A player could decide to put his 9d6 in Dex and have a better chance at having a nimble fighter. Or the player could decide that his fighter wasn't going to be dumb, but rash. So, moving the 3d6 from Intelligence to Wisdom made sense. 4) No rearranging of scores after you rolled. You arranged the dice rolls beforehand. No double dipping. 5) You played what you rolled. No rerolls were allowed. If the player generated a completely unplayable character, I would let them reroll. I just didn't tell them that up front. This created some wonderful characters. Usually the characters were as expected. Stong in their primary abilities (as selected), solid in other areas, and usually having a handicap. Of course, there were exceptions. My absolute favorite was the player who wanted to play a Fighter. So he arranged his die rolls. He put his 9d6 into Strength and his 3d6 into Intelligence. He rolled a Str-14, Int-18. "Can I swap Str and Int?" "No." "Can I become a Magic User?" "No. You said you where creating a Fighter. Oh, and you can't Dual Class with a Str-14" "Well why am I a fighter if I have an Int-18?" "You tell me." He rose to the task and played an awesome character. He was not a very good roleplayer. Actually, he still isn't great except for that one character. There were a few other examples too. I'd love to recapture that magic, but 3e is very different than 1e. Here are the issues that I see if I do something like this again: 1) Mainly unrestricted multi-classing. The player in my example above would have swapped to a Wizard at level-2 and much would have been lost. 2) There are only 6 attributes now. I still want the low roll to be 3d6, so the high roll caps at 8d6 with linear progression. 3) Bonuses and penalties for ability scores accrue starting at a small deviation from average. If character ends up with a lot of 12s and 14s it means a lot more now. Solving the first issue is fairly easy. I require my approval to multi-class. I'll almost always give permission as the player either knows up front that they want to do that, or there's a in-game reason for the character to go in that direction. So if a player gets an unexpected result, I will not automatically give approval. The player would need to explain why the character did not start out that way, why the character wants to go in that direction and then make the character work to achieve it. How well the player did would determine how long I would delay the multi-class. I wouldn't deny it forever. The second issue is also solved easily. Having 8d6 in your primary ability fine given the attribute increases in 3e. The third issue is the main problem. In the past, for the most part, a character with straight 14s was the same as a character with straight 7s. There wasn't much difference at all. Now, one is quite good (+2 in all, +12 total) and the other is unplayable. Keeping in mind that one of the 3e alternative methods is a 5d6 and arrange for a high power campaign, I'm thinking about this: 3d6, 3d6, 5d6, 5d6, 7d6, 7d6 This would give the character two scores that the average person would have; two exceptional scores; and two heroic scores. Comments? JP
Board_Rider 02-01-06, 04:01 PM	Well the final generation method isn't to bad in my opinion. I would stick with a straight 32 PB or just use the 4d6 and assign method. As for having the dice rolls fall into place for each attribute thats a bit heavy handed...but OK. My biggest problem with regards to what you have written is telling a player what they can and can't do with their PCs. If it were a Core only game and they wanted a feat from another supplement, fine. If it were a non core class, again, cool. But placing multiclass restrictions because of how you feel about it just isn't right in my opinion. They are not your PCs and there are rules concerning multiclass and what happens if someone were to dip too many times. Moreso if the PC is not human. If this were about PrCs I would agree with you as the PrC classes are optional. But unless you have some in game reason why a PC cannot be a Cleric (there are no dietites or whatever) or a Wizard (a no/low magic campaign) or whatever then I would say let the Players play what they wish. Everbody is supposed to have fun and if they are then fine. But if they want to play something let them.
jpyrich 02-01-06, 04:48 PM	Well the final generation method isn't to bad in my opinion. I would stick with a straight 32 PB or just use the 4d6 and assign method. As for having the dice rolls fall into place for each attribute thats a bit heavy handed...but OK. It's an alternate method that the players can choose to use. The 4d6 option would still open to them. My biggest problem with regards to what you have written is telling a player what they can and can't do with their PCs. I disagree. The PCs do not belong to the players any more then they belong to me. The PCs are shared. They are an extension of the player in my world. If it were a Core only game and they wanted a feat from another supplement, fine. If it were a non core class, again, cool. But placing multiclass restrictions because of how you feel about it just isn't right in my opinion. They are not your PCs and there are rules concerning multiclass and what happens if someone were to dip too many times. Moreso if the PC is not human. If this were about PrCs I would agree with you as the PrC classes are optional. But unless you have some in game reason why a PC cannot be a Cleric (there are no dietites or whatever) or a Wizard (a no/low magic campaign) or whatever then I would say let the Players play what they wish. There is nothing stopping a player from creating a Fighter/Wizard in my campaign. And they could multiclass at 2nd level. They could either roll 4d6 and arrange, or tell me that was their intent before rolling the dice. If they want to use the alternate method, there are restrictions. The player can choose to avoid the restrictions. So, how is this different from any other restriction placed upon a character? And there's a good game reason to deny the multiclass. If the player states to me that they are going to play a Fighter, I'm not going to allow a Wizard multiclass just because the player happened to roll an 18 on 3d6. The result is unexpected and therefore I would expect the player to roleplay if they wanted to pursue being a Wizard. The rule that I'll probably use is "Multiclassing where the primary attribute of the new class was assigned 3d6 requires DM approval." Everbody is supposed to have fun and if they are then fine. But if they want to play something let them. There is nothing here stopping a player from playing a multiclass character. Nothing. No one would be denied playing something that they want. However, I disagree that I should allow anything that the players want. It goes back the the shared nature of PCs. If I don't want something in my campaign, it's not going to be there. For example, I don't use anything from Eberron. So if you want to play a Warforged Artificer you can't. If that's not acceptable, go elsewhere. JP
MoogleEmpMog 02-01-06, 05:06 PM	I disagree. The PCs do not belong to the players any more then they belong to me. The PCs are shared. They are an extension of the player in my world Do you 'share' the world with the players? If a player wants, for example, to develop his own home country and work with you to incorporate it into your world, can he do so? What about scene framing? If a player wants to trigger a certain event, say, the arrival of his spouse/rival/parent in the city the party currently occupies, can he do so? I'm not judging your DMing style, but the terminology seems suspect to me. 'Shared world' means that everyone is involved in creating, expanding and developing the world as well as their characters within it, and implies a certain degree of autonomy. Such that, if I don't introduce warforged to the shared world, I do so not because my fellow creators forbid it but out of respect for their creative vision. If 'sharing' is just what seems like a nice way of saying it's your world, take it or leave it, why beat around the bush? There's nothing wrong with autocracy.
Board_Rider 02-01-06, 07:06 PM	I disagree. The PCs do not belong to the players any more then they belong to me. The PCs are shared. They are an extension of the player in my world. While I would agree that they would be an extension of any other "person" in your world the PCs should belong to the Players as they are the ones who roleplaying them. Using your shared policy the Players should then have a say in the NPCs that they encounter then. Or are they (the NPCs) not shared? If they want to use the alternate method, there are restrictions. The player can choose to avoid the restrictions. So, how is this different from any other restriction placed upon a character? Ok thats cool. I am not sure what restrictions, by the rules, of which you are writing about though. By the rules a character can take any class that they wish so as long as they meet the Alignment restrictions. Usually restrictions begin with DMs. And there's a good game reason to deny the multiclass. If the player states to me that they are going to play a Fighter, I'm not going to allow a Wizard multiclass just because the player happened to roll an 18 on 3d6. The result is unexpected and therefore I would expect the player to roleplay if they wanted to pursue being a Wizard. Well that really isn't a good game reason. Thats more of a logical reason. While I would agree that it doesn't really make sense for a Fighter to do his/her thing for four levels then dip into Wizard there simply isn't any rule in game to deny it. There is nothing here stopping a player from playing a multiclass character. Nothing. No one would be denied playing something that they want. However, I disagree that I should allow anything that the players want. It goes back the the shared nature of PCs. If I don't want something in my campaign, it's not going to be there. For example, I don't use anything from Eberron. So if you want to play a Warforged Artificer you can't. If that's not acceptable, go elsewhere. (emphasis mine) See, I just don't get this rationale of thinking. I think you needed to add "No one would be denied playing something that they want...so as long as it fits in my world" See where I am going with this? I can understand that limiting multiclassing with the use of the variable rolling method should be used as the PC may, almost assuradely, have a high primary ability score and may get lucky with a non-primary (3d6) rolled ability score. I can see your point there. However you then go on to say that this is a "shared" thing but then write that they must conform to your rules and your world. Thats not really sharing. I certainly can understand a DM having houserules and whatnot but your argument, to me anyways, doesn't follow to well with what you write.
DarknessEternal 02-01-06, 07:18 PM	We actually do a pool of 30d6 that you can split up six ways however you like. We do have some odd provisios on top of that, but only because no random system is fool-proof enough for one of our members. For example, back in the day we did an average d6 rolling experiment using a thousand rolls. He averaged 1.7 per die. Unfortunately, as anyone dealing with enough "randoms" can tell you, luck is an actual, although presently undefinable, attribute of the universe.
jpyrich 02-02-06, 12:44 AM	Do you 'share' the world with the players? Did I say that I shared the world with the players? No. What I said is that the PC does not belong to any one person. The player can not decide that the PC is taking a PrC that does not exist in my world. And the DM can't make the player create a Kobold Fighter. Both player and DM have a hand in character development. Therefore, it is shared. I'm not judging your DMing style, but the terminology seems suspect to me. 'Shared world' means that everyone is involved in creating, expanding and developing the world as well as their characters within it, and implies a certain degree of autonomy. Such that, if I don't introduce warforged to the shared world, I do so not because my fellow creators forbid it but out of respect for their creative vision. If it were a shared world, I would agree with you. It's not. My point was that no player has complete control over their PC. The player can only do what the the DM allows. If 'sharing' is just what seems like a nice way of saying it's your world, take it or leave it, why beat around the bush? There's nothing wrong with autocracy. Hopefully, I explained the misunderstanding above. It's not a shared world. I'm not closed to new ideas coming from my players. In fact, I encourge them. However, just becuase a player has an idea does not mean that I'm going change my campaign world in order to give the player what he wants. If a player wanted to play a Warforged Artificer in my current campaign, the answer would be no. However, if my players had a strong interest in playing Eberron content, I would create an Eberron campaign. JP
jpyrich 02-02-06, 01:32 AM	While I would agree that they would be an extension of any other "person" in your world the PCs should belong to the Players as they are the ones who roleplaying them. Using your shared policy the Players should then have a say in the NPCs that they encounter then. Or are they (the NPCs) not shared? I explained this in my last post. It's not a shared world. The players have no say in world building, NPCs, or other PCs. I was trying to make the point that character development does not happen without the involvement of both the player and the DM. The player chooses the path that they would like the PC to take and the DM approves that path. Neither has full control. Ok thats cool. I am not sure what restrictions, by the rules, of which you are writing about though. By the rules a character can take any class that they wish so as long as they meet the Alignment restrictions. Usually restrictions begin with DMs. Some examples: Alignment restrictions. A Paladin's Code of Conduct. Loss of future Monk advancement if another Base Class Level is taken. Choice of race if the player wants to play a Rogue/Sorcerer without xp penalty. A player can make choices to avoid these restrctions. Well that really isn't a good game reason. Thats more of a logical reason. While I would agree that it doesn't really make sense for a Fighter to do his/her thing for four levels then dip into Wizard there simply isn't any rule in game to deny it. Okay. We are talking about different things. What I meant by a game reason was directed at roleplay. A reason in the context of the game. I also explained myself poorly. In the old days, the player would state which class his character was going to be. So, there must have been a game reason why the character ended up this way. If he's got an Int-18, why wasn't he snatched up, or sent away to appentice to a Wizard? In 3e, I'll have work with the players a little more and tell them that their dice roll placement is telling me something about their character. If they put 3d6 in a score they are telling me one of three things. The character is not bright, doesn't put a lot of stock in that ability, or oppurtunities to use that ability were not available to the character. The player can fully flesh out the personality of the PC after rolling, but a 3d6 roll is going to mean one of those thngs regardless of the number rolled. Now this won't completely shut down avenues of advancement for the character, but there won't be the implication that when a Fighter takes a level of Wizard at 2nd level that the PC was dabbling in magic up to this point. If player told me his desire was to play a Rogue/Wizard, I'd have no problem with allowing the multiclass at 2nd level as long was the player placed their die rolls appropriately to the character that they want to play. See, I just don't get this rationale of thinking. My comments were not exactly about the same thing. The first was about denying a player the option of multiclassing. No player will be denied multiclassing. They could even do so at 2nd level with the alternate system. The second comment was in response to the comment "if they want to play something let them". I disagreed with that statement and used content to illustrate my point. I think you needed to add "No one would be denied playing something that they want...so as long as it fits in my world" Even though my two comments above were unrelated to each other, that statement is correct. See where I am going with this? I can understand that limiting multiclassing with the use of the variable rolling method should be used as the PC may, almost assuradely, have a high primary ability score and may get lucky with a non-primary (3d6) rolled ability score. I can see your point there. I just want to reiterate that if the Fighter who got lucky and rolled the Int-18 wanted to multiclass, I would let him do so. Just not at first. The player would have to roleplay and pursue that goal. However you then go on to say that this is a "shared" thing but then write that they must conform to your rules and your world. Thats not really sharing. I certainly can understand a DM having houserules and whatnot but your argument, to me anyways, doesn't follow to well with what you write. Does it track better now? The whole "shared character" (not "shared world") thing is really an esoteric point. JP
Board_Rider 02-02-06, 01:37 AM	I got it. I admit it is a bit heavy in my view but, hey, whatever puts the keys in the ignition. Have a good one.
jpyrich 02-02-06, 01:42 AM	We actually do a pool of 30d6 that you can split up six ways however you like. We do have some odd provisios on top of that, but only because no random system is fool-proof enough for one of our members. For example, back in the day we did an average d6 rolling experiment using a thousand rolls. He averaged 1.7 per die. Unfortunately, as anyone dealing with enough "randoms" can tell you, luck is an actual, although presently undefinable, attribute of the universe. What kind of provisos do you have? Do you allow arranging after rolling? Do you allow rolls less than 3d6? That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that it would give me what I want, which is characters who are not above average in everything as well as some great roleplay fodder. JP
MrBrown 02-02-06, 02:23 AM	Your system sounds like a neat idea. I've been wanting to think of various random systems recently, since my players seem to like them. Though my main problem with random ability scores is the possibility of one character outshining another if their classes have overlap in talents... How about: 2x roll 4, keep 2. 2x roll 4, keep 3. 2x roll 4, keep 4. Oh, and regarding the restriction on multiclassing; I think it's perfectly ok to use only single-classed base classes, if your players agree with it. Though you could use the additional/alternative base classes from the Complete series or Unearthed Arcana to add variety if needed (most of them are multiclasses turned into a single class anyway).
Karui_Kage 02-02-06, 02:29 AM	I think his idea of class choice is fine, from what I understand. You either choose the standard 4d6 for all and pick your class/race as you go, along with placement of those rolls, OR you can do the 8d6-3d6 (or 7,7,5,5,3,3, whatever) set, which, Im guessing, will probably turn out better rolls. The catch with the latter is you need to choose where you place your highest/lowest stats and choose your level progression for the first few levels, at least. This makes sense. Why would anyone go with the 4d6 all method if they could do the other one with no restrictions? Setting these is fine, it makes the person think about what they want initially, and makes it so they can't change their mind if they get an 18 in a different stat then initially thought (again, if they could, why would anyone choose the 4d6 method?) Its definitely interesting, and I think it has good potential for making interesting characters, without being too heavy handed. I know myself and a lot of people in our current group think ahead with our characters anyways, so it wouldn't be a stretch.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 02-02-06, 10:04 AM	I disagree. The PCs do not belong to the players any more then they belong to me. The PCs are shared. They are an extension of the player in my world. I explained this in my last post. It's not a shared world. The players have no say in world building, NPCs, or other PCs. So basically the PCs have only the controll over their characters, that you are prepared to give up? And of course you still have final say over them? Doesn't seem shared at all. Seems more like you must have controll over them for some reason...I agree with board rider on this, it does way too heavy handed for my tastes. I would not play in your world. But hey if your players are fine with it, then good on you. Although I suspect that they most likely will not be liking this and soon you shall have no players...
jpyrich 02-02-06, 12:55 PM	So basically the PCs have only the controll over their characters, that you are prepared to give up? And of course you still have final say over them? How is this shocking? A DM gets to say what exists in a campaign and what doesn't. "Every Dungeon Master is the creator of his or her campaign world. Whether you use the Greyhawk setting (the standard D&D campaign setting) or another published setting for the D&D game, such as the Forgoteen Realms Campaign Setting, it's still your world." (DMG 6) "Consistency is the key to a beliveable fictional world." (DMG 6) "Of course, you are always free to pick and choose from the published material and use only what you like." (DMG 129) There's more, but I think that I've made my point. Doesn't seem shared at all. Seems more like you must have controll over them for some reason... I'll say this once again. Character development is shared because neither the player nor the DM have 100% of a say in the matter. How is that difficult to understand? If I wanted to create a character in your world with a Laser Rifle is that okay? It's what I want. I should be allowed to do so because Laser Rifles are in the DMG, right? It's shared because the player makes the decisions about the PC, but the DM is the one who controls the options available to the player. The PC is not wholly owned by the player who can make any choices that he wants. I agree with board rider on this, it does way too heavy handed for my tastes. I would not play in your world. How is this heavy handed? I have an altenate system that the PCs can use if they choose to do so. If they choose the alternate system, I tell them before they roll that if they get lucky on a 3d6 roll I'm not going to let them multiclass without my permission, but I will allow them to multiclass just not right away. If he wants to play a multiclass character, then the player can use the new system and start multiclassing at 2nd level. He just needs to make sure that the primary attribute for the two classses are not assigned a 3d6. Moreover, if the player doesn't want to use the new system, they can still choose to roll 4d6, arrange the scores and multiclass whenever they want. How is this a problem? But hey if your players are fine with it, then good on you. Although I suspect that they most likely will not be liking this and soon you shall have no players... Hmmm. Let me consider that... (I used this method in the past. There was a Figher with an Int-18 who was denied using that score as a primary class ability. The player stills plays with me. He's not the only one who stuck around. The character was created in 1e, so it happened many years ago.) No, for some reason I think you're wrong about that. JP