This is just a small thing. I really don't expect much more than yay or nay. Maybe a little discussion on comparisons if anyone cares to. Just casual conversation that may affect my own revision of the rules (for distribution).
When I roll stats, I don't use the 4d6 minus lowest die roll. I use 2d6 +6. This guarantees no roll will ever be less than 8, making the range 8-18, and it maintains the average heroic stat of 12-13. Is this what you would prefer to see as the standardized rule for rolls? Is there another random die roll you prefer besides this or the 4d6? Do you prefer the 4d6? If so, why?
This isn't a discussion involving point systems. It only involves dice, so just discuss dice and die rolls in this thread, please.
We dont use die rolls plans that guarantee no stat will be less than 8.
We write 5 down if the dice say you get a 5.... but at the end you can just declare the guy "Stillbirth" and start over.
Having a weakness does not make the character unplayable,
in fact, it adds depth to the character and promotes role playing to bring life to that weakness.
When looking at ways to get 3 d6's of stat,
the "Best 3 Of 4 Dice" does not guarantee every stat will have at least 1die result as 6.
However, the 2d6+6 way is doing just that... you write down 6 for the first of 3dice and then roll the other 2 dice.
I suggest you try 1d16+2.
Power creeps fast enough in product lines,
we dont need to just flat out add 3 after rolling to all stats to make them really cool
I wonder how many folks play characters that have ConMod Penalty, or StrMod Penalty
... besides our group
Wow, that's a brilliant breakdown of the obvious, and not without your trademark hatery. I give that one a 9.5. The judge from Argentina gives you a 6.8.
I wonder how many folks play characters that have ConMod Penalty, or StrMod Penalty
... besides our group
On a somewhat related note, I am unsure if I could ever play someone with below average mental faculties...
You asked for an opinion on what you proposed. Backstabbist doesn't tend to speak in soft terms, but his argument is basically sound. You're proposing a die-rolling system that lifts all ability scores to at least 8. That's quite explicitly counter to the spirit of the game system. If it's how you like to play, then enjoy. Seriously! As a fellow gamer, I want you to have fun. But what you're doing almost completely avoids the negative consequences of the dice, and the game is fundamentally based on the notion that if you roll badly, then you take negative consequences. Without that potential for failure, I personally don't get much pleasure out of victory.
"On a somewhat related note, I am unsure if I could ever play someone with below average mental faculties."
Years ago, in D&D,
I had a character struck by Insanity.
GM said I had to be crazy 80% of the time,
so every time I wanted to say something I either had to roll well, or shout out about invisible muffin people chasing me with spoons. We had a blast, but it was a pain that I was figuring out all the puzzles but couldnt tell anyone due to the insanity.
You asked for an opinion on what you proposed. Backstabbist doesn't tend to speak in soft terms, but his argument is basically sound. You're proposing a die-rolling system that lifts all ability scores to at least 8. That's quite explicitly counter to the spirit of the game system. If it's how you like to play, then enjoy. Seriously! As a fellow gamer, I want you to have fun. But what you're doing almost completely avoids the negative consequences of the dice, and the game is fundamentally based on the notion that if you roll badly, then you take negative consequences. Without that potential for failure, I personally don't get much pleasure out of victory.
Backstabbists argument had no substance. It was all fluff. Stating the obvious is not an argument.
So if you roll well, you're getting robbed of a better roleplaying experience? Can you please explain to me how that works?
Playing a dimwit, or someone who can't hold so much as a dudgel without getting winded, or bumping into every object in sight, or pissing off every person that simply looks at me, or having the fortitude of a kitten five minutes out of its mother's womb, is not fun for me. 7 had always been the lowest stat I could bare in D&D, and in 3x it's 8, and I think most people will demand a reroll if they have a score below 8, which the rules themselves say is the qualifying point, which matches up with the 2 die proposal. 2d6 +6 would circumvent a lot of potential rerolls. It's not like 8 is a super heroic number. In fact, it's just shy of mediocre.
"On a somewhat related note, I am unsure if I could ever play someone with below average mental faculties."Years ago, in D&D,
I had a character struck by Insanity.
GM said I had to be crazy 80% of the time,so every time I wanted to say something I either had to roll well, or shout out about invisible muffin people chasing me with spoons. We had a blast, but it was a pain that I was figuring out all the puzzles but couldnt tell anyone due to the insanity.
Hehe. Now that sounds fun.
So if you roll well, you're getting robbed of a better roleplaying experience? Can you please explain to me how that works?
I can't and I won't because that's not what I said. You're mangling my words in a failed attempt to make me look bad. I said that without the possibility of negative consequences, my gaming experience is diminished. What you're proposing severly limits the possibility of negative consequence. It's like playing basketball and forcing your opponents to run around on their knees.
Playing a dimwit, or someone who can't hold so much as a dudgel without getting winded, or bumping into every object in sight, or pissing off every person that simply looks at me, or having the fortitude of a kitten five minutes out of its mother's womb, is not fun for me. 7 had always been the lowest stat I could bare in D&D, and in 3x it's 8, and I think most people will demand a reroll if they have a score below 8, which the rules themselves say is the qualifying point, which matches up with the 2 die proposal. 2d6 +6 would circumvent a lot of potential rerolls. It's not like 8 is a super heroic number. In fact, it's just shy of mediocre.
It seems like you're assuming that any stat that takes a penalty is unplayable. That's just not true, though. Having a low Str score can be a defining trait for a wizard. A low Wis can be the cornerstone of your foolhardy warrior. If you don't want to play with (I believe the term is) "sub-optimal" stats, then go right ahead. My only statement on the matter is that I think guaranteeing my own success like that would take the sense of accomplishment out of the game. It's the same reason I don't play video games with the cheat-codes on.
"On a somewhat related note, I am unsure if I could ever play someone with below average mental faculties."
Years ago, in D&D,
I had a character struck by Insanity.
GM said I had to be crazy 80% of the time,
so every time I wanted to say something I either had to roll well, or shout out about invisible muffin people chasing me with spoons. We had a blast, but it was a pain that I was figuring out all the puzzles but couldnt tell anyone due to the insanity.
You are a far braver player than I.
I can't and I won't because that's not what I said. You're mangling my words in a failed attempt to make me look bad. I said that without the possibility of negative consequences, my gaming experience is diminished. What you're proposing severly limits the possibility of negative consequence. It's like playing basketball and forcing your opponents to run around on their knees.
No I didn't mangle your words. You are saying even now, that if you don't have bad scores, your "gaming experience is diminished." So conversely, this means having nothing but good scores means that your "gaming experience is diminished." That is not "mangling", and I did not point it out "to make you look bad" (You need to talk to a doctor about that persecution complex). That's looking at the other side of the fence. Now it doesn't make sense if you're saying that the threat of having negative scores somehow enhances the game. Because it doesn't. Neither negative scores, nor the theat of negative scores has any game-enhancing effect. Having the chance to fail is what makes the game exciting, but having little chance to succeed is not exciting; it's aggrevating.
It seems like you're assuming that any stat that takes a penalty is unplayable. That's just not true, though. Having a low Str score can be a defining trait for a wizard. A low Wis can be the cornerstone of your foolhardy warrior. If you don't want to play with (I believe the term is) "sub-optimal" stats, then go right ahead. My only statement on the matter is that I think guaranteeing my own success like that would take the sense of accomplishment out of the game. It's the same reason I don't play video games with the cheat-codes on.
First you falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth then you turn around and blatantly do it to me. I have never stated nor implied that "any stat that takes a penalty is unplayable." In fact, I stated very clearly that 8 was as low as I would go. That's a -1 modifier. It's really a matter of how the game is balanced whether negative modifiers are simply variety or have a detrimental effect on the playability of the character, thus the game's allowance for rerolls on account of scores below 8. It wouldn't have that allowance if the game designers didn't feel the same way I do.
What I will say is that to me, getting no bonus is the same as getting a negative bonus, so to me both 0 bonus and -1 penalty are not desirable; yes, detrimental. No need to sidetrack into the logic of my position; just accept that it's how I view it. And yes, I understand that others don't have that same view and I don't expect them to. So lets continue from the point in the discussion where having too low of scores, and therefore excessively negative modifiers, is not desirable to most people. You may not personally agree, but the rules demonstrate that many people do feel that way. In fact, few people I've ever seen on these boards, or anywhere, feel otherwise. Most people that get a score of 7 or lower (especially for 5 or less; a difference of only 1 modifier point) are going to reroll their stats unless they rolled gangbusters in everything else (showing a preference for laterally higher rolls).
meh
Rather than make all the ability scores higher, wouldn't it be simpler to just reduce AC number, skill DC numbers, and so on, by one point (possibly two points for high-powered games)? Mathermatically, the end result is about the same, and with smaller character-specific modifiers, it makes designing a balanced game easieer to do.
That is the key to how balancing takes place. But now let's look at that. You're suggesting trading out a simple small change in the number of dice used to roll stats for:
1) reducing AC number by 1
2) reducing skill DC numbers by 1
3) and so on
I'm curious about your definition of "simple".
But here's another problem with that: if you are trying to make lower scores more useful by reducing check challenges by 1, then you are also enhancing the value of a 17-18 stat to the effectiveness of a 19-20 stat.
Rather than make all the ability scores higher, wouldn't it be simpler to just reduce AC number, skill DC numbers, and so on, by one point (possibly two points for high-powered games)? Mathermatically, the end result is about the same, and with smaller character-specific modifiers, it makes designing a balanced game easieer to do.
Since Ability Modifiers affect more or less every d20 roll in the game (a straight level check is the only exception I can think of right now), adjusting the sheer bulk of ability points available is the easiest way to change how the flavour of how the PCs interact with the game world. A +1 to the average ability modifiers go a long way.
Regardless, I don't think 2d6+6 makes for a good ability score mechanic - you seem to want variety in the ability scores, but you want the average to be high. Have you considered using some sort of points-buy instead?
How about this:
- 18 and 8
- 17 and 9
- 16 and 10
- 15 and 11
- 14 and 12
- 13 and 13
Instead of rolling dice for their character's ability score the player picks three of the ability score pairs listed above. I even made sure the pairs match the range of 2d6+6. 
E.g. a player wants a character that's big and tough, but a bit dumb and clumsy. He picks 18 and 8, 18 and 8 again and finally 14 and 12. He then assigns them as follows: Str 18, Dex 8, Con 18, Int 8, Wis 12 and Cha 14.
If the players want random stats, then simply have them roll 1d6 three times and use those three pairs they've rolled.
-DF
As I said in the first post, this is only about the die rolling mechanic. There's already an effective point buy system in place and I'm not focused on point buy in this thread.
As I said in the first post, this is only about the die rolling mechanic. There's already an effective point buy system in place and I'm not focused on point buy in this thread.
Fair enough.
I don't think 2d6+6 is will yield particularly interesting results. I predict that the stats will eventually gravitate towards an average of 14-16: getting more than half your rolls over the 7 average is entirely feasible for a group of players willing to cull the average-or-below characters from their party.
-DF
Playing a dimwit, or someone who can't hold so much as a dudgel without getting winded, or bumping into every object in sight, or pissing off every person that simply looks at me, or having the fortitude of a kitten five minutes out of its mother's womb, is not fun for me.
Years ago, in D&D,I had a character struck by Insanity.
GM said I had to be crazy 80% of the timeso every time I wanted to say something I either had to roll well, or shout out about invisible muffin people chasing me with spoons. We had a blast, but it was a pain that I was figuring out all the puzzles but couldnt tell anyone due to the insanity.
Hehe. Now that sounds fun.
uh... so it is not fun to play with a weakness,
yet sounds like fun?
ok, this is about different ways to get the 3-18 stats,
of which we hear about a way to use 8-18 instead, which is fine if we just all accept to throw game balance out the window.
I'm willing to accept that Game Balance is irrelevent to the OP,
is the OP willing to just say it so we can all stop trying to help him balance his unbalanced ideas?
There is nothing wriong with balance breaking ideas,
we all just have to recognize balance is not a consideration, and we can move on
As such-
Another way to roll for stats is 1d6+16 (perfect for when game balance dont matter)
uh... so it is not fun to play with a weakness,
yet sounds like fun?
Depending on the system, the flaws/weaknesses I enjoy are typically divorced from the stats, such as a bad temper, paranoid nature or minor delusion.
ok, this is about different ways to get the 3-18 stats,
of which we hear about a way to use 8-18 instead, which is fine if we just all accept to throw game balance out the window.
Give me an example or two of how balance is 'thrown out the window' by what I propose. Are you saying that the rules are wrong to let people reroll their stats if they get less than 8?
I'm willing to accept that Game Balance is irrelevent to the OP, is the OP willing to just say it so we can all stop trying to help him balance his unbalanced ideas?
Careful, backstabbist. I don't like being negatively and generally characterized because I take positions contary to you.
There is nothing wriong with balance breaking ideas,
we all just have to recognize balance is not a consideration, and we can move on
If you're not interested in that aspect, then why are you the one bringing up balance issues? You're the one who stated that using 8-18 is 'throwing game balance out the window.' Can you say "double standard"? You're trying to win your argument by making your very general, unproven stand and then trying to shame me into not persuing the issue any further so that you can look like the winner of the discussion. Here's your consolation trophy. You can leave now. I however, am going to barrel head first through your unsupported claims.
As such-
Another way to roll for stats is 1d6+16 (perfect for when game balance dont matter)
You seem to be a very big fan of repititious statements and non-sensical hyperbole.
Once again, I feel like I just thoroughly wasted 15 minutes of my day by responding to your post. If you cut out the hyperbole, repitition, and non-arguments, you would have very little to say.
I don't think 2d6+6 is will yield particularly interesting results. I predict that the stats will eventually gravitate towards an average of 14-16: getting more than half your rolls over the 7 average is entirely feasible for a group of players willing to cull the average-or-below characters from their party.
No. 13 is the average of 2d6 +6. (I did misstate "12-13" as the average earlier).
The rules are what not only allow average-or-below characters to be removed from the party, but actually encourage removing them from the party. Before you argue that point any further (clearly you're going to keep repeating the argument as per the standing operating procedure of people on this forum), I recommend revewing the Introduction in the d20 Modern book.
Depending on the system, the flaws/weaknesses I enjoy are typically divorced from the stats, such as a bad temper, paranoid nature or minor delusion.
Amen to that.
No. 13 is the average of 2d6 +6. (I did misstate "12-13" as the average earlier).
And 10.5 is the average of 3d6. But even in games where 3d6 was the method that was employed, very few characters had an average less than 12.
With any dice-rolling method, people will find a method of fudging things so that you get a result higher than the "average". Building that fudging into the dice-rolling directly won't actually remove that fudging - it will merely set the bar higher, leading to an inflationary spiral.
Once all characters have higher average abilities, DMs will tend to give monsters more and more power-ups, which will lead players to wanting even higher ability scores or whatever other powerups they can persuade the DM to let them have. It's a vicious circle of power inflation, which is best nipped in the bud.
4d6 drop the lowest leads to an average stat of about 12.2. Thirteen is not too much higher, so it shouldn't power creep the game.
The problem is that 2d6 + 6 makes the stat rolls a bit more luck based. The chance of getting a score under 12 is higher than it would be for rolling 4d6 drop the lowest, even though the average is higher in your system. Also the chance of getting 18 is higher in your system. (In math terms, you have raised the standard deviation, meaning a greater range of scores. The more dice you roll, the more concentrated your results will be around the average).
I don't think 2d6+6 is will yield particularly interesting results. I predict that the stats will eventually gravitate towards an average of 14-16: getting more than half your rolls over the 7 average is entirely feasible for a group of players willing to cull the average-or-below characters from their party.
No. 13 is the average of 2d6 +6. (I did misstate "12-13" as the average earlier).
I was refering to 7 being the average roll, not the average result. That should have been obvious seeing as the minimum of 2d6+6 is 8...
-DF
With any dice-rolling method, people will find a method of fudging things so that you get a result higher than the "average". Building that fudging into the dice-rolling directly won't actually remove that fudging - it will merely set the bar higher, leading to an inflationary spiral.
I disagree. The fudging is currently built into the rules. If you mandate the fudge within the die roll itself and remove the rule, the GM will likely enforce the rule. Fudging doesn't take place for the sake of fudging, and it doesn't take place for no reason.
As for your saying that 3d6 was the original, no it wasn't the only roll. It's always included 4d6 -low die as an option (as far as I remember, because that's how we always played ever since 1981). But even if it wasn't in the rules, people felt it was needed, because low rolls truly sucked harry matzas.
Once all characters have higher average abilities, DMs will tend to give monsters more and more power-ups, which will lead players to wanting even higher ability scores or whatever other powerups they can persuade the DM to let them have. It's a vicious circle of power inflation, which is best nipped in the bud.
That's mostly a game design choice. 4e actually provided weaker monsters along with its traditional tough monsters and people are loving it. I guarantee that 2d6 +6 will never inspire fudging based on low individual stats. (There would still be fudging for having low rolls across the board. You can't help that without skipping straight to set starting stats [Wow. That's a tongue twister
]).The problem is that 2d6 + 6 makes the stat rolls a bit more luck based. The chance of getting a score under 12 is higher than it would be for rolling 4d6 drop the lowest, even though the average is higher in your system. Also the chance of getting 18 is higher in your system. (In math terms, you have raised the standard deviation, meaning a greater range of scores. The more dice you roll, the more concentrated your results will be around the average).
That is true. But the variety will still be there, but the mean will stand at 13, which actually reduces the amount of fudging that would be done based on the rule regarding rerolling if stats average under 13. Currently, the mean is, as you said, 12.2, which means fudging currently occurs a whole lot more than it would if 2d6 +6 were used. So 2d6 +6 actually kills 2 fudge birds with one stone. That consideration is actually making me like it more than when this discussion started.
Here are a dozen samples of rolls generated using this method.
9, 15, 11, 11, 12, 15
16, 16, 13, 13, 12, 18
10, 12, 11, 11, 12, 13
15, 16, 18, 10, 17, 8
9, 11, 9, 10, 14, 15
12, 12, 12, 11, 14, 14
15, 11, 11, 13, 14, 11
13, 13, 18, 16, 13, 11
10, 12, 12, 12, 16, 13
16, 12, 16, 12, 12, 13
13, 14, 9, 12, 11, 15
15, 17, 14, 12, 11, 16
Many are decent, but there are some overpowered groups and some which would get fudge-rerolled.
That is true. But the variety will still be there, but the mean will stand at 13, which actually reduces the amount of fudging that would be done based on the rule regarding rerolling if stats average under 13. Currently, the mean is, as you said, 12.2, which means fudging currently occurs a whole lot more than it would if 2d6 +6 were used. So 2d6 +6 actually kills 2 fudge birds with one stone.
You could roll 5d6 and get rid of the two lowest rolls. This gives an average of 13.4, which might be a bit high, but keeps down the standard deviation. (To get the average back close to 13, go 5d6 drop the lowest two, then subtract 2 and add d2. But this is a bit complicated).
k, serious question, so we can get why you want to make this change.
Why 2d6+6? Why not 2d4+8 or 2d8+4 or 3d4+6?
I have my theories on why you might want (or not want) to choose each of these, but to understand why you want to make these changes, it's best to hear in in your own words, unclouded by our theories on your motivation.
Here are a dozen samples of rolls generated using this method.
9, 15, 11, 11, 12, 15 avg = 12.166
16, 16, 13, 13, 12, 18 avg = 14.66
10, 12, 11, 11, 12, 13 avg = 11.5
15, 16, 18, 10, 17, 8 avg = 14
9, 11, 9, 10, 14, 15 avg = 11.333~
12, 12, 12, 11, 14, 14 avg = 12.5
15, 11, 11, 13, 14, 11 avg = 12.5
13, 13, 18, 16, 13, 11 avg = 14
10, 12, 12, 12, 16, 13 avg = 12.5
16, 12, 16, 12, 12, 13 avg = 11.833~
13, 14, 9, 12, 11, 15 avg = 12.333~
15, 17, 14, 12, 11, 16 avg =14.166Many are decent, but there are some overpowered groups and some which would get fudge-rerolled.
By the way, I made a mistake saying that reroll qualifies at under 13, but that was a different book. In d20 Modern the rule is reroll if the avg of the modifiers is 0 or lower. So none of the 2d6 +6 qualify for reroll.
And here is what you get when you roll 4d6 minus the low die:
15, 15, 16, 11, 9, 17 avg = 13.833~
15, 13, 15, 14, 10, 14 avg = 13.5
9, 12, 17, 15, 13, 15 avg = 13.5
16, 16, 13, 12, 10, 11 avg = 13
10, 15, 15, 11, 10, 15 avg = 12.666~
15, 12, 12, 12, 16, 12 avg = 13.166~
8, 9, 14, 12, 12, 16 avg = 11.833~
12, 14, 9, 16, 14, 4 avg= 11.5 qualifies for reroll which was: 16, 11, 10, 12, 16, 17 avg = 13.666~
11, 14, 11, 16, 11, 11 avg = 12.333
10, 14, 11, 13, 17, 12 avg = 12.833
11, 12, 16, 17, 15, 10 avg = 13.666~
10, 12, 13, 16, 10, 11 avg = 12
The average of all rolls = 12.819. After reroll, the average of all rolls = 12.999
Note that the average of only 2 hit in the 11 range and that five hit in the high 13s.
I rolled all those by hand.
As you said: "Many are decent, but there are some overpowered groups." Except the rolls for the 4d6 showed up a little higher mean. I was using random dice and the rolls looked normal until I removed the low die. Note the conspicuous lack of below 9 and above 16 rolls for the 4d6 minus low die, And with reroll opportunities, it looks like the mean is closer to 13.
Note that none of the 2d6 +6 rolls required reroll, that three hit in the 11 range, a couple hit the low 14 range, and none hit below 9 and the average remains respectable for this option all the way through 18, thus showing a broader randomness, The total mean = 12.7906~
So what we can conclude by this is that some of our assumptions were wrong.
k, serious question, so we can get why you want to make this change.
Why 2d6+6? Why not 2d4+8 or 2d8+4 or 3d4+6?
I have my theories on why you might want (or not want) to choose each of these, but to understand why you want to make these changes, it's best to hear in in your own words, unclouded by our theories on your motivation.
My original reason was simply fewer dice while staying within the average range (the alternatives you offered do not stay within the range, and your last two are ridiculous because they go above 18). Now I have the additional reason of rerolls being nearly extinct using 2d6 +6.
k, serious question, so we can get why you want to make this change.
Why 2d6+6? Why not 2d4+8 or 2d8+4 or 3d4+6?
I have my theories on why you might want (or not want) to choose each of these, but to understand why you want to make these changes, it's best to hear in in your own words, unclouded by our theories on your motivation.
My original reason was simply fewer dice while staying within the average range (the alternatives you offered do not stay within the range, and your last two are ridiculous because they go above 18). Now I have the additional reason of rerolls being nearly extinct using 2d6 +6.
2d6+6 has an average of 13.
2d4+8 has an average of 13.
2d8+4 has an average of 13.
3d4+6 has an average of 13.5 (ok, slightly higher, but I added that one to have something in the list with a bell curve).
All of those have the same average, so your claim to want to stay "within the average range" rings very hollow. In terms of extremes of highs and lows, I suppose it could be noted that people keep 8s, but re-roll 6s, and don't allow 10's to be re-rolled. An equal argument coudl be made that whether to re-roll at a given threshold depends entirely on the preferences of the gaming group.
It's becoming increasingly clear that you are making a game to suit your personal preferences and gaming style. This is fine, just don't assume everyone will follow suit. For a group which lets players re-roll anything less than a 10, your 2d6+6 will be inadequate, and mutatis mutandis for otehr dice roll ranges.
Since you also want to change the benefit that each ability score grants (starting with Intelligence in your other thread), I would note that the benefit each one provides will affect game balance just as much as the way you actually use dice (or the point buy method used, for those people who like that sort of thing) to generate those scores. The two are not independant of each other, and until the actual rules on how the ability scores provide a benefit are finalised, it's really not possibel to say whether higher/lower averages, or bigger/smaller standard deviations, are balanced or unbalanced.
2d8+4 has an average of 13.
That max is 20, not 18. 2d8+2, perhaps. Also, the tradition is 6 sided dice. There's no reason to change that. That's why I didn't bother with other types of dice.
All of those have the same average, so your claim to want to stay "within the average range" rings very hollow. In terms of extremes of highs and lows, I suppose it could be noted that people keep 8s, but re-roll 6s, and don't allow 10's to be re-rolled. An equal argument coudl be made that whether to re-roll at a given threshold depends entirely on the preferences of the gaming group.
Really? Let's take a closer look, shall we?
2d8 +2 (or +4) would get fudged and therefore would not be desirable. The last one is disqualified because it so obviously defeats the discussion. 2d4 +8 is disqualified because its lowest number is 10. Thus, there's no other choice than 2d6 +6 to use, because it meats the minimum 8 range and retains a near flat bell curve from 9 through 18. The +8 would flatten it out more, and the +4 would flatten it out less. But since those are disqualified, there's no reason to continue on that line of reasoning.
It's becoming increasingly clear that you are making a game to suit your personal preferences and gaming style.
Should a designer do otherwise? But let's examine that claim a little closer regarding this die roll option.
I have kept the die roll option within the current rules, according to the rulebook, not anyone's personal preferences. That means, I was seeking an option for a different reason than "personal preferences". 2d6 +6 changes very little about the roll, except rolling fewer dice, which was the ONLY reason I offered it. Then I discovered that it has the added benefit of nearly elemenating fudging and there is no need to even have the lower than 8 reroll rule at all, thus reducing rules text. If I didn't care what people thought, I wouldn't have presented it. But people on this board seem to be particularly course against ANY change at all. Which is why I won't be having any more discussions about my revision on this board.
This is fine, just don't assume everyone will follow suit. For a group which lets players re-roll anything less than a 10, your 2d6+6 will be inadequate, and mutatis mutandis for other dice roll ranges.
I seriously doubt the community would go up in arms over changing to a 2d6 rolling option. Like you said, GMs are going to do what they house rule. If they want to house rule the traditional roll, fine. I was just offering an opportunity to roll fewer dice and thus perform fewer actions (namely, removing one of the dice).
Since you also want to change the benefit that each ability score grants (starting with Intelligence in your other thread), I would note that the benefit each one provides will affect game balance just as much as the way you actually use dice (or the point buy method used, for those people who like that sort of thing) to generate those scores. The two are not independant of each other, and until the actual rules on how the ability scores provide a benefit are finalised, it's really not possibel to say whether higher/lower averages, or bigger/smaller standard deviations, are balanced or unbalanced.
Balance is easily accounted for by any amount of minor numbers changes in design. The end player will never have to worry about it, so the balance argument is moot. And please, don't bring the other thread into this discussion. Discuss that thread there and this one here.
I don't think 2d6+6 is will yield particularly interesting results. I predict that the stats will eventually gravitate towards an average of 14-16: getting more than half your rolls over the 7 average is entirely feasible for a group of players willing to cull the average-or-below characters from their party.
No. 13 is the average of 2d6 +6. (I did misstate "12-13" as the average earlier).
I was refering to 7 being the average roll, not the average result. That should have been obvious seeing as the minimum of 2d6+6 is 8.
I was referring to your statement of "14-16".
Actually, as long as we're considering using different types of dice here, you could get a pretty good result using 10d2 - 2. This gives results in range 8-18, average 13, but the standard deviation is much lower.
Basically, start at eight, flip ten coins, and add one to the score for each head you flip.
Your chance of scoring 8, 9, 17 or 18 is only about 2%. There's a 32% chance of scoring 10, 11, 15 or 16. The other 66% are all scores of 12 to 14.
(previous post of mine deleted because it no longer said what I wanted it to say)
But I'm going to stop arguing about simantics and get back to the discussion. If you have nothing else to offer to the discussion about the 2d6 +6 offer, then move on.
hey, one of us clearly stated in the OP the thread was asking for what other methods we use,
not my fault you have to change the thread when folks give you what you ask for.
If you want to start threads for just fan hype posts that only support whatever you propose,
ok, just say so in the OP so we can stop wasting our time explaining stuff to you when you dont want to listen.
Maybe your next thread shouldnt include phrases like
"What do you guys think?"
or "What do you guys se for this?"
and instead use the phrase
"So tell me how great my idea is"
because your threads start as a question and discussion,
that you turn into dictation and arguement despite the OP asking for input.