|
Post by WSmith on Mar 24, 2005 14:13:09 GMT -5
Gary said in his current OD&D game, he has the players roll 4d6, drop the lowest, and arrange to taste. I am not sure I want to go back to that, BUT, I also am not fond of the point exchange system as laid out in Men/MAgic. Any other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on Mar 24, 2005 14:49:40 GMT -5
Gary said in his current OD&D game, he has the players roll 4d6, drop the lowest, and arrange to taste. I am not sure I want to go back to that, BUT, I also am not fond of the point exchange system as laid out in Men/MAgic. Any other ideas? Just using the 'three little books' it shouldn't make that much difference. High ability scores really don't get you all that much, low ability scores don't hurt you much. Personally, I generally think it's a player ego thing. They don't want to play someone who's weak, dumb, or ugly. There's two ways to handle it. 1. Roll your eyes, say 'whatever', and let the players have their super-heroes. 2. Try to explain to them how little difference it makes, and let them figure it out by doing things by the book. R.A.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 24, 2005 14:54:05 GMT -5
I know I've been accused of being facetious or disingenuous when I've said this before, but I honestly believe that if you're not going to go with a straight 3d6 in order (with limited point-exchanging -- if you don't like the vol. I method you could use the simpler Moldvay/Mentzer/RC method -- straight 2:1, Con and Cha can't be lowered, no score can be lowered below 9) you might as well just allow the players to assign whatever ability scores they want (with the referee retaining common sense veto power in case some joker assigns himself straight 18s). Especially in pre-Greyhawk OD&D where ability scores don't provide all that significant adjustments, it really shouldn't be that big a deal to just allow players to pick whatever scores they want. Plus it fits with the "maturity and responsibility" vibe of OD&D -- we're not gonna give you a bunch of rules and restrictions, we'll just give a bunch of suggestions and leave it up to your taste and discretion not to abuse them.
(or am I being naive here and I'm the only player in the world who wouldn't assign himself a string of 16+ scores?)
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on Mar 24, 2005 14:58:28 GMT -5
or am I being naive here and I'm the only player in the world who wouldn't assign himself a string of 16+ scores? You're not the only player in the world, but you would be in the distinct minority. How about another option... either roll by the book, or assign an alotment of points. You get 63 points to assign. R.A.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 24, 2005 15:16:59 GMT -5
"straight 2:1, Con and Cha can't be lowered, no score can be lowered below 9"
I will probably stay with that.
|
|
|
Post by dzubak on Mar 24, 2005 15:36:19 GMT -5
You may also consider the 2:1 ratio but further restrict it by splitting stats into 2 groups: physical (S,D,C) and mental (I,W,Ch). Reductions and additions can only be applied in the same group.
e.g. Thus lowering of the Strength score can only raise the Dexerity or Constitution attributes.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 31, 2005 13:33:41 GMT -5
You may also consider the 2:1 ratio but further restrict it by splitting stats into 2 groups: physical (S,D,C) and mental (I,W,Ch). Reductions and additions can only be applied in the same group. e.g. Thus lowering of the Strength score can only raise the Dexerity or Constitution attributes. That is also an interesting take. I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 31, 2005 13:43:32 GMT -5
I'm not crazy about that idea, as it runs contrary to what I like about the original point-trading scheme -- the idea that a character can increase intelligence by lowering strength (neglecting exercise for study) and vice versa. In fact, I'd like it better if you could only trade points between the two broad categories -- strength can only be raised by lowering Int, Wis, or Cha, etc.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 31, 2005 13:46:36 GMT -5
I'm not crazy about that idea, as it runs contrary to what I like about the original point-trading scheme -- the idea that a character can increase intelligence by lowering strength (neglecting exercise for study) and vice versa. In fact, I'd like it better if you could only trade points between the two broad categories -- strength can only be raised by lowering Int, Wis, or Cha, etc. Ooops. I misread the original post. That is what I thought it said.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Apr 18, 2005 10:35:16 GMT -5
I am still undecided about this one. Another method I saw was roll a 7th 3d6 roll and replace the lowest stat. Here is my modification on that method for feedback:
Roll 3d6, 6 times in order. The following can only be done only once, if desired at all by the player. A player can subtract 2 pts. from his highest score, then designate one other ability to change. A roll of 3d6 is made and the designated ability is replaced, even if the new roll is lower than the original.
|
|
|
Post by Thoth Amon on Aug 9, 2005 10:19:26 GMT -5
Roll 3d6 in order for each stat. Then, allow the player to roll an additional 1d6 and assign the points wherever he wishes.
|
|
|
Post by Semaj The Silent on Aug 9, 2005 13:32:13 GMT -5
I have an odd way of stat rolling for my players. So far it hasn't introduced any problems, and has its checks and balances.
The player rolls d20 (yeah, d20) 8 times and takes the 6 rolls he desires. 19s and 20s are 18s thus giving a 3 in 20 chance of getting an 18, but 1s and 2s count as 3s...so that balances it off.
I've used this since the late 80s and haven't seen any real problems yet.
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Aug 9, 2005 13:40:49 GMT -5
The OD&D game I started last week had each player roll 3d6 in order. If two stats were 6 or less you could reroll all the numbers again. Otherwise you're stuck with what you got.
Each player rolled up two PCs and placed stats and gear on a single 3x5 index card.
I think out of 8 PCs the highest stat was 16 - and that was in Charisma! Everything else was 13 or less. He's searching for henchmen now. :-)
|
|