|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 11:30AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2012
|
A lot of discussions on rolling for attributes centered on what the average roll was and the bell curve of the 3D6 or 4D6 method. I’m curious about how people actually play PCs with attribute scores of 3s or 5s. It occurred to me that I might have completely different assumptions about what a 3 or 5 actually means. I’ve always assumed that a score of 8 – 12 was average, >12 is exceptional and <7 is="" disabled="disabled" i="" think="" the="" strength="" and="" intelligence="" attributes="" showcase="" this="" most="" p=""> Take a look at what other creatures have a STR of 3. In 3.5, a cat has STR 3. In 4e, the same cat became stronger and received a STR 4 while a lot of other small animals stayed at 3. In DNDNext, the Quasit (a tiny creature) has an STR of 5. Now look at the historically small and physically weak creatures: goblins, kobolds and gnomes. In previous 3.5 and 4e they were rocking STRs of 9 – 11. In DNDNext they have 7 or 8s. So I’m curious how people justify playing a PC with a STR of 3 when they are equivalent in strength to small animals? Do you play a character that is so weak they might not even be able to support themselves or do ignore this and assume that a 3 is just weak and not debilitating? Now look at intelligence. An INT of 0 is completely mindless. In most editions, animals that lived by instinct only had INTs of 1s and 2s. However, in 3.5 there were some monkeys with an INT of 3. In DNDNext, there are Ape’s with an INT of 5. Again, look at the historically less intelligent humanoids: goblins, kobolds and orcs. They still have scores of 7 – 10 in INT. So again I’m curious how people justify playing a PC with an INT of 3? That’s a character that’s equivalent in intelligence to a monkey or a 4 year old human child. In the case of the monkey, they have instincts to help their survival. A 4 year old human is generally not self-sufficient and most of the time would not survive without assistance. Do you assume that an INT of 3 is not that bad and that the PC with an INT 3 can still learn to read, learn basic math, etc? This brings me to the second question which concerns the 3D6 bell curve compared to the “average” population. In your D&D campaigns, what are the attributes of your average non-heroic NPCs; the NPCs are that shop owners, beggars, etc? Are they all 10s across the board or are they a smattering of 3 – 18s? If you think the average common NPC is all 10s or 9s or 8s, then the 3D6 bell curve is completely the wrong shape. If it was the correct shape then like 90% of all rolls would end up really close to a 10 with only 10% deviating from that and something like less than a fraction of a percent would deviate significantly from that center point. However, your PCs aren’t common NPCs. They are supposed to be heroes. So, should we use a system to roll attributes that consistently produces PCs that are below average when compared to their non-heroic counterparts? I kind of expect people to have 5 points of views on this:
- Monster/NPC attributes and PC attributes aren’t comparable and have completely separate points of reference. A PC with a STR of 3 is still considerably stronger than a cat with a STR of 3 and a PC with an INT of 3 is considerably smarter than a monkey with an INT of 3.
- Monster/NPC attributes and PC attributes should be comparable, but the designers did a horrible job assigning monster/NPC attributes appropriately.
- If you don’t like rolling for attributes then use a point buy method. True, but what if you like the idea of rolling for attributes but wonder why we use a system that consistently produces severely below average characters?
- The 3D6 or 4D6 method is a sacred cow and we shouldn’t consider an alternate rolling method such as 6 + 2D6, etc
- Good point
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 11:40AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
I'm a 2 category. Strength is harder to define, because a cat is smaller than a human. Both need enough strength to stand, so a 3 should be enough (barely) for a human to walk upright. A Cat should probably have a Str 2; a cat should deal at most 1 damage, even with a crit. Side note: I remember in a previous edition (I don't remember which one), the best weapon a PC could have was to carry a donkey backwards because the kick attack was like 2d6+3 Damage 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 3:10PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
i find about one in 6 people have one really high stat or skill, and then the rest is ordinary. There really should be some kind of "ordinary except in one area" stat/skill system, because that's much more believable and emersive than 10,000,000 people with 9-12s.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 4:06PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
Big topic, I'll prolly have to come back and post more on it later. For now let's look at some basics.
1. 3d6 doesn't create a truly accurate normal distribution. It's a bit too wide, and a bit too shallow. However, it's fairly close (close enough for a game most would say). It's slightly closer as a direct number comparison than through an SD (standard deviation) comparison.
2. There are more factors to the numbers than mere chance distribution across the population. For instance, females should get an across the board 2-3 point penalty in strength to make it an accurate system. Early systems somewhat accounted for this, though they did it poorly. Biggest problem is that we have no reason to assume this is true with other species (and in fact with many species the opposite IS true). For that reason there's a good argument for abandoning gender norming in general, even if it skews reality for humans.
Size (mass) is another biggie. Each size category above or below Medium should raise or lower (respectively) strength and constitution by an exponential amount. Sheer mass has a LOT to do with strength, durability, etc. Good arguments can be made for an inverse reaction for dexterity. This is where we've seen a LOT of attribute adjustment among npcs and monsters I think.
3. There's a world of difference between comparitive ability and raw ability. For instance, one way to view attributes is that they're merely a ranking compared to others of their kind. An 18 strength on a human is only in comparison to other humans (or others of similar gender). By that measure both a kobold and an ogre might have an 18 strength (top of their respective races). Of course, this idea breaks down because we then give attriburtes a fixed mechanical meaning (18 strength is a 255lb military press).
This is the difference between Stanford-Binet intelligence tests and Wechsler. SB accounts for where you are against the distributive 'norm'. Wechsler looks for hard numbers and then establishes the averages from the datasets. It's two entirely different things, each with validity for different purposes.
Perhaps there's a bit of 'comparitive' ranking going on with monsters and animals, rather than hard numbers. A strength of 4 should be able to military press 25lbs. I don't know many housecats that could do that, even if they had thumbs and the inclination. They are proportionally very strong, but not THAT strong in raw numbers.
4. Low numbers have meant different things in different editions, but they've never been totally debilitated. Borderline, but not totally. My daughter (normal 17yr old, 5'9", 115lb) can only military press 45-60lbs, giving her a strength of about 6-7. A couple years ago (before her growth spurt and physical training) she could barely manage 30lbs (str 4-5), but had no difficulty supporting herself for basic life tasks.
Also realize that it doesn't account for stronger or weaker muscle groups. I have MONSTER upper legs, and seriously good back and chest, but fairly weak forearms, biceps, calves, and shoulders. My bench press was WAY out of proportion with my military press. Then there's the difference in muscles density, or between long or short fibers ratios, and a host of other issues.
In 2nd edition an int of 3-4 could only speak with great diffiulty. Barbarians were required to be illiterate in early games. Of course, you can be illiterate, but a genius, because knowledge isn't the same as intelligence. One of the few good arguments for a skill system separate from attributes.
In short, we have to view the attributes as overall general ratings, but can specifically explain them in a number of different ways.
I tend to view 3d6 as close enough to establish some realism in game, so it's what we use for character generation, and we then try to plot npcs against that distribution, averaging them somewhat (only assigning under 7 or over 14 with strong reasons...the 1st edition DMG covered this quite a bit). We then optional or house rule gender, mass, age, and other factors as needed. Small girls in our worlds are WAY weaker than big ogres (avg 6-8 vs avg 17-19). The non-physical stats are much more difficult to handle effectively.
I think, for the most part, the game has just always done a poor job striking the balance between gamism and simulationism.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 4:38PM
#5
|
|
|
There are more factors to the numbers than mere chance distribution across the population. For instance, females should get an across the board 2-3 point penalty in strength to make it an accurate system.
Never. Never ever. The numerous reasons why not should be obvious.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 4:42PM
#6
|
|
|
There are more factors to the numbers than mere chance distribution across the population. For instance, females should get an across the board 2-3 point penalty in strength to make it an accurate system.
Never. Never ever. The numerous reasons why not should be obvious.
The designers have already emphatically stated that there will not be gender-based attribute modifiers, so we can sink that entire moronic idea here and now.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 4:54PM
#7
|
|
|
The designers have already emphatically stated that there will not be gender-based attribute modifiers, so we can sink that entire moronic idea here and now.
Can we instead shoot it in the knees, see it bleed out and then light it on fire when it's still just barely alive? Pretty please? I'd pay for the honors!
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 5:00PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
Never. Never ever. The numerous reasons why not should be obvious.
If you actually read the rest of his post, he was just saying that in terms of simulation, that is something that has science behind it for humans.
He was not suggesting that the game should actually do it, and in fact, gave a few simulation-based reasons why it shouldn't be done.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 5:14PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
There are more factors to the numbers than mere chance distribution across the population. For instance, females should get an across the board 2-3 point penalty in strength to make it an accurate system.
Never. Never ever. The numerous reasons why not should be obvious.
Yeah, yeah, go stand on someone elses soapbox because you're factually incorrect. Political correctness is a plague and post-modernism is ignorance in celebration. Besides, I wasn't calling for its return. Reading comprehension for the win.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 5:15PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
There are more factors to the numbers than mere chance distribution across the population. For instance, females should get an across the board 2-3 point penalty in strength to make it an accurate system.
Never. Never ever. The numerous reasons why not should be obvious.
The designers have already emphatically stated that there will not be gender-based attribute modifiers, so we can sink that entire moronic idea here and now.
Nobody said bring it back, I was making a point (and an absolutely factually insurmountable one, regardless of political bs).
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
