Random rant- INT and SIZ

[Harwel]

Why does BRP (and other BRP-based games since RQ3 or so IIRC) have a different scale for human INT and SIZ than other stats? Why 2d6+6 instead of 3d6? Not only do I find this completely arbitrary and awkward, it messes with a classic method of character generation whereby you roll your stats the on the same dice and assign the values as you wish. Why was there a shift from all stats being 3d6, with everything having an average of 10-11?

Am I the only one who "houserules" this away? It's never made any sense at all to me, and I have never seen what I consider a good explanation for it.

[vagabond]

Why does BRP (and other BRP-based games since RQ3 or so IIRC) have a different scale for human INT and SIZ than other stats? Why 2d6+6 instead of 3d6? Not only do I find this completely arbitrary and awkward, it messes with a classic method of character generation whereby you roll your stats the on the same dice and assign the values as you wish. Why was there a shift from all stats being 3d6, with everything having an average of 10-11?

Am I the only one who "houserules" this away? It's never made any sense at all to me, and I have never seen what I consider a good explanation for it.

To allow for INT and SIZ to have a smaller (and more useful) range for PCs.

On a human scale, a STR of 4 is difficult but playable, but a SIZ of 4 and an

INT 4 is not.

-V

[soltakss]

RQ2 had 3D6 for SIZ and INT and RQ3 had 2D6+6.

The change was put in, I believe, because 3D6 gave a very wide spread, perhaps too wide.

If you go with the rough idea that INT x 10 = I.Q. then INT 15 means IQ 150 and INT 3 = IQ 30, so 1 in 216 people would have an IQ of 30, which is way too low.

Similarly, SIZ 3 equates to a very short/light person and 1 in 216 people being very short/light didn't really work.

[Harwel]

Yes but how many people actually played characters with those kind of attributes? Most people would roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die, or roll higher number of sets and drop the lowest scores, or some other convention that would increase the average for a PC.

How is a SIZ of 4 unplayable? I had an RQ2 Duck PC with a SIZ of 5 (IIRC) that I had no trouble with. INT 4 is certainly unplayable and such a character would never be more than a village idiot, but who would place a 4 in that stat to begin with, if they even had a stat that low?

[Byron Alexander]

Yeah, basically a SIZ of less than 8 is just ridiculous for a normal human character and an INT of less than 8 is unplayable as a PC. That isn't true of the other stats, although I suppose if you made every stat 6+2D6 that might make sense. It would mean that nobody has a serious flaw unless you choose it, though (and let's not forget if you want to make your character absurdly diminutive or absurdly dumb you can take 3 points away from any stat and add them elsewhere).

[vagabond]

Yes but how many people actually played characters with those kind of attributes? Most people would roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die, or roll higher number of sets and drop the lowest scores, or some other convention that would increase the average for a PC.

How is a SIZ of 4 unplayable? I had an RQ2 Duck PC with a SIZ of 5 (IIRC) that I had no trouble with. INT 4 is probably unplayable and such a character would never be more than a village idiot, but who would place a 4 in that stat to begin with, if they even had a stat that low?

But now you are no longer rolling 3d6, are you

SIZ 4 isn't completely unplayable, but it sure makes your HP pretty bad.

Coupled with the avg 10 - 11 CON, you get starting HP of 7 - 8.

As Pete points out, the change was made to reflect a more realistic

spread as well as more heroic playability. Again, we are talking PCs

here, the assumption is they are above average anyway.

-V

[vagabond]

Yeah, basically a SIZ of less than 8 is just ridiculous for a normal human character and an INT of less than 8 is unplayable as a PC. That isn't true of the other stats, although I suppose if you made every stat 6+2D6 that might make sense. It would mean that nobody has a serious flaw unless you choose it, though (and let's not forget if you want to make your character absurdly diminutive or absurdly dumb you can take 3 points away from any stat and add them elsewhere).

Elric! and SB5 did give humans 2d6+6 across the board IIRC.

-V

[Harwel]

Again, we are talking PCs

here, the assumption is they are above average anyway.

-V

Exactly, so why are SIZ and INT "more above average" than their other stats?

But now you are no longer rolling 3d6, are you

That's not the point and you know it. The point is that one stat shouldn't be measured differently from others for human norms and averages. And yes, you're still rolling 3d6 if I tell you to roll it 14 times and take the best 7 scores and assign them how you like.

Yeah, basically a SIZ of less than 8 is just ridiculous for a normal human character and an INT of less than 8 is unplayable as a PC. That isn't true of the other stats, although I suppose if you made every stat 6+2D6 that might make sense. It would mean that nobody has a serious flaw unless you choose it, though (and let's not forget if you want to make your character absurdly diminutive or absurdly dumb you can take 3 points away from any stat and add them elsewhere).

Again, I submit the question, how many people did you know that regularly played with many (if any) stats below 8? PCs are supposed to be "above average".

Making all stats 2d6+6 is also a solution, but again, you're house-ruling away the different scaling of SIZ and INT exactly as I talked about in the original post... just in a different way.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Harwel

[vagabond]

Exactly, so why are SIZ and INT "more above average" than their other stats?

Again, it comes down to looking at it from a more realistic average

human point of view, as well as playability. As Pete says, using 3d6

for SIZ and INT yields 1 in 216 chances of either a "3" or an "18".

While the "18" isn't so bad probability-wise, the "3" happens too

frequently for the average human, and way way too frequently for

heroic humans. Again, it was a design decision to enhance both

playability and realism.

That's not the point and you know it. The point is that one stat shouldn't be measured differently from others for human norms and averages. And yes, you're rolling 3d6 if I tell you to roll 14 times and take the best 7 scores and assign them how you like.

Why shouldn't one stat be measured differently? Why shouldn't some stats

have a greater range in a species, or have a higher minimum? I fail to see

a compelling argument that says all stats should be rolled equally. CoC

has been using different methods since the beginning IIRC.

Again, I submit the question, how many people did you know that regularly played with many (if any) stats below 8? PCs are supposed to be "above average".

So, if one generates a set of stats using 3d6 across the board, and tosses

out a character because of too many (if any) stats below 8, why not

change it so that doesn't happen at all? Which is what Elric!/SB5 did, move

it to 2d6+6.

As far as the scaling, all you are doing is moving up the minimum to 8, and

moving the average to 13. Also, 18 happens 1 out of 36 tries instead of

1 out of 216. For heroic PCs vs. average NPC human (which retains 3d6 in

Elric!/SB5 to differentiate), I prefer that over 4d6 drop lowest vs. 3d6.

-V

Edited May 29, 2009 by vagabond

[Harwel]

Again, it comes down to looking at it from a more realistic average

human point of view, as well as playability. As Pete says, using 3d6

for SIZ and INT yields 1 in 216 chances of either a "3" or an "18".

While the "18" isn't so bad probability-wise, the "3" happens too

frequently for the average human, and way way too frequently for

heroic humans. Again, it was a design decision to enhance both

playability and realism.

Extreme low scores are thrown out by most people anyway. Again I ask, tons of other games use 3d6 for the range, how many times has this posed an actual problem? I played D&D and RQ2 for years and years and remember all of one person playing a low-INT character once as a lark. It didn't last long, I assure you.

Why shouldn't one stat be measured differently? Why shouldn't some stats

have a greater range in a species, or have a higher minimum? I fail to see

a compelling argument that says all stats should be rolled equally. CoC

has been using different methods since the beginning IIRC.

It shouldn't be measured differently because it largely removes some perfectly good and useful character generation dice rolling conventions and the ability to assign scores where you want the them, which to me is a big problem. It's a hamfisted answer to a non-existent (in my experience) problem. Non-humans are different matter, because when you select a non-human race you commit to those strengths and weaknesses, and accept different averages from the human norms of 10-11 being "an average person's score".

So, if one generates a set of stats using 3d6 across the board, and tosses

out a character because of too many (if any) stats below 8, why not

change it so that doesn't happen at all? Which is what Elric!/SB5 did, move

it to 2d6+6.

Again, as I said, I think that's perfectly acceptable, and again, you're house-ruling away the different scaling of SIZ and INT, as I said I do in the original post. Bottom line is that I think players should be able to roll all their stats the same way and assign them as they want, in accordance with their character concept. What if they want a very intelligent mage/scientist/whatever type and can't roll above a 9 on their two 2d6+6 rolls but manage a 17 on one of their 3d6 rolls? Do they revamp their whole concept based on their rolls? Do they reroll? Do you let them shuffle the points around anyway (most likely)? Most people have a character they want to play, then roll dice, not the other way around.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Harwel

[rust]

For my setting a human INT of 3D6 would lead to a situation where the ave-

rage trained dolphin would be more intelligent than a sizeable number of the

colonists - in fact, the dolphin could begin to train those colonists.

[Harwel]

For my setting a human INT of 3D6 would lead to a situation where the ave-

rage trained dolphin would be more intelligent than a sizeable number of the

colonists - in fact, the dolphin could begin to train those colonists.

The average person is rather dumb when you get right down it anyway. Dumber than a trained dolphin would not surprise me for many people I've met...

Besides, who actually ROLLS NPC stats? I generally assign stats based on what the NPC is supposed to be. Farmer Bob is a big, burly, healthy guy of average intelligence and dexterity, hmmm STR 14 CON 15 SIZ 15 INT 10 DEX 11 POW 10 CHA 10 GO!

Edited May 29, 2009 by Harwel

[vagabond]

Extreme low scores are thrown out by most people anyway. Again I ask, tons of other games use 3d6 for the range, how many times has this posed an actual problem? I played D&D and RQ2 for years and years and remember all of one person playing a low-INT character once as a lark. It didn't last long, I assure you.

And most of those games provide options to avoid outrageously low scores.

Even the "standard" D&D provided optional methods. With BRP, just decided

to not make it an option but the standard instead.

It shouldn't be measured differently because it largely removes some perfectly good and useful character generation dice rolling conventions and the ability to assign scores where you want the them, which to me is a big problem. It's a hamfisted answer to a non-existent (in my experience) problem. Non-humans are different matter, because when you select a non-human race you commit to those strengths and weaknesses, and accept different averages from the human norms of 10-11 being "an average person's score".

But for many of us, that is a non-issue. Again, Call of Cthulhu for as long as I

remember has had different generation rolls. Some would argue that your

"problem" is non-existent.

Again, as I said, I think that's perfectly acceptable, and again, you're house-ruling away the different scaling of SIZ and INT, as I said I do in the original post. Bottom line is that I think players should be able to roll all their stats the same way and assign them as they want, in accordance with their character concept. What if they want a very intelligent mage/scientist/whatever type and can't roll above a 9 on their two 2d6+6 rolls but manage a 17 on one of their 3d6 rolls? Do they revamp their whole concept based on their rolls? Do they reroll? Do you let them shuffle the points around anyway (most likely)? Most people have a character they want to play, then roll dice, not the other way around.

So, roll 3d6 across the board - nobody is stopping you ...

Or, use the optional point buy. Or the optional redistribute points. Or, as

you have already stated you've done in the past, dump the character and

reroll all over.

Or, even more radically, have them roll the total number of d6s needed to

generate all of the stats, and then apply 2 rolls to INT, 2 rolls to SIZ, and

3 rolls to each of the rest ...

-V

[Harwel]

And most of those games provide options to avoid outrageously low scores.

Even the "standard" D&D provided optional methods. With BRP, just decided

to not make it an option but the standard instead.

And again, this standard messes with conventions I used 10+ years to correct a non-existent problem. Why fix what isn't broken?

But for many of us, that is a non-issue. Again, Call of Cthulhu for as long as I

remember has had different generation rolls. Some would argue that your

"problem" is non-existent.

Messing with conventions I've used for 10+ years isn't a non-existent problem for me.

So, roll 3d6 across the board - nobody is stopping you ...

Gee, thanks for your permission.

Or, use the optional point buy. Or the optional redistribute points.

I don't especially care for point-buys as they tend to become a minmax game, and "redistribute points" becomes a point-buy system with a random number of points you're allowed.

Or, as

you have already stated you've done in the past, dump the character and

reroll all over.

But my way is faster than rolling ad nauseum until you get the stats you want...

Or, even more radically, have them roll the total number of d6s needed to

generate all of the stats, and then apply 2 rolls to INT, 2 rolls to SIZ, and

3 rolls to each of the rest ...

... and WAY less of a pain in the butt than this!

Edited May 29, 2009 by Harwel

[rust]

Besides, who actually ROLLS NPC stats?

Since I needs lots of NPCs for my setting, I hope to delegate that task to my

computer one day.

Besides, I really prefer to generate most of my NPCs randomly, mainly to pre-

vent them from becoming stereotypical and predictable, but also because the

results are more realistic.

Plus, this method also forces me to come up with interesting explanations why

a certain NPC is in a certain position.

For example, when the head of the physics department of the research insti-

tute has a low INT, there has to be a reason why he holds this position: Ne-

potism, a failed experiment that resulted in brain damage, a drug addiction ?

- ideas I might never have considered if I had started by choosing the stats

for a "head of a physics department".

[Harwel]

Since I needs lots of NPCs for my setting, I hope to delegate that task to my

computer one day.

Besides, I really prefer to generate most of my NPCs randomly, mainly to pre-

vent them from becoming stereotypical and predictable, but also because the

results are more realistic.

Plus, this method also forces me to come up with interesting explanations why

a certain NPC is in a certain position.

For example, when the head of the physics department of the research insti-

tute has a low INT, there has to be a reason why he holds this position: Ne-

potism, a failed experiment that resulted in brain damage, a drug addiction ?

- ideas I might never have considered if I had started by choosing the stats

for a "head of a physics department".

But what if you had been choosing stats for an "incompetent head of a physics department"? Are the stats driving the plot, or is the plot driving the stats? Not saying one way is better than another, just asking a question.

[rust]

But what if you had been choosing stats for an "incompetent head of a physics department"? Are the stats driving the plot, or is the plot driving the stats? Not saying one way is better than another, just asking a question.

The stats are driving the plot, as far as there is a plot, because our setting

is a "sandbox" without prepared adventures, where the players are free to

decide what their characters are going to do next - which is one reason why

I need a lot of NPCs to fill all the available "slots" instead of only the compa-

ratively few NPCs a structured adventure would require.

The "sandbox" concept of the setting is also a reason why I prefer not to

choose stats for the NPCs, but generate the stats randomly and try to get

some inspiration out of them - having to come up with that many interesting

ideas would simply be impossible for me.

[Harwel]

The stats are driving the plot, as far as there is a plot, because our setting

is a "sandbox" without prepared adventures, where the players are free to

decide what their characters are going to do next - which is one reason why

I need a lot of NPCs to fill all the available "slots" instead of only the compa-

ratively few NPCs a structured adventure would require.

The "sandbox" concept of the setting is also a reason why I prefer not to

choose stats for the NPCs, but generate the stats randomly and try to get

some inspiration out of them - having to come up with that many interesting

ideas would simply be impossible for me.

Very cool. I tend to be a little more structured and try to plan ahead, which has its own set of considerable drawbacks since "no plan survives contact with the PCs" anyway.

[SDLeary]

sorry, double post

Edited May 30, 2009 by SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Extreme low scores are thrown out by most people anyway. Again I ask, tons of other games use 3d6 for the range, how many times has this posed an actual problem? I played D&D and RQ2 for years and years and remember all of one person playing a low-INT character once as a lark. It didn't last long, I assure you.

Not many of those game have a stat that is effectively assigning a weight/mass to the character, for which there is well documented statistics for what the range for what that species should be, like there is for humans. Even most grown human males who have conditions that cause small stature are not at the low end that a 3d6 roll would give.

You mentioned a duck character before that you had played... looking at the stats for a Duck, a size of 4 is only just below the average for that species, so nowhere near the liability it would be for a human.

The INT equation with IQ has already been mentioned.

Also, if you go back and look, rolling dice was not the only method of characteristic assignment. There is also nothing preventing someone from petitioning their GM to allow lower stats if they should so desire; though with the Deliberate Method a minimum of 6 is imposed on the other stats without GM approval otherwise.

SDLeary

[Harwel]

Not many of those game have a stat that is effectively assigning a weight/mass to the character, for which there is well documented statistics for what the range for what that species should be, like there is for humans. Even most grown human males who have conditions that cause small stature are not at the low end that a 3d6 roll would give.

That isn't really relevant, since as I've stated multiple times now, no character is going to be running around with an extreme low SIZ unless they really really want to play a midget. And again, this was never a problem when it was a 3d6 roll. Did you play RQ2 or older BRP? If so, did you ever have problems with PCs of extremely low SIZ or INT? I did not. I've asked this question in almost every post, and I never get an answer. I wonder why.

You also state that "most grown human males who have conditions that cause small stature are not at the low end that a 3d6 roll would give". However, the precedent does exist. SIZ 3 is (according to RQ2, last major game that used a 3-18 SIZ that I know of) is 70-100cm and 10-20kg. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2969038/Worlds-smallest-man-meets-woman-with-worlds-longest-legs.html The world smallest man came in at 2'5". That would be 73.7cm. And once again I ask: how many times have you had a player play a SIZ 3 human male? I'm willing to bet the answer is zero.

You mentioned a duck character before that you had played... looking at the stats for a Duck, a size of 4 is only just below the average for that species, so nowhere near the liability it would be for a human.

Again, not relevant since low SIZ affects a Duck the exact same way it affects a human.

The INT equation with IQ has already been mentioned.

And it's still a weak argument. Someone mentioned a scale of 1 INT = 10 IQ. That's fair, and I've seen it lots of places before. I've used it as a rule of thumb myself for 30+ years of gaming. The average IQ of a person these days is between 85 and 114. http://www.iqtest-center.com/iq-scores.php That would put an average human squarely in the 10 INT range.

Also, if you go back and look, rolling dice was not the only method of characteristic assignment. There is also nothing preventing someone from petitioning their GM to allow lower stats if they should so desire; though with the Deliberate Method a minimum of 6 is imposed on the other stats without GM approval otherwise.

SDLeary

My minimum scores were higher than 6. Generally I had people reroll stats below 9, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Also, my experience is that most people would prefer to roll their stats than assign points. Rolling stats is fun and adds uncertainty to character generation, rolling that 17 is an "Oh hell yeah!" moment. Point-buys are I guess maybe fun for accountants? I've met very few people that prefer point-buy character generation.

Here's my whole point in a nutshell:

1. Having all human stats scaled the same gives more options for character generation and more consistency.

2. Having all stats scaled the same makes things simpler and easier to explain.

Let's a hypothetical conversation with a brand new player.

GM: All stats are 3d6 and an average score would be 10. Oh, except SIZ and INT, their average is 13.

Newbie: OK. Why's that?

GM: You roll different dice for INT and SIZ

Newbie: How come?

GM: Because it's fairly detrimental and maybe a little unrealistic to have PCs with extremely low scores in those stats so a game designer decided this would be better.

Newbie: OK, but why not just not assign extremely low scores to those stats. I mean, we re-roll really low stats anyway, right? And if it's that detrimental, who would want to anyway?

GM: Look, that's just how it is, OK?

Compare:

GM: All stats are 3d6, and an average person has a 10 score in everything. Roll14 times and use your highest 7 rolls, place them where you want.

Newbie: OK.

I go by a general rule in life that if I have to fall back on "because I'm the daddy and I said so", I'm probably wrong. There's simply no benefit from the change, and there are some drawbacks to the way I play. No it's not a huge deal, but it annoys me. It's easy enough to house rule away. My point of this thread was to feel out how many people feel the same about it. Clearly so far the answer is "not many".

People may want to cite systems as far back as the original CoC as having implemented this different dice standard for SIZ and INT. Just because it's an old change doesn't make it a good change. I didn't like it then, and I increasingly dislike it as new books come out continuing what I consider a silly, pointless inconsistency. It's a hamfisted, inelegant solution to a supposed problem that never existed.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Harwel

[SDLeary]

People may want to cite systems as far back as the original CoC as having implemented this different dice standard for SIZ and INT. Just because it's an old change doesn't make it a good change. I didn't like it then, and I increasingly dislike it as new books come out continuing what I consider a silly, pointless inconsistency. It's a hamfisted, inelegant solution to a supposed problem that never existed.

And, honestly, its not a change that you have to use. BRP (like RQ3) has a point buy system. No need to roll characteristic dice at all if you don't want to. And just for clarification, the human range has actually been 3-21 (8-21 for size and int) in many versions of BRP, but 7 sided dice are hard to come by. ;-)

SDLeary

[Byron Alexander]

Again, I submit the question, how many people did you know that regularly played with many (if any) stats below 8? PCs are supposed to be "above average".

Making all stats 2d6+6 is also a solution, but again, you're house-ruling away the different scaling of SIZ and INT exactly as I talked about in the original post... just in a different way.

Honestly, in some BRP games PCs aren't supposed to be above average (Call of Cthulhu comes to mind) and I have seen people play with very low stats (a friend of mine played a geriatric, wheel-chair bound professor in a CoC game... his STR was not above 8, not by a long-shot).

If I'm playing a genre in which PCs are supposed to be above average then, yeah, I'll probably houserule 6+2D6 for all stats. If I'm going for gritty realism, though, I think only SIZ and INT being 6+2D6 does make sense because having those very low for a lot of characters quickly degenerates into absurdity imo.

[frogspawner]

The change from 3d6 to 2d6+6 came in with the change from RQ2 to RQ3.

The RQ3 "What's in this Box?" gave the following conversion table:

[B][U] 3d6 [/U][/B]   [B][U]2d6+6[/U][/B]

 3-4      8

 5-6      9

   7     10

   8     11

   9     12

10-11    13

  12     14

  13     15

  14     16

15-16    17

17-18    18

No explanation though. I suspect the INT may be to discourage stupid play. The SIZ was probably to preserve the quite neat "1 SIZ = 1 Stone" rule-of-thumb, without making too many midgets.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Here's my whole point in a nutshell:

1. Having all human stats scaled the same gives more options for character generation and more consistency.

How is 3d6 and 2d6+6 a difference in scale? The upper limit is 18 in both cases, and d6 are the primary method of achieving the result. Only the minimum and average results differ (3/11 and 8/13 respectively). From a roleplaying perspective, it is far easier to play a character with an INT close to your own. Of course, some roleplayers love the challenge of playing someone who's dimmer than they are, and make a magnificent fist of it. But it is probably far harder to consistently play a dim character than it is to play a character with an INT stat that, most likely matches their own. Given this, INT rolled on 2d6+6 is a logical way of avoiding the low-INT extremes. Yes, you can end-up with a character who is smarter than you; but that's what the skills and rolls are for - to arbitrate those times when a character will know more than you do.

If the rules said roll INT and SIZ on 4d8 and drop the lowest - or some other method that is clearly, fundamentally, different to how the other five are rolled, then I'd say you may have a point.

So, sure, having 3d6 across all stats offers consistency, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best method. Much depends on genre and style of play for refs and GMs. But I really don't accept that a 2d6+6 roll for SIZ and INT is breaking the system to the point you're complaining about.

2. Having all stats scaled the same makes things simpler and easier to explain.

I have never, ever, in 20+ years of GMing has any player complain, or fail to understand, why SIZ and INT are rolled on 2d6+6. Its always struck me and my players - and I've had a diverse lot - as being easily understandable and quite reasonanle. Maybe that's me. Or maybe its simply a non-issue.

And I really think this is a non-issue. You clearly want to have a rant about something, Harwel, but I'm sure there are other BRP rules that are more deserving of a rant (opposed rolls, for instance, he's says, and ducks for cover), than two out of seven stats being rolled slightly differently.