Random rant- INT and SIZ

[frogspawner]

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.

No, you're not. I prefer and use the 3d6 scale too. (For INT anyway, I'm not so bothered about SIZ, which I regard as a secondary/seventh stat).

It's nice to roll the traditional "4d6 best 3", 'cos it's both easier to swap (towards your preferred character concept, if any) and to get inspiration (if you've no idea what character you want, including race)!

[Rurik]

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.

To directly answer that question the Stats are not for PC's, they are for Humans as a race. Every creature has randomly generated stats that represent the common ranges of their abilities. Did you ever let players play say elves or dwarves in RQ2? Was it a problem that their stats were not all based on 3d6?

In RQ3 it was decided that 3d6 did not represent the common human range for INT and SIZ so the roll was changed to be different than 3d6 - this is no different than any other race. I think you are applying D&D logic, where all races roll 3d6 for all Stats and then add or subtract fixed racial modifiers to a game that never worked that way.

Now back to your point about character generation. Almost every GM allows some kind 'enhancement' to the random generation method so that characters are better than just a normal example of their race, be it roll an extra die and drop the lowest or whatever method. If you feel that 4d6 drop lowest and assign to all stats works for human characters and will generate characters with sufficient SIZ and INT and that method makes you and your players happy then go with it, but that does not invalidate the designers (correct imho) decision to change the racial stats for 'common' humans to be 2d6+6 for SIZ and INT.

[Thalaba]

Harwel,

Looking at just a few of the stats in the book for 'fantasy creatures' that seem broadly playable, we get:

Centaur: 3D6+6; 3D6; 4D6+12; 2D6+6; 3D6; 3D6+3; 3D6

Dwarf: 4D6; 1D6+12; 1D4+4; 2D6+6; 3D6; 3D6; 3D6

Elf: 2D6+2; 3D6; 2D4+4; 3D6+6; 2D6+6; 3D6+3; 3D6

Halfling: 2D6; 2D6+12; 1D3+3; 2D6+6; 2D6+3; 2D6+10; 3D6

And so on. This 'convention' you are talking about doesn't exist in modern BRP. The reason it doesn't exist it because it has been replaced with a different 'convention' designed to give different averages for different stats in different species. While this may be a 'problem' for you, for most it is a 'feature'. That said, nobody will fault you for not liking this feature, and several suggestions have been put forward on how you can change it to something more palatable to you, which you can take or leave.

However, I find your continued arguments in the latter part of the thread weak and I think you are being deliberately obtuse for the purpose of baiting people, and so I will put up one more set of stats which I consider to be appropriate to your behaviour in this thread: 3D6+12; 2D6+6; 4D6+12; 2D6; 2D6; 2D6+3; 1D6.

Thalaba

[frogspawner]

However, I find your continued arguments in the latter part of the thread weak and I think you are being deliberately obtuse for the purpose of baiting people...

Oh I don't think that's true. I thought a couple of points in Harwel's last posting were really quite compelling - and actual hard evidence, not 'baiting'. Namely:

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. World's smallest man meets woman with world's longest legs - Telegraph The world smallest man came in at 2'5". That would be 73.7cm.

...

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. IQ Scores - Average IQ Score at IQ Test Center That would put an average human squarely in the 10 INT range.

In new BRP, SIZ 3 is 25-36" (61-90cm) and 21-60lbs (10-30kg). So that still holds, supporting the 3d6 range.

[Jason D]

If desired, please paste the following over the first two bullets on page 16, column 2:

* Roll 3D6 for the characteristics Strength (STR),

Constitution (CON), Size (SIZ), Intelligence (INT), Power

(POW), Dexterity (DEX), and Appearance (APP). Enter the

results in the appropriate places on your character sheet.

[MrJealousy]

This is not a problem that has ever bothered me. The stats are different because its a different species (as mentioned above).

But, sometimes when I am feeling a bit evil I will make the characters roll their stats straight, no extra dice, no re-roll 1's, no juggling the dice results between stats. It all really depends on the kind of game I want to run.

Besides which, unless the characters have one or two extreme stats then it doesn't really matter what they are.

[sdavies2720]

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".

I've always used the rule, "roll 3D6 X times, discard the whole thing if the total is less than 10.5X, and assign the rolls where you want."

It's translated into most characters having a few low stats, but being above average overall. We've gotten some nice roleplaying out of it.

Doubly-nice that stats in BRP aren't all-powerful.

Steve

[Harwel]

Harwel,

Looking at just a few of the stats in the book for 'fantasy creatures' that seem broadly playable, we get:

Centaur: 3D6+6; 3D6; 4D6+12; 2D6+6; 3D6; 3D6+3; 3D6

Dwarf: 4D6; 1D6+12; 1D4+4; 2D6+6; 3D6; 3D6; 3D6

Elf: 2D6+2; 3D6; 2D4+4; 3D6+6; 2D6+6; 3D6+3; 3D6

Halfling: 2D6; 2D6+12; 1D3+3; 2D6+6; 2D6+3; 2D6+10; 3D6

And so on. This 'convention' you are talking about doesn't exist in modern BRP. The reason it doesn't exist it because it has been replaced with a different 'convention' designed to give different averages for different stats in different species. While this may be a 'problem' for you, for most it is a 'feature'. That said, nobody will fault you for not liking this feature, and several suggestions have been put forward on how you can change it to something more palatable to you, which you can take or leave.

However, I find your continued arguments in the latter part of the thread weak and I think you are being deliberately obtuse for the purpose of baiting people, and so I will put up one more set of stats which I consider to be appropriate to your behaviour in this thread: 3D6+12; 2D6+6; 4D6+12; 2D6; 2D6; 2D6+3; 1D6.

Thalaba

I addressed non-humans in an earlier post. Thanks for trolling my thread with snarky comments though!

[vagabond]

You know what - who cares? Play the game the way you want to.

People have been trying to explain to you why the designers

(in this case, Lynn Willis most likely) probably decided to change how

SIZ and INT were rolled. You don't like it? Too bad. IMHO, adjusting

those two rolls to make more playable and realistic results occur is

more important than having the same seven rolls to pick and choose

from. Further, the following argument you made earlier:

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.

is ridiculous. What if they couldn't roll above 9 using 3d6 across the board?

The same decisions can be made - reroll, shuffle points, whatever. However,

I wouldn't take that player to Vegas. The odds of rolling a 17 or better with

2d6+6 is 8.3%. The odds of rolling a 17 or better with 3d6 is 1.85%. So,

the odds of getting a 17 or better with 2 rolls of 2d6+6 is better than 7 rolls

of 3d6. Further, the odds of getting a 9 or less with 2d6+6 is also 8.3%.

But, the odds of getting a 9 or less with 3d6 is 37.5%, and the chance to

get a 7 or less with 3d6 is 16.2%. So, the odds of getting a 9 or less with

2 rolls of 2d6+6 is less than the chance of getting 2 results of 9 or less with

3d6, and less than the chance of getting a result of 7 or less with 3d6.

So, the odds of getting an INT of 17 or better for a very intelligent mage/

scientist is better using the book method.

-V

[vagabond]

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

Not broken for you. Obviously someone decided the new method

is better.

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

But it is non-existent for the designers and others ...

Gee, thanks for your permission.

Nice snark - but the point is, of you don't like the rules as written, it is

within your power to change them. Therefore, to whine about it to

people who do not see the same issue the way you do is rather pointless.

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.

7 rolls of 3d6 distributed as you wish has just as much potential to

min/max in BRP. And the rules allow you to redistribute 3 points

after rolling. But, again, if you don't like the rules, don't use them.

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

If it all about getting the stats you want, then just assign them. I don't

see, given the odds I posted above, how 3d6 across the board is more

likely to generate high INT - it actually isn't. So, I posit, your method

is actually slower since you have already stated that you scrap sets of

stats if the rolls don't fit the concept.

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

Actually, that is the simplest and quickest solution ... roll 19d6 and

assign them accordingly. Good chance you'll get three 6's, three 5's,

and three 4's ...

-V

[Atgxtg]

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

I don't see your point here. How does the way you did something for 10+ years have any bearing in how someone else writes a game. Is there some reason to believe that Chaosium should have checked with you first, before they released RQ3, 25 years ago? OR is there any reason for them to have reversed that now?

As for the "conventions", such as 4d6 drop the lowest, or assign the stats were desired. they belong to a different RPG, AD&D to be specfic.

As far as RQ and most of the BRP games go, the "convention" has been to roll your stats in order and take what you got. For those who wanted more control over the process there was a method where you could assign a few points to the rolled stats.

So it's not that Chaosium changed the stats and character generation from game from the way you did them, they were never did that way in the first place.

Your whole argument seems to be that it was wrong to change a method that you were using for over ten years (longer than RQ had been around). Your reason why it was wrong seems to be that it makes it harder to do something (assign rolls to stats as desired) that wasn't done in RQ to begin with.

How can you blame them for not following your houserules?

[rust]

I still have my "dolphin problem" mentioned earlier: To roll 3D6 for INT does

not make sense for human characters when a Hawk has INT 3 and even a

Zombie has INT 6. Since even a dumb human should be more intelligent than

an animal or a zombie, the roll has to have a result above 6, and I think a

minimum intelligence of 8 is right - so in my view the 2D6+6 is a good deci-

sion.

An alternative could be "roll 3D6 and ignore results below 8", but this would

seem somewhat strange to me, because it would turn out to be more com-

plicated than "roll 2D6 and add 6".

[Byron Alexander]

It's translated into most characters having a few low stats, but being above average overall. We've gotten some nice roleplaying out of it.

Very much agree. I have a friend who, as a GM, will even lower a stat if you roll too high on all of them because a low stat "builds character" (his words). While I don't necessarily agree with this - I wouldn't do it in my games - I've never complained about it and certainly see his point.

even a dumb human should be more intelligent than an animal or a zombie

I don't know... I've known a few people for whom, "I want to eat your brains," would be goal-setting of a type they had hitherto never even dreamed of.

[Harwel]

I don't see your point here. How does the way you did something for 10+ years have any bearing in how someone else writes a game. Is there some reason to believe that Chaosium should have checked with you first, before they released RQ3, 25 years ago? OR is there any reason for them to have reversed that now?

You're right, you don't see the point. The thread is about modifying rules that you don't care for. Please show where I said I think Chaosium should have checked with me first? Chaosium can do whatever they want with the game, and I can modify it however I want. It's a thread about HOUSE RULES, as I stated very clearly in the first post. Had I known it get so many defensive and negative replies, I never would have posted it. I can assure you I won't be making that mistake again.

As for the "conventions", such as 4d6 drop the lowest, or assign the stats were desired. they belong to a different RPG, AD&D to be specfic.

As far as RQ and most of the BRP games go, the "convention" has been to roll your stats in order and take what you got. For those who wanted more control over the process there was a method where you could assign a few points to the rolled stats.

Many people adopt conventions they like from other games when they find they work for them. I've already gone into why I dislike point-buys, and why I dislike "what you roll is what you get".

So it's not that Chaosium changed the stats and character generation from game from the way you did them, they were never did that way in the first place.

Your whole argument seems to be that it was wrong to change a method that you were using for over ten years (longer than RQ had been around). Your reason why it was wrong seems to be that it makes it harder to do something (assign rolls to stats as desired) that wasn't done in RQ to begin with.

How can you blame them for not following your houserules?

Once again, show me where I do that. I merely point out an inconsistency in how stats are measured that no other game I can recall having played has, and it makes no sense to me. So I adopt different rules. I guess it's a no-no to discuss that around here though?

I still have my "dolphin problem" mentioned earlier: To roll 3D6 for INT does

not make sense for human characters when a Hawk has INT 3 and even a

Zombie has INT 6. Since even a dumb human should be more intelligent than

an animal or a zombie, the roll has to have a result above 6, and I think a

minimum intelligence of 8 is right - so in my view the 2D6+6 is a good deci-

sion.

An alternative could be "roll 3D6 and ignore results below 8", but this would

seem somewhat strange to me, because it would turn out to be more com-

plicated than "roll 2D6 and add 6".

Actually, I have no problem at all with a person who has a profound mental disability (as would be reflected by an INT of 5 or less) not having as much cognitive ability as a smart animal.

Anyway, by this point I'm just completely boggled that I try to start what I think would be a fun discussion about house rules and rolling stats, and a bunch of people get their panties in a bunch. I don't know whether it's funny or sad.

[Harwel]

You know what - who cares? Play the game the way you want to.

I do play the way I want to. Forgive me for wanting to talk about it on a forum about BRP!

[soltakss]

This has become quite angry, for some reason.

I gave up trying to understand why any published game was different to the game I actually played long ago.

Everyone has houserules and ways that they play and no game can reflect everyone's own rules and styles of play, no matter how many options and sub-rules it has.

We were using 4D6 best 3 24 years ago in a RQ campaign and it never hurt us, no matter where it originally came from.

It doesn't really matter what the rules actually say. Play the game as you want to, using the rules as guidelines.

When I started playing RQ, we had human characters, then I played an Elf, who had higher DEX, POW and INT. The next group I played with had trolls, morokanth, an elf, a centaur, a minotaur and a duck, so 3D6 was comparitively rare. Playing Elric means that you roll on all sorts of weird dice, lots od D8s for chaotic creatures, for example.

So, 3D6 is not the norm. Humans have 3D6 because it is easier to roll and the results come out as a bell curve which isn't that extreme. 2D6+6 fives a different shaped bell curve but isn't too bad. Empirically, INT relates to IQ (INTx10) and SIZ relates to weight in stones (or at least that's what I always assumed). You can get 3 stone people and 18 stones people, nowadays 18 stone isn't as uncommon as it used to be. STR/CON/DEX/POW/APP/CHA aren't as easy to measure in the real world, EDU is a strange characteristic and SAN is so far away from my game that I never use it.

The way I play RQ/BRP is to do whatever I feel comfortable with. When we had multi GM groups, the GMs had different house rules that several of us disagreed with but still played. The rules are honestly not that important. They are a framework, nothing more. If you don't like a particular rule then use another one. You won't be a heretic and won't be ostracised from the gaming community. I'm not being patronising or giving you permission to play the game how you want to, just saying what needs to be said.

Personally, there's a lot about BRP that I don't much care for, and I am on record as saying that. Having said that, there's a lot that I like. I'd prefer it to be more like RQ3, but I'd like RQM, D20 and all other games systems to be more like RQ3 as well, so that isn't reall a surprise.

What is a surprise is the hostility that this thread has generated.

[rust]

Actually, I have no problem at all with a person who has a profound mental disability (as would be reflected by an INT of 5 or less) not having as much cognitive ability as a smart animal.

This may be true, but I find it hard to imagine how to introduce them into

my science fiction setting without having the characters visiting a mental

hospital ...

[SDLeary]

I do play the way I want to. Forgive me for wanting to talk about it on a forum about BRP!

No need to forgive anyone for wanting to talk about it. Talk is what the board is about. A note though.... and please don't take this the wrong way...

I think that your writing style is possibly part of the problem here. Many here, myself included (with some of your posts anyway), are probably seeing/interpreting an "in your face" style or angry tone (though perhaps its just impassioned). In a text based forum like this, that often comes across as shouting. When "shouting" occurs, everyones tension level raises, and things then really do become angry.

Now, to summarize what I've tried to state before...

The changes were made for a reason, by both Sandy and Lynn IIRC, to better represent common human ranges. They also included a point buy system as an alternative for those who felt that dice were too random and for those with a clear character concept, as a way to "craft" a character.

No, you are not the only one to house rule this. I've played in numerous BRP games where we've used point buy, rolled 4d6, 2d6+6, etc. Many times GMs telling players to re-roll extremely low stats if it didn't fit within the players concept for the character, or if it didn't fit within the GMs concept of the world that they were trying to portray. The thing is, I don't think anyone ever thought poorly enough about the default to state that it didn't make sense in general.

As others have stated, consider the rulebook a toolkit. Use the options you want, change the defaults if it better fits your vision for your adventure/campaign/world; and most importantly...

HAVE FUN, thats what games are about after all.

SDLeary

Edited May 31, 2009 by SDLeary

[vagabond]

Quoted for emphasis, with boldness added for more emphasis:

Once again, show me where I do that. I merely point out an inconsistency in how stats are measured that no other game I can recall having played has, and it makes no sense to me. So I adopt different rules. I guess it's a no-no to discuss that around here though?

AD&D 1st edition introduced different methods for rolling individual stats

back in Unearthed Arcana circa 1985, almost 25 years ago. Not only was

it an alternative method to the standard method, but for some classes, it

was the standard (Barbarians rolled 9d6 pick 3 for STR, 8d6 pick 3 for CON,

and 7d6 pick 3 for DEX).

Nobody said you couldn't adopt different rules, and your original question

was answered by me in post #2. You were the one who continued to belabor

the point, and everyone else, including me, responded in kind. And, when I

and others said nobody cared if you used your own houserules, you got

quite snarky, and yet you claim that we act as if it is forbidden to discuss

houserules. Maybe you should reread your own posts ...

-V

Edited June 1, 2009 by vagabond

[NickMiddleton]

Historical footnote: RQII included rolling 2D6+6 for all stats as one of teh optional rules for characteristic generation.

As far as I can tell, Sandy Petersen introduced the INT & SIZ only as 2D6+6 in Call of Cthulhu, as that's the earliest BRP game I can fin it in.

Cheers,

Nick

[frogspawner]

What is a surprise is the hostility that this thread has generated.

Yes, I've been rather taken aback by that too.

Quoted for emphasis, with boldness added for more emphasis... <etc, snipped>

Please give the guy a break! He advertised it as a "Rant" in the title, but I don't think it's necessary to respond in kind. Let this thread stay dead.

Mr D said quite early on that 3d6 for all would be Perfectly All Right, so there really shouldn't be a problem with it, for those that want to.

[vagabond]

Please give the guy a break! He advertised it as a "Rant" in the title, but I don't think it's necessary to respond in kind. Let this thread stay dead.

Mr D said quite early on that 3d6 for all would be Perfectly All Right, so there really shouldn't be a problem with it, for those that want to.

Many have given him the answer to his question of "Why?", and many

still stated, basically, roll it the way you wish. And, yet, he continues to

come back with "But, why?" and claims everyone is telling him that we

don't care to hear about houserules. Which is complete nonsense in both

instances.

-V

[Rurik]

Many have given him the answer to his question of "Why?", and many

still stated, basically, roll it the way you wish. And, yet, he continues to

come back with "But, why?" and claims everyone is telling him that we

don't care to hear about houserules. Which is complete nonsense in both

instances.

-V

Why?

[vagabond]

Because a) his original question as to why the change was made was

answered, and he was told to go ahead and use his 3d6 or 4d6 drop

lowest for all stats and assign as wished.

I fail to see why he needs to belabor the point, continually pester us

as to the design decision made with respect to BRP back to at least

1984, and claim that discussing houserules is a forbidden topic here,

which is ridiculous since we discuss houserules here all of the time.

And, on top of that, he tries to point out that it is:

I merely point out an inconsistency in how stats are measured that no

other game I can recall having played has, and it makes no sense to me.

and we've been telling him how long that "inconsistency" has been around,

in both BRP and, as I mentioned, AD&D1E, and why it makes sense.

-V

[Rurik]

Sorry, I was being a wise ass. I didn't really need an answer, let alone a thoughtful one.

I forgot my smilies. Perhaps my INT was rolled with 3d6.

Edit: - doh, forgot again!