Random rant- INT and SIZ

[vagabond]

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!

That's OK, I should have known better ...

-V

[Atgxtg]

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.

When you ask why Chaosium changed conventions that you've been using for over 10 years, you are not just talking about House Rules. If you had said, "I don't like 2D6+6 for INT and SIZ and prefer 3D6", this thread would have gone quite differently.

But the way you phased it, it look like you wanted an explaniation/clarification for the change. When people tried to explain why the thought Chaosisum did what they did, your posts seemed to blame them for making changes that ran contrary to your long standing conventions.

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".

Yeah, but you appeared to be blaming Chaosium for not following the same conventions that you do.

As far a "fixing" things go for your campaign, I7d suggest using the 2d&+6 for all stats method used in Elric! It would not only get all stats on the same scale, but would give you the same overall effect as 4D6 drop the lowest.

[rust]

I think what rust has a problem with, is having 4.6% of the human population with profound mental disabilities. That would be the chance of a 5 or less on 3D6.

(...)

Or he might just have a problem with fitting in, sentient dolphins on a 3d6 INT scale. If humans go back down to 3D6, then everything else has to be adjusted.

Both problems, in fact. To use 3D6 for INT would create a situation in my set-

ting where a non-sentient dolphin would be more intelligent than almost 5 %

of the colonists - the dolphin would indeed become an acceptable candidate

for the colony's parliament. :shocked:

[Trifletraxor]

A little fire-thread! >:->

And it's about SIZ and INT?

SGL.

[cjbowser]

A little fire-thread! >:->

And it's about SIZ and INT?

SGL.

We were bored and unsupervised. Just be glad we didn't have access to the server itself.

[Jason D]

EDU has been 3D6+3 in Call of Cthulhu since the first edition.

Just pointing that out.

[Pete Nash]

I'm not quite sure why the this thread has focused on player characters, advantages or not. To me it seems quite obvious that characteristics were deliberately changed so that they could consistently represent anything in a game world - not just human PCs.

Bumping up a human's SIZ simply allows me to have a valid and relevant characteristic range available for creatures/items smaller than an adult human. The same with INT. Where's the problem with that? :confused:

[Al.]

Firstly

This ain't a flame war. Its rather less civilised than we're used to on these boards but honestly nowt compared to what I've seen elsewhere. In fact RPG forums in general seem to be punching below their weight when it comes to geeks being arseholes to each other.

Secondly

It is a truth noted by wiser heads than mine that e-communication is potentially shite. We just have not evolved a language for all of the non-verbal communication we use in face-to-face communication (and even telephonic). Its very easy to be unintentionally abrasive and likewise to offended with/by comments which would not have that effect if made in another media.

Thirdly

I agree that the 2d6+6 for Int and Siz (and since Jason mentions it 3d6+3 for Edu*) and 3d6 for the rest is a bit silly.

Fourthly

FWIW I prefer rolling 3d6 for all stats and treating any roll of a '1' as being a '2' if doing random stuff; as it removes the crippling low poor roll whilst allowing for one very low score if it fits player's/gm's character concept by swapping upto 3 points if desired AND it does not skew the bell curve TOO badly (although it does skew it)

Fifthly

I still wish that I was a Jedi

Al

* although backtracking slightly 2nd CoC made some sense of this. 3d6+3 was for Lovecraftian heroes** who tended to be educated types. Even suggesting 3d6 for most peeps and 2d6 or 1d6 for more primitive or 'backwoods' types who wouldn't have access to formal education. I'm not sure why that info seems to have disappeared from subsequent editions.

** trivial fact, I typed herpes there first time, bizzare typo eh?

[frogspawner]

I'm not quite sure why the this thread has focused on player characters, advantages or not. ... Where's the problem with that? :confused:

The problem is that the 3d6 scale appears to be a better fit to human INT/SIZ than the 2d6+6 scale - because of the well-known 1 INT = 10 IQ and 1 SIZ = 1 Stone rules-of-thumb (and the worlds shortest man being quoted as 2'7", slap in the BRP SIZ 3 height range). This leaves the main argument in favour of 2d6+6 for these stats as the "playability" of the characters produced - hence the focus on player characters.

[Atgxtg]

* although backtracking slightly 2nd CoC made some sense of this. 3d6+3 was for Lovecraftian heroes** who tended to be educated types. Even suggesting 3d6 for most peeps and 2d6 or 1d6 for more primitive or 'backwoods' types who wouldn't have access to formal education. I'm not sure why that info seems to have disappeared from subsequent editions.

I vaguely recall something about rolling for "urban or rural" and urban PCs getting the +3 to their EDU. Not that Deep Ones were ever snobbish about that sort of thing. Most Mythos beings were equal opportunity horrors.

[Rurik]

The problem is that the 3d6 scale appears to be a better fit to human INT/SIZ than the 2d6+6 scale - because of the well-known 1 INT = 10 IQ and 1 SIZ = 1 Stone rules-of-thumb (and the worlds shortest man being quoted as 2'7", slap in the BRP SIZ 3 height range). This leaves the main argument in favour of 2d6+6 for these stats as the "playability" of the characters produced - hence the focus on player characters.

Yes but are one on every 216 adult humans 2'7"? Far from it. The rolls are supposed to represent 'normal' human range. Tom Thumb and Goliath exist outside of normal human range.

Also, D&D, the 3d6 all Characteristics system innoventer against which BRP is being judged doesn't assign characteristics to Animals or Monsters. A rabbit in D&D does not have characteristics, just a hid die (or 1 hp) and a damage value and an Xp value and a treasure value. In BRP, where all creatures have the same characteristics as humans, there needed to be range bigger than 1 or 2 for creatures that fall below the range for 'normal' human SIZ and INT.

Do SIZ 3 and INT 3 Humans exist? Certainly, but they are 1 in thousands if not millions, not one in 216. In game terms such humans are not generated randomly, but by design as needed by the game.

[Jason D]

For what it's worth, I usually just decide how "seasoned" I want the PCs to be and assign a spread of attributes (10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, and 15, for example). Higher point spreads for more robust and heroic characters. I then let the players slide 3 points around, keeping in mind species maxes.

Since everyone begins with the same point base, it is as balanced a system as any.

[frogspawner]

Yes but are one on every 216 adult humans 2'7"? Far from it. The rolls are supposed to represent 'normal' human range. Tom Thumb and Goliath exist outside of normal human range.

Also, D&D, the 3d6 all Characteristics system innoventer against which BRP is being judged doesn't assign characteristics to Animals or Monsters. A rabbit in D&D does not have characteristics, just a hid die (or 1 hp) and a damage value and an Xp value and a treasure value. In BRP, where all creatures have the same characteristics as humans, there needed to be range bigger than 1 or 2 for creatures that fall below the range for 'normal' human SIZ and INT.

Do SIZ 3 and INT 3 Humans exist? Certainly, but they are 1 in thousands if not millions, not one in 216. In game terms such humans are not generated randomly, but by design as needed by the game.

Apparently less than 1% have IQ 30-50 (according to this IQ Site). Just 5% are under 75 (7 INT?) just as only 5% are above 125 (12 INT?).

But that fits the way I view it: Characters (PC or significant NPC) are, or have the capacity to be, exceptional. Most 'ordinary' people's stats I'd roll on 3 average dice (i.e. ones where 6's and 1's are replaced with extra 4's and 3's respectively) - those I don't just assign as 10's, that is! Rolling 3d6 (or 4d6 best 3) lets PCs be Tom Thumb or Goliath - if they want to be.

(Also,these days D&D creatures do get full sets of stats, I believe.)

[Atgxtg]

I was considering something like 2D6+6 for INT and SIZ, and 2D6+3 for the rest, then give the players 6 points or so to play with.