why 2d6+6 for Int and Siz?

[mhensley]

Why are those two stats on a different bell curve than the other stats? Coming from D&D, it seems kind of weird.

[Narl]

Just to give standard humans a higher minimum and higher average for those particular stats. Other races or human variations may have different formulas for each stat.

For most games, unless you want to have very average characters, I'd recommend using the Higher Starting Characteristics option and roll 2D6+6 for all the stats.

[Thalaba]

Remember that in BRP all the creatures are statted using the same seven stats. The rage of those stats has to reflect the spectrum from cats to dragons. With respect to INT and SIZ it was felt that 2D6+6 better reflected the range of human potential compared to cats, halflings, and so on.

If it bothers you, use 3D6 for those stats, if you like. Won't make a lot of difference in most games.

Coming from BRP, there are a lot of things that seem weird about D&D, too!

[ORtrail]

Welcome to the world of BRP. Those two stats are different to reflect the fact that the vast majority of humans fall within a certain size and intelligence range.

Sure, you can make that argument for most of the the stats, but do you really want a world where SIZ 5 people are nearly as common as SIZ 9 and so on?

Although if you want to change things up, well, that's what BRP is all about. It would actually be very interesting to see a world where humans were actually in the SIZ 4-6 range.

After edit: Late to the party.

[Mugen]

Note that if you want to have the same kind of distribution for every stat, it is possible to use 2D6+X for each of these.

As for myself, I usually use the following values for humans :

STR 2D6+4

CON 2D6+4

SIZ 2D6+6

INT 2D6+6

POW 2D6+4

DEX 2D6+4

CHA 2D6+4

Of course, this would not work for races that are far beyond human range of characteristics....

Edited May 15, 2011 by Mugen

[fmitchell]

In "real life", Intelligence is an asymmetric bell curve with a long tail toward higher numbers, judging from IQ and personal experience. IQ is normalized to 100 (i.e. 100 is always the statistical average). I'm sure there's a way to simulate that with dice. (4D6 drop lowest?) Alternatively, one can pitch the idea of "fixed INT" for non-humans and re-scale for the full 3-18 range; animals may have no INT at all, or an equivalent for numerical calculations.

(BTW, in one short-lived campaign where player built their orc characters with point buy, orcs had an average of INT 10, while randomly-rolled human NPCs had an average INT of 13. Humans were naturally cleverer, and more technologically and socially advanced.)

The same solutions could work for SIZ, although adult humans can range from about 1m/3' to 2.5m/8'2'', with most in the range of 1.52m-2m/5'-6'7''; weights vary even more. In the case of SIZ, 2D6+6 fits the actual curve better.

Edited May 16, 2011 by fmitchell

[Gundamentalist]

INT because 7 or less is animal intelligence; 8 plus is intelligent life.

SIZ is because you are rolling an adult or near adult. Some variations of BRP like CoC Gaslight have different SIZ modifiers to reflect and create younger, smaller charatcers - children, street urchin, etc.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

The annoying thing about SIZ and INT 2D6+6 is that it beaks the "roll 4D6 and drop the lowest, then assign to characteristics as you see fit" method of character generation.

[Atgxtg]

Yes, but the 4D6 method was not used in RQ.

[Atgxtg]

Why are those two stats on a different bell curve than the other stats? Coming from D&D, it seems kind of weird.

Well, it is because when RQ3 was written they needed a way to have races that were smaller (and dumber) than humans. With the old 3D6 method of RQ2, they didn't have much room to sueeze in a hobbit or dog.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Yes, but the 4D6 method was not used in RQ.

It was in my RQ. Look, here's the rule:

(6) use some other combination of dice and free will.

[Atgxtg]

It was in my RQ. Look, here's the rule:

LOL!

Okay, to clairfy, the 4D6 drop the lowest method was not a standard method in RQ. It was the default method in AD&D.

One thing about RuneQuest is that, unlike most of the other early FRPGs, it did not evolve out opf D&D. It had it's own methods and internal logic that was differernt from D&D. IMO, that is one of the things that was wrong about MRQ. It was more RQ written by and for the D&D crowd.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

The funny thing was, we were using the '4D6 drop lowest' thing for years before we found AD&Ders were using it. Just seemed a natural way of making PCs a bit better than average.

Okay, not that funny.

[Atgxtg]

Kinda funny.

I just don't think it was such a great thing to do in RQ. In AD&D the bonuses didn't kick in until 15, and a character needed some 12s here and there to qualify for a class. I once had the dubious honor of getting a DM to go back on his "one set of rolls, that it!" rule in AD&D when I rolled so poorly that I failed to qualify for any class.

But, in RQ there is a certain charm to taking an average character and developing him into a hero. Plus stats could be trained up during play.

But...back on topic, my point was that not every RPG is was constrained to do things the same way as D&D.

IMO, I think that RQ3 probably should have ditched the 3-18 curve for the other stats, and gone with something like 2d6+3 for everything, and tweaked the SR breakpoints a little. But even then, we'd still have problems with non human characters.