PhilHibbs Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 9 hours ago, Jose-san said: I don't know if this is uncommon, I keep the bonus separate from the skills. If the bonus changes, I only change the bonus, not every skill. The players have to add the bonus every time they roll though. I do that myself, although I haven't played in a long long time, and one of the players in my group does it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhôrahil Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 (edited) 6 hours ago, jajagappa said: That is how I have my players set up their character sheets. We didn't start out that way, but all my players moved to it over time. They find the addition to be less annoying than having to erase and update all skills when stats (normally POW) change. And experience rolls are actually easier this way (it's a straight roll above "raw" skill, until you start to get very high). Edited July 20 by Akhôrahil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akhôrahil Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 (edited) On 7/16/2024 at 1:11 AM, Geoff R Evil said: In my campaigns characters are potential heroes so I allow 5d6 take best Three and 4d6 +6 take best two for int and size. I did the following: Roll two sets, top to bottom. Choose one set when you're done. Roll one extra dice and remove one each roll. Drop and reroll any set that's below human average. Do the stat bonus thing as per the regular rules. This ensured that no set was painfully bad, and gave some flexibility in what set to use. (one player rolled two painfully average sets and was allowed a re-roll, because while hilariously uneven characteristics are fun, bland ones aren't). Edited July 20 by Akhôrahil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose-san Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 18 hours ago, Akhôrahil said: I would advise against point-buy - the often oddly statted characters that turn up from ”roll top to bottom” are a charming part of the game, and a driver of roleplaying. This isn’t D&D, where you need an efficient and optimized build and point-buy makes more sense than rolling. Well, we have runes linked to personality traits, passions, and family history as part of the character creation process. I think those help in fleshing out a character better than the characteristic numbers. They can be a source of inspiration too, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomNumber Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 (edited) When rolling 5 stats at 3d6, two at 2d6+6 and adding 3 points for Runic affinity you have 19d6+15 for a range of [19, 114] + 15 = [34, 129]. Applying some math, there will be 281 PC's per million that have a rolled total of 92+ (before adding the three for runes). A rolled total of 100+ is 1 PC per million. But that's on Earth, with math. On Glorantha, with magic, it's whatever you want. Rolled total, S Stat total (S+15) PMF, P(s=S) CDF, P(s≤S) Per million NPCs 66 81 0.053026 0.500000 53,026 67 82 0.053026 0.553026 53,026 68 83 0.052109 0.605135 52,109 69 84 0.050320 0.655456 50,320 70 85 0.047749 0.703205 47,749 71 86 0.044520 0.747726 44,520 72 87 0.040783 0.788509 40,783 73 88 0.036702 0.825211 36,702 74 89 0.032444 0.857655 32,444 75 90 0.028167 0.885822 28,167 76 91 0.024013 0.909836 24,013 77 92 0.020099 0.929934 20,099 78 93 0.016512 0.946446 16,512 79 94 0.013311 0.959757 13,311 80 95 0.010528 0.970285 10,528 81 96 0.008165 0.978450 8,165 82 97 0.006209 0.984659 6,209 83 98 0.004627 0.989286 4,627 84 99 0.003378 0.992664 3,378 85 100 0.002414 0.995078 2,414 86 101 0.001689 0.996766 1,689 87 102 0.001155 0.997921 1,155 88 103 0.000772 0.998694 772 89 104 0.000504 0.999198 504 90 105 0.000322 0.999520 322 91 106 0.000200 0.999719 200 92 107 0.000121 0.999840 121 93 108 0.000071 0.999912 71 94 109 0.000041 0.999953 41 95 110 0.000023 0.999975 23 96 111 0.000012 0.999988 12 97 112 0.000006 0.999994 6 98 113 0.000003 0.999997 3 99 114 0.000002 0.999999 2 100 115 0.000001 0.999999 1 101 116 0.000000 1.000000 0 102 117 0.000000 1.000000 0 103 118 0.000000 1.000000 0 104 119 0.000000 1.000000 0 105 120 0.000000 1.000000 0 106 121 0.000000 1.000000 0 107 122 0.000000 1.000000 0 108 123 0.000000 1.000000 0 109 124 0.000000 1.000000 0 110 125 0.000000 1.000000 0 111 126 0.000000 1.000000 0 112 127 0.000000 1.000000 0 113 128 0.000000 1.000000 0 114 129 0.000000 1.000000 0 Edited July 21 by RandomNumber 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 10 hours ago, RandomNumber said: On Glorantha, with magic, it's whatever you want. This is why Ernaldan mothers with Bless Pregnancy are popular 😉 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossTMcD Posted July 25 Author Share Posted July 25 On 7/15/2024 at 10:52 PM, Mugen said: As for myself, I'm not fond of pure point buy systems in BRP games, because of the thresholds you mentioned, which are present in almost all games, but also because a game like RuneQuest has playable intelligent species which differ a lot from the human standard. Try to stat an Uz with the same number of points as you use for a human, and you'll have a pitiful member of that species. Another, and simpler, way to construct a point-buy system that allows for different species could be based on the part in RQG where the rulebook says that (for human adventurers) if your characteristics total 92 or less you can add 3 points. One could take this as meaning that 95 points is a reasonable total to divide among characteristics (for a human) and in fact you can build a pretty solid character using 95 points of characteristics. To extend it to other species, we can observe that the total of the average rolled characteristics for a human is 78.5, and if you multiply 78.5 by 1.2 and round up you get 95. So a possible generalized point buy system could go like this: Total the average rolled value for all characteristics for this species (maintaining fractions) Multiply this total by 1.2, rounding up if necessary Distribute that number of points among the characteristics; every characteristic must have a value within its possible rolled range Then add your elemental rune bonuses as usual So for instance to build a dark troll, the total of the average rolls is 90, multiply that by 1.2 and you get 108 points for building your Uz. (This also, amusingly, lets you quantify exactly how "above average" adventurers are. They are 20% above average. 20% cooler, if you will 🙂) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susimetsa Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 (edited) 12 hours ago, RossTMcD said: Another, and simpler, way to construct a point-buy system that allows for different species could be based on the part in RQG where the rulebook says that (for human adventurers) if your characteristics total 92 or less you can add 3 points. One could take this as meaning that 95 points is a reasonable total to divide among characteristics (for a human) and in fact you can build a pretty solid character using 95 points of characteristics. That is not really true, though. I've rolled numerous characters and I pretty much always get to add that 3 points and still the total is somewhere below 90, often even below 80 points. As RandomNumber posted above, "there will be 281 PC's per million that have a rolled total of 92+". That's pretty rare. A mathematically accurate way to determine point buy would be to calculate the average rolls for each stat, which, for humans, would be (5 * 3d6) + (2 * (2d6+6)) = 78.5. Add to that the 3 promised to "below 92 rolls" and you get 82 points. So, you could say that everyone gets to spread 82 points between the stats, but with a minimum of 3 to 5 stats and 8 to 2 stats. That's by the rules, of course. It doesn't seem that most (any?) official NPC or pregen follows this method. Rather, it seems that the characteristic generation system, as stated in the rulebook, is not actually the one used for any of them. Basically, you'd be better off playing a pregen than trying to roll your own character if you made the choice on the basis of the characteristics. Edited July 26 by Susimetsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadochoi Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 I often use: Assign the following scores between your six attributes: 17, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10. Then modify by race, runes etc. Some races have limitations on which scores can be used for which attributes e.g Drultz, strength must be one of the two lowest attributes at the start. Other modifications e.g. if pre-initiate child or more elderly also exist. This method ensures people can work towards the character type they want and ensures some sort of "parity" between starting party members i.e. no "I rolled 16+ for all six" vs "I never managed higher than a 10". Large disparity can be fun, but it can also cripple fun depending on the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Desperate WindChild Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 On 7/16/2024 at 7:52 AM, Mugen said: Try to stat an Uz with the same number of points as you use for a human, and you'll have a pitiful member of that species. it depends on the number of points 🙂 you may have average Uz and powerful humans. I think that the difference between races could create other issues. You raised one of them if you compare the uz pc with the uz people. But if you compare the uz pc with the human pc what does that mean to have so many differences ? If GM and players don't want to play a game including racism (because too sensitive for some of them), what could be the reason to not play a troll in a very open-minded human setting ? I m not fond at all of the "all races / all sexes / all genders / all XXXX must have same potential", in the other way I flee game/group (that's not only the game but how people play the rules) when the concept is "this race is for barbarian / this race is for ranger / this race is for ...." but I don't like also to create a too big difference between two pc. IMO there should be a kind of balance to avoid frustration (again, it depends on the players). I m not talking about rule, but more about GM's work. (poor GM responsible to fix everything all the time !) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 19 hours ago, RossTMcD said: Another, and simpler, way to construct a point-buy system that allows for different species could be based on the part in RQG where the rulebook says that (for human adventurers) if your characteristics total 92 or less you can add 3 points. One could take this as meaning that 95 points is a reasonable total to divide among characteristics (for a human) and in fact you can build a pretty solid character using 95 points of characteristics. 7 hours ago, Susimetsa said: That is not really true, though. I've rolled numerous characters and I pretty much always get to add that 3 points and still the total is somewhere below 90, often even below 80 points. As RandomNumber posted above, "there will be 281 PC's per million that have a rolled total of 92+". That's pretty rare. The average of a character rolled with the re-roll ones rule is 88, though, 95 is only plus one per characteristic above this average. You could make a case that 88 is enough though, as it is average (which is already above human average, due to rerolling ones). On 7/21/2024 at 11:51 AM, RandomNumber said: When rolling 5 stats at 3d6, two at 2d6+6 and adding 3 points for Runic affinity you have 19d6+15 for a range of [19, 114] + 15 = [34, 129]. Applying some math, there will be 281 PC's per million that have a rolled total of 92+ (before adding the three for runes). A rolled total of 100+ is 1 PC per million. Do you have the numbers for rerolling ones? That's the equivalent of each die being 1d5+1, hence the 88 number above (die average 4, 19 dice, 76 total, plus 6x2 for SIZ and INT). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrippyHippy Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 (edited) I just say 80 points to spend on seven Characteristics, no less than 8 and no more than 18. OR/ Distribute the following anywhere you like: 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 Done. Edited July 26 by TrippyHippy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted July 26 Share Posted July 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said: I just say 80 points to spend on seven Characteristics, no less than 8 and no more than 18. Less than the average of the reroll-ones method? 18, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9, 8 would give 88, the same average. I don't mind giving everyone an 18, better than no-one getting one. Edited July 26 by PhilHibbs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossTMcD Posted July 27 Author Share Posted July 27 It's interesting that the book's rule of "if your total is 92 or less, add 3" implies that 93 points is the minimum total at which you no longer need a lil' boost. And, as @PhilHibbs points out, if you take the book's suggestion of re-rolling 1s, then the average total is 88 (to which you would be able to add 3 to get to 91.) And -- not in the book, but a very common method of rolling somewhat-above-average scores -- if you add one die to every roll and remove the lowest result -- i.e., roll (4d6 drop lowest) 5 times and ((3d6 drop lowest) + 6) twice -- the average total is 90 (plus three is 93.) So there seems to be a consensus among these methods that around 91-93 characteristic points is a pretty good total for an adventurer; enough above average to be heroic, not so much so as to be absurd. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomNumber Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) On 7/26/2024 at 11:34 PM, PhilHibbs said: The average of a character rolled with the re-roll ones rule is 88, though, 95 is only plus one per characteristic above this average. You could make a case that 88 is enough though, as it is average (which is already above human average, due to rerolling ones). Do you have the numbers for rerolling ones? That's the equivalent of each die being 1d5+1, hence the 88 number above (die average 4, 19 dice, 76 total, plus 6x2 for SIZ and INT). OK, so I haven't checked this thoroughly but from a brief inspection, it looks plausible... This is the same table but for 19 rolls of 1d5+1 plus 15 (2 x 6 for SIZ and INT and +3 for runic affinity). That gives a randomised range of [19,95] and an overall range of [53, 129]. There will now be 467,919 PC's per million with 92+ i.e. re-rolling 1's makes a huge difference. 84,418 per million will have 100+ In case of interest... the dice roll sum problem distribution is really interesting for those who like that kind of thing: https://www.lucamoroni.it/the-dice-roll-sum-problem/. This website is also RPG friendly: https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/dice Hope this helps. Edited July 27 by RandomNumber 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) 8 hours ago, RandomNumber said: There will now be 467,919 PC's per million with 92+ i.e. re-rolling 1's makes a huge difference. 84,418 per million will have 100+ Okay that makes sense, 88 average, +3 for the runes is 91, nearly half will have 92 or more. 8 hours ago, RandomNumber said: Er... not sure how that lines up with what you said. Doesn't this say that 63,352 per million will... ah thats the number for exactly 92, not 92 or more. So to get that 467,919 I need to take the 0.532081 from the line above, subtract it from 1, and shift the decimal. And the magic one-in-a-million will have straight-17s or average thereof. Edited July 27 by PhilHibbs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHibbs Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 8 hours ago, RandomNumber said: This website is also RPG friendly: https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/dice Okay I'm up and running, thanks! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrippyHippy Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 On 7/27/2024 at 11:03 AM, PhilHibbs said: Less than the average of the reroll-ones method? 18, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9, 8 would give 88, the same average. I don't mind giving everyone an 18, better than no-one getting one. For my tastes, this is too high. My preference for rules comes more from RQ2, however, and I prefer the notion that characters have room for improvement in their characteristics from the beginning of play, as they campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomNumber Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said: So to get that 467,919 I need to take the 0.532081 from the line above, subtract it from 1, and shift the decimal. And the magic one-in-a-million will have straight-17s or average thereof. Yes, that's exactly right. Looks like my spreadsheet was right after all. 🤓 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.