History Question about Characteristics

[SDLeary]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Except in KAP Culture IS where you are from. There are no Cymri in Russia. 

Except in Britain, where you can have Romans and Celts, Romans and Saxons, Saxons and Celts, in the same region (Logres has all three), at least with the Advanced Character Generation rules in 4e. In 5e this is dialed back, but with the Book of Knights and Ladies peeks through again, though mainly in the form of faith.

SDLeary

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Chogokin said:

What, you mean the Caltrops of Doom? I love those dice, and look for any possible excuse to use them in games!

Yes, but...

do you dip your d4's into curare before casting them across the table...?  

[g33k]

3 hours ago, Mechashef said:

And yes I presume you were not really serious.

<shrug>

Once you step away from the RAW in an effort to "shape" your rolls, I'm willing to use most any of the traditional dice.  So it was as serious IMHO as any other non-RAW suggestion.    

 

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Except in Britain, where you can have Romans and Celts, Romans and Saxons, Saxons and Celts, in the same region (Logres has all three), at least with the Advanced Character Generation rules in 4e. In 5e this is dialed back, but with the Book of Knights and Ladies peeks through again, though mainly in the form of faith.

SDLeary

Yes that is still in there, but it mostly reflects the times. In the last century or so Britian was invaded by the Saxons, and pretty much abandoned by Rome (or at least what's left of it). So you got a mix of clashing cultures. 

[Chogokin]

On 12/7/2017 at 10:27 PM, g33k said:

Yes, but...

do you dip your d4's into curare before casting them across the table...?  

Hard to get good curare around these parts... habanero sauce makes an acceptable substitute, albeit with different results...

[Algesan]

I've used most of the variations listed: 3d6, 4d6 drop lowest, 5d6 drop two lowest, 2d6+6, etc.  Add in rerolling 1s.  Add in upgrading lowest stat to 18 if no 18 is rolled.  Allow players to transfer X points (3-5) among stats (actually, usually do this if a player wants to run class X but has one short stat in AD&D).  Start players with base 9 and give them 6 points per stat to make up characters with max 18.  Yada, yada, yada.  They all work.

Main thing I do across the board, no matter what, is allow the players to roll two sets of stats, choose one and arrange them as they see fit.  Yes, this gets you some power gamer mentality (even among role playing types...unless they are so "pure" that you don't even need to roll stats for them, heck, forget the dice), but not so much.  Everyone should have the top two stats in Dex and Int because they are the core of the category bonuses.

On the size thing, SIZ 3 is definitely possible, but a LOT rarer than 1 in 216.  Normal dwarfism is about a 1 in 25,000 births thing with an average height just over 4 ft for males.  Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister) is just over the average at 4' 5" (~135cm) which makes him SIZ 6.  Records of adult dwarfs go as low as SIZ 3, but it takes two dwarf parents and if the child inherits the mutated gene from both it almost always dies, so extremely rare given the low number of dwarfs born.   The "pygmy" tribes would be about SIZ 7 (under 5' or ~150cm) for males.

OTOH, I haven't seen a player yet who worried too much about the SIZ being too high, impacting physical skills negatively since they prefer extra hit points and a bigger damage bonus.

 

About old Stormbringer 1ed, we used to have a lot of fun with that one and it never really seemed too unbalanced in RP terms.  Yeah, some guys got good rolls and I don't think anyone actually rolled a beggar from Nadsokor.... or else they got a reroll on it.  As has been pointed out, after a bit doing some skill rolls, everything starts pretty much evening out for most characters.

 

[Al.]

On 12/8/2017 at 3:34 AM, g33k said:

<shrug>

Once you step away from the RAW in an effort to "shape" your rolls, I'm willing to use most any of the traditional dice.  So it was as serious IMHO as any other non-RAW suggestion.    

 

Inspired by g33k's can-do attitude; this week I tried for characters created for a quick six week story arc:

Roll 1d20, treat any odd number as a 10, even numbers as rolled

Vast majority of characteristics started at 10 (more than the statistically predicted 55%) with a few very extreme outliers. It was interesting, I'm not sure whether I'll use it again but interesting.

[Atgxtg]

On 12/11/2017 at 3:12 PM, Algesan said:

About old Stormbringer 1ed, we used to have a lot of fun with that one and it never really seemed too unbalanced in RP terms.  Yeah, some guys got good rolls and I don't think anyone actually rolled a beggar from Nadsokor.... or else they got a reroll on it.  As has been pointed out, after a bit doing some skill rolls, everything starts pretty much evening out for most characters.

 

IMO the problem is more with Sorcerers than anyone else. Those with elementals and demons can pretty much mop up the floor with those who lack them. At the very least they should have made the forces of Law more powerful in order to give Chaos some sort of fight. 

[jeffjerwin]

On 12/1/2017 at 3:29 AM, Mechashef said:

 

And yes I am aware that some people do play rogue dragonewts, newtlings, trollkin, baboons and even elves and dwarves, but far less frequently than in most other fantasy RPGs.

 

Sorry about the off-topic aside here, but If you substitute a magisaur in there and delete the Mostali I believe you've described a party in one of may games long ago...

[Mugen]

I think I'd use the following method next time I use BRP:

-Roll 1d6+7 7 times, and assign those in order to 7 characteristics.
-Distribute 21 points among the 7 characteristics, minimum 0, maximum 6, the 6th point in each stat costing 2 points instead of 1.

The reason behind this method is I don't like completely random attribute generation, but on the other hand there too many ways to optimize a character if you distribute points freely in BRP.

EDIT: the 1d6+7 is for humans, others will roll 1d6+another value.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Mugen

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

I think I'd use the following method next time I use BRP:

-Roll 1d6+7 7 times, and assign those in order to 7 characteristics.
-Distribute 21 points among the 7 characteristics, minimum 0, maximum 6, the 6th point in each stat costing 2 points instead of 1.

The reason behind this method is I don't like completely random attribute generation, but on the other hand there too many ways to optimize a character if you distribute points freely in BRP.

EDIT: the 1d6+7 is for humans, others will roll 1d6+another value.

Not even any sort of bell curve? Ouch. I'd hate to be the poor guy who rolls a few ones during chargen. Low attributes hurt a character  in BRP a lot more than high attributes help him.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Atgxtg

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Not even any sort of bell curve? Ouch...

Yeah; if I'm rolling I really like some bell in there.

Al. created a "pseudo" bell (just a spike at "10") with his amusing d20 method.

[rsanford]

On 12/7/2017 at 7:40 PM, Chogokin said:

Given the vast proliferation of d100 systems in recent years, now I'm in kind of a pick-and-choose mode, where I'm looking at all the different interpretations of the system and pondering what I like best out of the bunch.

That's the way I am now. I started off with Magic World which is a streamlined set of BRP rules for fantasy and then I added things from the Big Gold Book and from this forum as I have movedd into other genres. Currently running Cthulhu with rules from Magic World and Enlightened Magic.

[rsanford]

On 12/6/2017 at 11:06 PM, Chogokin said:

I believe that aspect of being an adventurer can't be modeled with an INT attribute.

What's your thoughts behind this? Is this because it's hard for a player to play a character smarter than he or she is?

[olskool]

I felt the need to shrink the stat range in order to create room for smaller humanoids in the game.  I currently roll 3D6+2 for everything but SIZ and INT.  For those, I roll 2D6+8.  This gives a range of from 10 to 20 for the stats that cannot be improved during play and a range of 5 to 20 for improvable stats.  I also set my species maximum at 20* for humans.

*Please note that I do allow PLAYERS to reduce scores below these thresholds with GM approval (in order to play dwarfs or mentally challenged characters).  I also replace POW with Willpower (a measure of mental strength) and turn POW into a "derived value" like hit points.  POW is being calculated in my current game by dividing WILL in half (Rd) and adding 1 point for every 4 points of CON and 1 point for every 4 points of CHA.  Maximum POW for a character is determined by multiplying the species maximum (20 for humans) by 1.5.  Thus a human's POW could be 30.  Also note, as a control for POW, I require the sacrifice of a permanent point of POW to learn spells, worship gods, or attune magic items or Relics (Rune magic items).  However, learning a spell, attuning a magic item, or dedicating POW to your god nets you a POW gain roll because of the sacrifice you must make.          

[Mugen]

13 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not even any sort of bell curve? Ouch. I'd hate to be the poor guy who rolls a few ones during chargen. Low attributes hurt a character  in BRP a lot more than high attributes help him.

Well, rolling 7 dice produces a bell curve.

Also, even though d6s distribution is flat, the range of results is shorter than with 2d6 or 3d6, and the associated standard deviation is also smaller.

Using 1d12+6 instead of 2d6+6 would be problematic, yes. But not d6+7+bonus.

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, Mugen said:

Well, rolling 7 dice produces a bell curve.

Only if you are adding them together.

 

13 hours ago, Mugen said:

Also, even though d6s distribution is flat, the range of results is shorter than with 2d6 or 3d6, and the associated standard deviation is also smaller.

Using 1d12+6 instead of 2d6+6 would be problematic, yes. But not d6+7+bonus.

Sure it's problematic. There is an extra chance of any number coming up. So there are just as many characters walking around with an 8 as with an 10 or 11. Now I know you are letting the players spend points to raise the values further, but but it's still going to be problematic. You will see a lot more characters with ultra high and/or ultra low stats with a flat distribution.

 

I think something like 2D3 or 2D4 (with add) will serve you better. 

 

[Mugen]

Still, you won't see as many characters with 18s as you would with a completetely randomless point assignation system (such as : you have 81 points to put into your 7 stats), and that was my goal.

I also don't think putting 5 points to a stat for which you rolled a 6 and get an 18 is such a no-brainer. You'll see a lot of people putting only 3 or 4 points and have a good 16 or 17, so that they can put points in other characteristics. In the end, 16s and 17s are going to be very frequent, but not 18s.

[Chogokin]

On 12/22/2017 at 2:38 PM, rsanford said:

What's your thoughts behind this? Is this because it's hard for a player to play a character smarter than he or she is?

Actually I was trying to imply humorously that conventional adventuring as depicted in RPGs is a terribly antisocial and highly risky activity. Really intelligent people in the game universe would probably find successful careers that don't involve copious amounts of mayhem and destruction.

On the other hand, while I certainly have seen situations with players who try to portray a character with a high INT and made some really dubious decisions, I don't generally consider that a major problem. Lots of really smart people, at least in the "book-learning" sense, can be pretty dumb about practical matters.

[Chogokin]

On 12/22/2017 at 5:53 PM, olskool said:

I felt the need to shrink the stat range in order to create room for smaller humanoids in the game.  I currently roll 3D6+2 for everything but SIZ and INT.  For those, I roll 2D6+8.  This gives a range of from 10 to 20 for the stats that cannot be improved during play and a range of 5 to 20 for improvable stats.  I also set my species maximum at 20* for humans.

*Please note that I do allow PLAYERS to reduce scores below these thresholds with GM approval (in order to play dwarfs or mentally challenged characters).  I also replace POW with Willpower (a measure of mental strength) and turn POW into a "derived value" like hit points.  POW is being calculated in my current game by dividing WILL in half (Rd) and adding 1 point for every 4 points of CON and 1 point for every 4 points of CHA.  Maximum POW for a character is determined by multiplying the species maximum (20 for humans) by 1.5.  Thus a human's POW could be 30.  Also note, as a control for POW, I require the sacrifice of a permanent point of POW to learn spells, worship gods, or attune magic items or Relics (Rune magic items).  However, learning a spell, attuning a magic item, or dedicating POW to your god nets you a POW gain roll because of the sacrifice you must make.          

On the topic of POW, that reminded me of something else I was pondering. Charisma is pretty much always seen as a dump stat, even with the Mythras rules that give it a role in improving skills. I know the players I had pegged all of their characters at 8 CHA. Furthermore, in that copy of Stormbringer I've read over, the author(s) actually write something to the effect that Charisma is really the least useful attribute.

So, I was thinking about dropping POW from the game and making Charisma serve as both the social attribute and the supernatural power attribute. I justify that a bit by pointing out the weird charisma of cult leaders, and the powerful force of will or personal magnetism many fictional sorcerers are described as having. 

[olskool]

4 minutes ago, Chogokin said:

On the topic of POW, that reminded me of something else I was pondering. Charisma is pretty much always seen as a dump stat, even with the Mythras rules that give it a role in improving skills. I know the players I had pegged all of their characters at 8 CHA. Furthermore, in that copy of Stormbringer I've read over, the author(s) actually write something to the effect that Charisma is really the least useful attribute.

So, I was thinking about dropping POW from the game and making Charisma serve as both the social attribute and the supernatural power attribute. I justify that a bit by pointing out the weird charisma of cult leaders, and the powerful force of will or personal magnetism many fictional sorcerers are described as having. 

I use CON as a modifier for POW because it represents your "physical health" which weighs into the amount of POW you can attract and hold.  I use Charisma for POW in my game because I see it as part of the Mental Strength of a character.   I see it more as "force of personality" than "looks."   This goes hand in hand with WILL which is the other aspect of Mental Strength.  Think of WILL as the mental version of CON, while CHA would be the mental version of AGL.  INT would be the mental version of STR.  My players will tell you that there are NO "expendable" characteristics in my game.  Here are some things CHA is used for in my game:

- Casting Rune Magic:  When you are casting Rune Spells, you are, in essence, imploring the god to use their power to help you.  Thus CHA is key in all Rune Priest Skills and Spells.

-Morale Checks:  Do you want your men-at-arms to stand their ground against that advancing enemy horde?   Make that Oratory roll (which is a CHA-based skill). 

-"Presence Attacks:"  How many people remember the T-Rex roar from Jurrasic Park? How about the Dragon's roar in Game of Thrones?  These are "presence attacks" designed to cause a "failure of moral" in weaker beings (which will cause them to flee).  That is based (in part) on CHA.  The attack by the "Mountain Golem(?)" on the men sent to bring Cersi to trial would be another.  They flee when the mountain kills the first one with his bare hands.  This is a "presence attack."     

Thus ignoring or "shorting" CHA can have a negative impact on everything from brokering deals on loot to being unable to convince your forces to stand against a foe on the battlefield. 

[Mechashef]

23 minutes ago, Chogokin said:

On the topic of POW, that reminded me of something else I was pondering. Charisma is pretty much always seen as a dump stat, even with the Mythras rules that give it a role in improving skills. I know the players I had pegged all of their characters at 8 CHA. Furthermore, in that copy of Stormbringer I've read over, the author(s) actually write something to the effect that Charisma is really the least useful attribute.

So, I was thinking about dropping POW from the game and making Charisma serve as both the social attribute and the supernatural power attribute. I justify that a bit by pointing out the weird charisma of cult leaders, and the powerful force of will or personal magnetism many fictional sorcerers are described as having. 

That suggestion seems wrong to me.  It seems to preclude the idea of the ugly outcast, shunned by society because of their looks or personality who works hard, studies forbidden lore, and becomes a powerful sorcerer etc.  Or the beautiful weak willed eye candy NPCs.

 

I think a large part of the reason for CHA being the least useful stat is because of a lack of role playing.  I have been involved in campaigns where CHA was very important as it was used frequently to affect interactions with NPCs, in matters such as getting information, bartering the goods gained from defeating the bad guys.  etc.  

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

Still, you won't see as many characters with 18s as you would with a completetely randomless point assignation system (such as : you have 81 points to put into your 7 stats), and that was my goal.

No, you will see MORE characters with 18s!. 

With a compltely random method there is only about a half a percent of a chance of getting an 18 on 3D6, and about a 3% chance with 2D6+6. But with your method all it takes is for someone to get at least an 11  (a 50% chance) and then decide to spend the points on it. 

 

The end result is that while the vast majoirty of randomly generated characters won't have an 18, about 99% of the characters generated with your method could have an 18 if they so choose. 

 

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

I also don't think putting 5 points to a stat for which you rolled a 6 and get an 18 is such a no-brainer. You'll see a lot of people putting only 3 or 4 points and have a good 16 or 17, so that they can put points in other characteristics. In the end, 16s and 17s are going to be very frequent, but not 18s.

I think that depends on which improvement methods you use and how long term the players are with their thinking. Putting an 18 into STR, CON or (especially SIZ) gives the character a higher MAX for the other two. 

[Chogokin]

15 hours ago, Mechashef said:

That suggestion seems wrong to me.  It seems to preclude the idea of the ugly outcast, shunned by society because of their looks or personality who works hard, studies forbidden lore, and becomes a powerful sorcerer etc.  Or the beautiful weak willed eye candy NPCs.

 

I think a large part of the reason for CHA being the least useful stat is because of a lack of role playing.  I have been involved in campaigns where CHA was very important as it was used frequently to affect interactions with NPCs, in matters such as getting information, bartering the goods gained from defeating the bad guys.  etc.  

Well, it's a ruling on attributes which makes an assumption about the  nature of the universe. In some settings, the idea that 'personal force' or 'magnetism' is essentially the same thing as personal supernatural power might be very valid. In others, it might be completely inappropriate. However, I do think it's important to make a distinction between Charisma and physical appearance. I know some iterations of the BRP rules have used Appearance rather than Charisma. Personally, I think it is better for physical appearance to be a trait distinct from a character's force of personality or willpower. That's an area of character design where BRP has generally been pretty weak. It seems like some of the more recent iterations of the rules are addressing that gap to some extent.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Chogokin
abuse of the word however

[Mugen]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No, you will see MORE characters with 18s!. 

With a compltely random method there is only about a half a percent of a chance of getting an 18 on 3D6, and about a 3% chance with 2D6+6. But with your method all it takes is for someone to get at least an 11  (a 50% chance) and then decide to spend the points on it. 

The end result is that while the vast majoirty of randomly generated characters won't have an 18, about 99% of the characters generated with your method could have an 18 if they so choose. 

I mentioned randomLESS characteristic generation methods, not random ones.

In my method you can't increase a characteristic by more than 6 points using extra points, and the 6th point costs 2 characteristic points instead of 1. So, you need to roll 5+ with the d6 in order to reach 18, and it will cost you one third of your total bonus points to do so if you rolled 5.

All you need with completely randomless methods to get an 18 is spend 18 points. With my method, you need to roll 5+ and  spend 7 or 5 points out of 21.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Mugen