Buy stats with points option.

[Atgxtg]

29 minutes ago, styopa said:

I *personally* would agree with you 100%...but I rather suspect is that is because of our common ages and history.  It's certainly not the gamer marketplace today, where the bulk of players likely played a handful or more of computer/console adventure games before they ever cracked a PnP roleplaying game book.  The paradigm today is very much not "you get what you get and the fun is in dealing with it"...it's "you get to play what you want to play because that's what's really fun".  I'll leave the Psych 101 implications of what this means generationally to others.  

I think it's also in the style of the RPGs you've chosen to play. Back in the old days, despite the fact that characteristics were rolled, nearly every fighter in D&D wound up with a 18/percentile STR. In fact it  was hard to find a class for a character with average stats. Gygax even came out with that method of chargen where players would roll a lot more dice for some stats. Even today most old school DMs are generous with stats (to the point where I've commented that when everybody has a 18, nobody does). 

In RQ, by contrast, a character didn't need to have heroic stats to be a hero. Plus, in RQ you could train you stats. 

[PhilHibbs]

I think GURPS 3rd Edition in 1988 was the first time I came across the idea of designing a character without any dice rolls. If I had heard the suggestion for RQ, I would probably not have been interested. Later, though, we used a ponts-based RQ3 character creation system almost exclusively for several years. I have it mirrored on my web space but I can't remember who created it! Does it look familiar to anyone? http://www.hibbs.me.uk/snarks/chargen.htm *Edit* it is Nick Effingham's system.

Edited June 7, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think it's also in the style of the RPGs you've chosen to play. Back in the old days, despite the fact that characteristics were rolled, nearly every fighter in D&D wound up with a 18/percentile STR. In fact it  was hard to find a class for a character with average stats. Gygax even came out with that method of chargen where players would roll a lot more dice for some stats. Even today most old school DMs are generous with stats (to the point where I've commented that when everybody has a 18, nobody does). 

In RQ, by contrast, a character didn't need to have heroic stats to be a hero. Plus, in RQ you could train you stats. 

https://muleabides.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/you-must-be-this-lucky-to-play/

 

[PhilHibbs]

The best stat rolling system I ever came across was a friend who programmed his Amstrad computer to run overnight printing out sets of random stats on a dot matrix printer, and pored over the list the next morning to find the best ones. He turned up to a new game with a character that had 16+ in every stat, and said it was randomly generated legitimately. We got the story out of him eventually.

[The God Learner]

24 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

The best stat rolling system I ever came across was a friend who programmed his Amstrad computer to run overnight printing out sets of random stats on a dot matrix printer, and pored over the list the next morning to find the best ones. He turned up to a new game with a character that had 16+ in every stat, and said it was randomly generated legitimately. We got the story out of him eventually.

Ho ho ho, I did the same as a kid with a BASIC program. Good times, good times. Next day, my pal had written and run the same sort of program (or so he claimed, but it's not hard). But I find this approach less vital when your stats can be improved over time. 

[21st Century Moose]

In RQ I don't see this being as big a deal as in other games, to be honest. It should be obvious from even a cursory glance over the rules that characteristics are designed to have values that will change, the change can and will be in both directions, and that design is very deliberate. Training, disease, the POW economy, etc: starting characteristics are not something to be so hung up on. 

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

https://muleabides.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/you-must-be-this-lucky-to-play/

 

LOL! 

 

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The best stat rolling system I ever came across was a friend who programmed his Amstrad computer to run overnight printing out sets of random stats on a dot matrix printer, and pored over the list the next morning to find the best ones. He turned up to a new game with a character that had 16+ in every stat, and said it was randomly generated legitimately. We got the story out of him eventually.

I once rolled a D&D character with four 18s (4D6, drop the lowest). I did it right in from of the DM, who not only watched me, but started to root for me. It was great because no one would have believed  four 18s a 17 and a 16 otherwise. 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, we had a D&D player once who turned up with a character he had claimed to roll the stats for. They were 18, 18, 18, 18, 17, 18. He was happy. 

Is this a lesson we all need to learn here....?

 

[Richard S.]

6 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

is this a lesson we all need to learn here....?

Yes, that buying the "lucky" advantage IRL should be illegal.

[kiryamo]

Any stats buying system should try to approximate the normal distribution, Pathfinder style, not linear where an 18 only costs only 2 point more than 16, when, if we do it using dice, an 18 is much more unlikely that a 16, for example.

Table: Ability Score Costs
Score    Points
7    –4
8    –2
9    –1
10    0
11    1
12    2
13    3
14    5
15    7
16    10
17    13
18    17

Anyone have used something like that?

IMO, an interesting and effective alternative is roll 4D6, drop the lowest and allocate (3D6+6 for SIZ/INT). Players are happy, because they have the (false) sense of control that allocating provides, scores are pretty good, but you keep an exciting dose of randomness. I've tried it several times and you avoid both clone characters and angry players...

[PhilHibbs]

Rolling Ann allocating - with or without extra dice - is ok for D&D or RQ2 which had all stats being 3D6 but when you have two stats rolled differently, you have very limited flexibility on INT and SIZ.

What I used to do was roll 21 to 25 dice all at once and pick out dice in groups of 2 and 3 and allocate them to stats.

[kiryamo]

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Rolling Ann allocating - with or without extra dice - is ok for D&D or RQ2 which had all stats being 3D6 but when you have two stats rolled differently, you have very limited flexibility on INT and SIZ.

What I used to do was roll 21 to 25 dice all at once and pick out dice in groups of 2 and 3 and allocate them to stats.

You make 5 4D6 rolls (dropping lowest) and allocate them to STR, CON, POW, DES and CHA; in the other hand, you roll two 3D6+6 roll and allocate in SIZ and INT.

[kiryamo]

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

What I used to do was roll 21 to 25 dice all at once and pick out dice in groups of 2 and 3 and allocate them to stats.

[Jeff]

59 minutes ago, kiryamo said:

I did (and often still do) the same.

[TrippyHippy]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Rolling Ann allocating - with or without extra dice - is ok for D&D or RQ2 which had all stats being 3D6 but when you have two stats rolled differently, you have very limited flexibility on INT and SIZ.

What I used to do was roll 21 to 25 dice all at once and pick out dice in groups of 2 and 3 and allocate them to stats.

That's a method I've seen with Traveller - and it is the best system I use for that system. It could work for RuneQuest too - as it's a combination of random and point allocation in effect. It's also quicker than points spend on it's own because you just have to choose the dice rolled, rather than um and ah for ages over individual points allocation. 

I like it. 

As an amendment, you could have 21 dice rolled and then allow two of the results to be automatically changed to 6s. This would be the equivalent to the two 2D6+6 scores, but you get a bit more flexibility in the way you allocate (although you'd still have to keep the 8 minimum for SIZ and INT) while also picking off a couple of bad rolls (the 1s for the most part). 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by TrippyHippy

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

As an amendment, you could have 21 dice rolled and then allow two of the results to be automatically changed to 6s. This would be the equivalent to the two 2D6+6 scores, but you get a bit more flexibility in the way you allocate (although you'd still have to keep the 8 minimum for SIZ and INT) while also picking off a couple of bad rolls (the 1s for the most part). 

Ah, yes, that rings a bell. I came across a variant where where you rolled 3d6 for all stats, and when you assigned a roll to INT or SIZ you swap one of the dice for a 6, so you are getting rid of 2 crappy dice rolls out of 7 stats. You could easily extend this to "roll 4 dice, discard the lowest, and replace one with a 6 if assigning to INT or SIZ". We also allowed discarding of higher dice if someone wanted a low SIZ.

A variant that I used at one time was when you rolled a stat, you had to pick which one to assign it to right away before rolling the next one, so it became a bit of a gamble whether you should wait for a better roll.

Edited June 6, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[jajagappa]

17 hours ago, kiryamo said:

You make 5 4D6 rolls (dropping lowest) and allocate them to STR, CON, POW, DES and CHA; in the other hand, you roll two 3D6+6 roll and allocate in SIZ and INT.

I tend to follow this approach.  You can still get some very mixed stats, but have the ability to put them where you want them.

[PhilHibbs]

I've got a folder of all my characters somewhere going way back, if I can find it I should go through them and draw a graph of the stat distribution across every character from a 3D6 system.

[kiryamo]

Right now I am engaged in a bitter negotiation with my RQ3 old-group of players. Their last offer is 25D6, replace the two lower by 6s -destinated to SIZ & INT; and the remaining 23 allocated in groups of 3 (2 for SIZ & INT).

Should I accept or continue negotiating?

 

[David Scott]

4 hours ago, kiryamo said:

Should I accept or continue negotiating?

It’s a tough one. What’s your counter offer and what’s the statistical spread of this kind of pool compared to just straight groups of 3 and 2 with the 24 & 25 dropped?

[PhilHibbs]

4 hours ago, kiryamo said:

Right now I am engaged in a bitter negotiation with my RQ3 old-group of players. Their last offer is 25D6, replace the two lower by 6s -destinated to SIZ & INT; and the remaining 23 allocated in groups of 3 (2 for SIZ & INT).

Should I accept or continue negotiating?

 

I think 25 dice is not excessive. It's one less dice than "roll one extra and discard the lowest", but they get the added flexibility of assigning individual dice.

[soltakss]

On 6/7/2018 at 5:29 PM, kiryamo said:

Right now I am engaged in a bitter negotiation with my RQ3 old-group of players. Their last offer is 25D6, replace the two lower by 6s -destinated to SIZ & INT; and the remaining 23 allocated in groups of 3 (2 for SIZ & INT).

Should I accept or continue negotiating?

 

Does it matter?

Characteristics don't affect too much in RQG, someone with really good stats is going to be , maybe, 20% up on some skills, with a better damage bonus, but that's about it.

I'd just say 25D6 and separate into groups for each characteristic. Easy enough, but you need 25 D6s for it to be easy, unless you write them down and choose that way.

[jajagappa]

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 12:29 PM, kiryamo said:

Right now I am engaged in a bitter negotiation with my RQ3 old-group of players. Their last offer is 25D6, replace the two lower by 6s -destinated to SIZ & INT; and the remaining 23 allocated in groups of 3 (2 for SIZ & INT).

You have one pair of dice at 12.  Across 11 more pairs, you'd average 7 per pair, which is 77.  Add in the 12, you're at 89, plus one die which has a max of 6.  On average you'd look at 95 points.  Seems very reasonable.

[Unferth]

3 hours ago, jajagappa said:

You have one pair of dice at 12.  Across 11 more pairs, you'd average 7 per pair, which is 77.  Add in the 12, you're at 89, plus one die which has a max of 6.  On average you'd look at 95 points.  Seems very reasonable.

It's a bit lower than that, I think. At least if I'm following the original proposal. You'll only end up allocating 19 dice out of your 23 - 3 each to the 5 3d6 characteristics, plus 2 more each to SIZ and INT.

You'd have to work out the average of 25 dice, keep the top 19. I think it comes out a bit better than just rerolling 1s - EG if it were 24 keep the best 18 on average you''d expect to see 4 1s and 2 2s discarded, for a total of 76 or an average of about 4.2 per die. 25 keep 19 is marginally worse than that, since you're adding more dice without increasing the number you get to discard, but it won't be worse than just adding another d6 onto that 76 total - 79.5 is a lower bound for the average. Add in the 12 guaranteed points for INT and SIZ and you're at about 92. Combined with arranging to taste and you're probably fine.

I ran a quick simulation of 10,000 sets of such rolls to back up my figures - 80 comes in as the most common value before the SIZ/INT points, with 560 such sets.

5303 of them - so more than half - fell in the 75-85 central range.

2134 were above 85, maxing out at 2 lucky rolls of 103 total. So 115 after adding in the SIZ/INT dice - that would leave even the pregens looking a bit anemic!

And the remaining 2563 were below 75, with a minimum of a single sad 47.

8180 came out with at least a 72, which would be the "discard if the average is 12 or below" optional reroll rule threshold once INT+SIZ are added in. I worked that out just for comparison.

[Simon Hallett]

Off topic I know, considering this was about points buy, but I think the weakest thing is retaining 3D6 as the theoretical base for any human stat (for PC's or NPC's). Thank God good sense has prevailed with RQ3 style INT and SIZ! 

Even back playing RQ2 (the first time round!) we settled on 2D6 + 1D3 + 3, which gave a poor but playable 6 minimum for any stat, an average of 12, (so just within the normal 9-12 range),  plus a good chance of having a few stats lean over into bonus country. The 'drop the 1' option in RQG is actually rather similar.

We kept this for RQ3, (even for SIZ and INT actually) for those who didn't want to points buy, then went the whole hog with 2D6 + 6 for everything (as per Elric!), as this was a bit more elegant than 2D6 + 1D3 + 3 and gave us slightly more capable characters. (Of course, this was one of the suggested alternatives at the back of the RQ2 book as well.)

Why not 'do an Elric!' and start off with a random range that has a good chance of being playable without lots of special fixes? 91 points spread randomly across the stats and without minimaxing doesn't sound particularly over the top.