Results 1 to 10 of 22
Thread: Training and the Tyranny of Six
-
04-16-1999, 10:01 PM #1Gary V. FossGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
WILLELA@aol.com wrote:
> Giving the player a set number of points for PC stats is clearly the way to
> go for AD&D 3. There is no reason to rely on the luck of the dice to get a
> PC you want. Nor do we need to suffer dice cheats (obviously the other guy.
> You & I would never do such a thing, tho if a die is "cocked"...) But then
> we have to handle exceptional strength (unless we get rid of it).
> The proposed 1 (2 may be better) point per category is distinctly
> superior to 1 point per 10%. When 10% is used, you end up with a large
> number at 18.01, a few at 18.00, and almost nobody in between. It is also
> impossible to have a strength of 18.95 so an entire category is missed. We
> clearly prefer that other choice be reasonable.
> 1 point per category means the PC gain +1 per hit or damage for each
> extra stat point added, just as was gained going to 16, 17, & 18. (Since
> going from 18.95 to 18.00 gains +1 to hit & damage, the cost of that gain
> should be double.) The result is that the intermediate choices become more
> reasonable.
> Even so, the temptation to mini-max is pretty strong, and you may want a
> higher cost, say, increasing the cost of each category by 1 cumulative, so
> that 18.00 costs 18+1+2+3+4+12 = 40. That should make super high strenght as
> rare as it is supposed to be.
> Yours for deeper dungeons
> David Argall
Two things:
1. For the 80 pt distribution rule (this is BR related because I first found it
on BR PBeMs--in case anyone was worried about me going off topic :-) I was
thinking of setting a maximum, maybe 15 or 16 for first level characters' ability
scores. Since I'm planning on allowing ability scores to go up 1pt/level, I
think that is fair. A player could still have an 18 by 3rd or 4th level pretty
easily, so I don't think they should squawk about it.
NOTE: The static ability scores of AD&D have long been one of the game's greatest
weaknesses in my opinion. (Anyone who knows my take on this sort of thing will
understand why I'm prefacing the following remarks by saying that this is not a
call for greater "realism" in the game... BUT....) The fact of the matter is
that people get stronger, smarter, wiser, more charismatic as they age and gain
experience.. OK, the last one may be questionable, but if anyone over 25 out
there would care to go back to an old high school annual and check themselves out
at 17-18 they should feel free to scan those photos and send them to me as
proof.... Personally, I am vastly more suave, debonair, handsome and charming
than I was ten years ago, so I am quite sure that is the case.... The point is
that ability scores go up just as skills do. (Another weakness in the standard
rules.)
Allowing ability scores to go up with level (especially using a 1pt/level system
that we're discussing here which is simplicity itself) would solve numerous
problems with the game mechanics. Things like the fact that you can have really
strong 1st level fighters contrasted with relatively weak 10th level ones. Oh,
it could still happen using this system, of course, but it would be much less
likely.
2. As long as we are discussing the 3rd edition stuff.... Maybe we can finally
get away from the 3-18 ability score range. Why not 2-20 or 3-30? A wider range
of ability scores would help make each character different from the other and
could also eliminate this whole exceptional strength problem which doesn't fit
into this ability score improvement thing. OK, OK, the entire game shouldn't
revolve around this one idea, but I actually think this is a good enough one that
it might be reasonable.
We can also start using numbers for monsters with truly "exceptional" strength.
I mean, just the fact that the range of strength scores goes up to 25 is pretty
feeble IMNSHO. It takes a creature the size of a storm giant to be twice as
strong as the strongest human. That just seems incorrect to me. A humanoid
creature that was 26' tall seems like it could be quite a bit stronger than that
and the damage from its blows proportionately higher. Not just dice rolled, I
mean, but the strength of the blow that swings it.
Similarly, I'm bothered by the fact that godlike creatures (the avatars of the
gods themselves for that matter) are a scant 7 points max away from scores
naturally occuring in human beings. Such things should be way out of the scope
of mortals.
Personally, I think the 3-18 ability score range came from the hoary old days of
the gaming hobby when people could really only get their hands on 6-sided dice.
I remember Traveller used to only use 6-siders, even for "percentile" rolls.
There were 11-66 charts long after other dice became readily available. Man,
that was weird. You know how DOS 3.0 or something could only handle 128k of
memory when computers were starting to get a meg or two on board? (Or whatever
it was--my memory on this is quite fuzzy.) I think the 3-18 system is like
that. Well, it's time to throw off the tyranny of the six-siders, my friends!
Release us from the yoke of cubic oppression! Let us begin to think outside of
the box! Rise up, my fellow hobbyists! Rise up!
I know these comments may spark some resistence because they are something of a
drastic change from the standard rules, but I really think they make some sense.
What do you guys think?
Gary
-
04-16-1999, 10:19 PM #2SidhainGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
>NOTE: The static ability scores of AD&D have long been one of the game's
greatest
>weaknesses in my opinion. (Anyone who knows my take on this sort of thing
will
>understand why I'm prefacing the following remarks by saying that this is
not a
>call for greater "realism" in the game... BUT....) The fact of the matter
is
>that people get stronger, smarter, wiser, more charismatic as they age and
gain
>experience.. OK, the last one may be questionable, but if anyone over 25
out
>there would care to go back to an old high school annual and check
themselves out
>at 17-18 they should feel free to scan those photos and send them to me as
>proof.... Personally, I am vastly more suave, debonair, handsome and
charming
>than I was ten years ago, so I am quite sure that is the case.... The
point is
>that ability scores go up just as skills do. (Another weakness in the
standard
>rules.)
Eh Alzheimer's must be setting in *L*
Truthfully though AD&D doesn't need the basic stats change, or the way they
are rolled...if you have mature role-players you'll end up with fait stats
11-12 are average 13 is above average...18 is top of human scale...very few
people ever reach top of human scale regardless of how old they get...and
how much experience they gain. It takes a life of hard work or study
dedicated to expanding ones knowledge and intelligence, or physically
increasing ones powers.
Marylyn Von Savant is the record holder for the highest IQ, and from what I
have read her IQ various up and down as much as any human when tested....but
is top end of scale (i.e. in other words she hasn't gained a point in AD&D
Int score)
Sometimes role-playing isn't only about wish fulfillment (I want to play an
a Powerful Wizard!) it can be about interesting and diverse people for
example the Peasants who dreamed of being a Wizard but never got the chance
or training...
Random stats are IMHO the best way to go with Mature Role-players Sadly I
don't always deal with Mature Roleplayers so I end up using some system that
limits the players choices...ie points etc....
I will say the best games I have ever run had players not getting to play
what they wanted because of bad stats....such as a Human Wizard who really
admired Elves (the player wanted to be one--he ended up finding out he had
an Elfin Soul) things like that are less likely to happen in a game where
the players make exactly what they want...
-
04-16-1999, 10:55 PM #3Mathieu RoyGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
Sidhain wrote:
> Random stats are IMHO the best way to go with Mature Role-players Sadly I
> don't always deal with Mature Roleplayers so I end up using some system that
> limits the players choices...ie points etc....
The debate of random vs. point-based generation is an old and long one. =)
Mature roleplayers and munchkins alike are found in both camps. Those
"roleplayers" who prefer point-based character systems (like yours truly) point
out that they prevent a character being sadled by unlucky rolls and being forced
to adventure next to a virtual demigod, and that such systems permit players to
create characters true to the conceptions they have of them. It is also usually
a lot easier to achieve game balance in these systems.
I also find that the idea that lower stats is somehow "purer roleplaying"
odd. It's simply a different style of play. I personally prefer higher stats for
various reasons. Foremost among them is the fact that most novel heroes have
"high stats"; browsing through the character stats set out for the Forgotten
Realms and Birthright NPCs pretty much proves that the game designers have the
same opinion. I've always felt that PCs should always have as much potential as
any NPC.
Furthermore, without high stats, I've always felt that PCs should always
have as much potential as any NPC there is not much game effect to
differentiate, for example, the quick fighter (str 9, dex 14) from the strong
burly one (str 14, dex 9). Though that's more a problem caused by AD&D's
somewhat buggy attribute tables than any problem with a playing style.
Then again, I'm fond of superhero roleplaying, so maybe I'm biased. =)
Mathieu
-
04-16-1999, 11:06 PM #4Gary V. FossGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
Sidhain wrote:
> Eh Alzheimer's must be setting in *L*
> Truthfully though AD&D doesn't need the basic stats change, or the way they
> are rolled...if you have mature role-players you'll end up with fait stats
> 11-12 are average 13 is above average...18 is top of human scale...very few
> people ever reach top of human scale regardless of how old they get...and
> how much experience they gain. It takes a life of hard work or study
> dedicated to expanding ones knowledge and intelligence, or physically
> increasing ones powers.
Exactly. Part of the point of PCs (and exceptional NPCs) is that they can be
among those "very few" who "reach the top of the human scale..." In the
experience level based gaming system that AD&D is all about I think coupling
ability scores to experience is an apt way of handling that increase in
"ability".
At least, I hope that is the point. I mean, I play characters because I want a
shot at being the hero and such. Playing PCs with low stats may be challenging
and all, but frankly being playing a basically normal person is kind of
pointless to me. I mean, if I want to be normal why do I need AD&D? Why not
just go off and be normal someplace? I needn't even bring dice....
Gary
-
04-16-1999, 11:12 PM #5Bob CauthronGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
> Two things:
>
> 1. For the 80 pt distribution rule (this is BR related because I first
found it
> on BR PBeMs--in case anyone was worried about me going off topic :-) I was
> thinking of setting a maximum, maybe 15 or 16 for first level characters'
ability
> scores. Since I'm planning on allowing ability scores to go up 1pt/level,
I
> think that is fair. A player could still have an 18 by 3rd or 4th level
pretty
> easily, so I don't think they should squawk about it.
You are seriously considering this? Wow. Are you players that good not
to try to abuse this? THis is not meant to be an inflammatory statement.
> NOTE: The static ability scores of AD&D have long been one of the game's
greatest
> weaknesses in my opinion. (Anyone who knows my take on this sort of thing
will
> understand why I'm prefacing the following remarks by saying that this is
not a
> call for greater "realism" in the game... BUT....) The fact of the matter
is
> that people get stronger, smarter, wiser, more charismatic as they age and
gain
> experience.. OK, the last one may be questionable, but if anyone over 25
out
> there would care to go back to an old high school annual and check
themselves out
> at 17-18 they should feel free to scan those photos and send them to me as
> proof.... Personally, I am vastly more suave, debonair, handsome and
charming
> than I was ten years ago, so I am quite sure that is the case.... The
point is
> that ability scores go up just as skills do. (Another weakness in the
standard
> rules.)
Overall, I tend to agree. Especially with regards to physical scores,
and with wisdom (primarily the common sense and willpower aspects). I do
think, though, that they can go down just as easily. I think that the rules
are set up this way to be more consistent, not to take away from any form of
realism (this is true of many rpgs). Still, you make a solid case.
> Allowing ability scores to go up with level (especially using a 1pt/level
system
> that we're discussing here which is simplicity itself) would solve
numerous
> problems with the game mechanics. Things like the fact that you can have
really
> strong 1st level fighters contrasted with relatively weak 10th level ones.
Oh,
> it could still happen using this system, of course, but it would be much
less
> likely.
This is somewhat stunning to me. One point per level potential is,
well, unknown to me. This would seem to be potentially powerful in so many
ways. What would be the exact boundaries on this idea?
> snip <
> Similarly, I'm bothered by the fact that godlike creatures (the avatars of
the
> gods themselves for that matter) are a scant 7 points max away from scores
> naturally occuring in human beings. Such things should be way out of the
scope
> of mortals.
A heartfelt agreement here. You are quite in line with my views on this
matter. I cannot reconcile that either. As a matter of fact, I changed the
range of scores on the upper limits to be more conducive to my outlook on
upper-end ability scores. I do wish that this was done differently in the
core game.
>snip<
> I know these comments may spark some resistence because they are something
of a
> drastic change from the standard rules, but I really think they make some
sense.
> What do you guys think?
>
> Gary
I am in general agreement with you. I like ten-sided dice, and
percentile, and it's not just because of my rolemaster and white wolf days.
;o)
Bob
-
04-16-1999, 11:24 PM #6SidhainGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
Foremost among them is the fact that most novel heroes have
>"high stats"; browsing through the character stats set out for the
Forgotten
>Realms and Birthright NPCs pretty much proves that the game designers have
the
>same opinion. I've always felt that PCs should always have as much
potential as
>any NPC.
> Furthermore, without high stats, I've always felt that PCs should
always
>have as much potential as any NPC there is not much game effect to
>differentiate, for example, the quick fighter (str 9, dex 14) from the
strong
>burly one (str 14, dex 9). Though that's more a problem caused by AD&D's
>somewhat buggy attribute tables than any problem with a playing style.
> Then again, I'm fond of superhero roleplaying, so maybe I'm biased. =)
>
>Mathieu
>
>************************************************* **************************
Nothing Wrong with High Stats, as long as they are obtained legitimately and
are there for rare i.e. because they are a random roll. However I think thar
bringing up TSR Forgotten Realms, or 90% of the published NPCS put out by
TSR is like proving my point, they write up much higher than they should be
because of the premise of trying to make the NPC's hard to kill because they
still suffer the impression that many gamers like to massacre the NPCS just
to see if they can do that...
These days I would prefer other systems other than AD&D even GURPS for
Birthright (and no I don't use Random Attributes for those games) I do
however have a random roll to determine starting points (a percentage of the
max allowed)
-
04-16-1999, 11:37 PM #7SidhainGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
Just as an aside, while I advocate random rolls the one campaign I have an
am running in BR using AD&D I started all the players a 0 level average stat
blooded cousins...all descended from a King of the land one only one would
have the right to rule.
Since they were adolescents and mostly untrained being the children of a
Noble family they had the chance to increase their stats....but used logic
based on their actions....I didn't just allow them to increase their
attributes, I as DM decided when it was best and appropriate as well as if
it made sense.....
For example one was the Son of a Nobleman whose household was wilder than
the others, he raised hounds, hunted etc...and he tended to enjoy more
physical pastimes himself, so there was no reason to increase his
intelligence...
-
04-17-1999, 02:26 AM #8Kenneth GauckGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
I think there is a place for the 3d6 method, especially when its not
corrupted into the 6d6 drop the low three. Buying stats is good for games
where everyone expects to start at the same place. I can see a truly
exceptional character in D&D, in other games it doesn't seem right.
Buying stats is so egalitarian, antithetical to heroic campaigns. One of
the things that makes D&D different is its use of bell curves like few other
games. Games based on the strict percentiles can achieve the same result,
but often don't make use of it.
I am pleased to see the latest RPG I picked up uses d6 exclusively.
You buy stats, but skills are checked against d6 rolls. I like the way it
works.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
-
04-17-1999, 05:21 AM #9Gary V. FossGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
Bob Cauthron wrote:
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1. For the 80 pt distribution rule (this is BR related because I first
> found it
> > on BR PBeMs--in case anyone was worried about me going off topic :-) I was
> > thinking of setting a maximum, maybe 15 or 16 for first level characters'
> ability
> > scores. Since I'm planning on allowing ability scores to go up 1pt/level,
> I
> > think that is fair. A player could still have an 18 by 3rd or 4th level
> pretty
> > easily, so I don't think they should squawk about it.
>
> You are seriously considering this? Wow. Are you players that good not
> to try to abuse this? THis is not meant to be an inflammatory statement.
Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "abuse".... I hear a lot of
people bashing what they call "munchkinism" around here.
Personally, I don't have a big problem with people who try to maximize their
characters abilities, skills, etc. Heck, I like doing it myself. To me "abuse"
would be exploiting a loophole in the rules to give one character a ridiculous
advantage over the other players. BR elves, for instance, are immortal.
Depending on your interpretation of what that means; ever young, exceptionally
long-lived or simply undying, that could mean an 18th level elven mage could
cast as many Wish spells as s/he liked without facing the aging attributed to
mortals. To me, THAT is abuse. Using rules that apply to everyone, NPCs and
PCs alike, to maximise the abilities of one's character. To me, that's not
abuse.
What kind of abuse are you thinking of?
> Overall, I tend to agree. Especially with regards to physical scores,
> and with wisdom (primarily the common sense and willpower aspects). I do
> think, though, that they can go down just as easily. I think that the rules
> are set up this way to be more consistent, not to take away from any form of
> realism (this is true of many rpgs). Still, you make a solid case.
I think you're right. I'm considering methods to have abilities scores go down
aside from aging, but I'm not really coming up with much. I don't like most of
the monsters that "drain" ability scores. The lamia's ability to drain wisdom,
for instance, seems outrageously unfair to me.
I do use the -10hp rule usually. (Actually I made it the -5 rule.) Maybe I can
rule that a character will lose a point from a randomly determined ability score
if that happens or if he is actually killed and brought back to life? Raise
Dead lowers Con, so that's an easy one.... Hmmm. I'll have to think about how
to do this. Anyone have ideas?
> > Allowing ability scores to go up with level (especially using a 1pt/level
> system
> > that we're discussing here which is simplicity itself) would solve
> numerous
> > problems with the game mechanics. Things like the fact that you can have
> really
> > strong 1st level fighters contrasted with relatively weak 10th level ones.
> Oh,
> > it could still happen using this system, of course, but it would be much
> less
> > likely.
>
> This is somewhat stunning to me. One point per level potential is,
> well, unknown to me. This would seem to be potentially powerful in so many
> ways. What would be the exact boundaries on this idea?
I'm thinking right now that
1. 1pt per highest level attained. Maybe I'll change that to go along more
close with proficiency scores. Like 1pt every 3 levels. I'm going to have to
think about how I want it to work.
2. At 1st level characters can't have more than a 15 in any given ability.
3. It can't be use to raise scores above racial maximums.
> > Similarly, I'm bothered by the fact that godlike creatures (the avatars of
> the
> > gods themselves for that matter) are a scant 7 points max away from scores
> > naturally occuring in human beings. Such things should be way out of the
> scope
> > of mortals.
>
> A heartfelt agreement here. You are quite in line with my views on this
> matter. I cannot reconcile that either. As a matter of fact, I changed the
> range of scores on the upper limits to be more conducive to my outlook on
> upper-end ability scores. I do wish that this was done differently in the
> core game.
What range in scores did you use? How has it worked out for you?
Gary
-
04-17-1999, 05:42 AM #10Gary V. FossGuest
Training and the Tyranny of Six
"Gary V. Foss" wrote:
> I'm thinking right now that
>
> 1. 1pt per highest level attained. Maybe I'll change that to go along more
> close with proficiency scores. Like 1pt every 3 levels. I'm going to have to
> think about how I want it to work.
>
> 2. At 1st level characters can't have more than a 15 in any given ability.
>
> 3. It can't be use to raise scores above racial maximums.
Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm thinking that giving someone both a point to
add to his ability scores when he gains a level AND the actual level in a single
training action is too much.. When a character gains enough experience to gain a
level he will have to train for a month (just like the Train domain action) to
actually gain that level, additional hp, etc. He then has the capacity to Train for
a second month to add a point to an ability score. He might also train to add a
hp. In no case can anyone train to add more point to his ability scores than his
highest level of experience, or more hp than the maximum possible for his class and
level.
Someone--I apologize for not remembering who--said they thought the average (rounded
up) hit dice per level I was thinking of using penalized fighters, so I'm thinking I
might allow them to add 2hp in a single training action to counter that, but I'm
still undecided. One of the reasons I got onto this train of thought was because
fighters seem to have so much free time compared to mages who have to spend a lot of
days/weeks/months scribbling down their spells, creating magic items, etc. If
fighters can train for months to add those hp it will certainly give them something
to do while mages are studying....
Laters,
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Training action
By Sorontar in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 01-19-2011, 12:02 AM -
Training
By BRadmin in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:39 AM -
training...
By epicsoul in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 3Last Post: 07-19-2004, 09:08 AM -
Training action.
By Gary V. Foss in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 27Last Post: 05-23-1999, 02:09 PM -
Dual-Class training
By Martijn Buijs in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 6Last Post: 03-13-1998, 10:37 PM
Bookmarks