Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    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

  2. #2
    Sidhain
    Guest

    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...

  3. #3
    Mathieu Roy
    Guest

    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

  4. #4
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    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

  5. #5
    Bob Cauthron
    Guest

    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

  6. #6
    Sidhain
    Guest

    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)

  7. #7
    Sidhain
    Guest

    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...

  8. #8
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    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

  9. #9
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    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

  10. #10
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    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

  1. Training action
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2011, 12:02 AM
  2. Training
    By BRadmin in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:39 AM
  3. training...
    By epicsoul in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2004, 09:08 AM
  4. Training action.
    By Gary V. Foss in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-23-1999, 02:09 PM
  5. Dual-Class training
    By Martijn Buijs in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-1998, 10:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.