Saturday, October 3, 2015

Alternative to 3d6 in order

Here's an idea that popped into my head today.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with traditional 3d6 in order ability scores, but if you want to give players a little more say in how a character turns out and don't mind a little extra time in character creation, this method might work.

Roll 2d6 in order for each ability and record the scores in pencil or on scratch paper.

Then, roll 1d6, one at a time.  The player gets to choose to which score to add each result.  The choice must be made in order, before the next die is rolled.  One die is added to each score in this way, so that each totals 3d6. 

Do you shore up a low score to avoid a terrible penalty, or go for a bonus on one of your better ones?  If you roll a 5 on your third die, do you add it to the 12 you got the first time around for a 17, or stick it somewhere else and hope for a 6 to come up later? 

While there's a lot of chance involved, it's less likely that a character will have an extremely low score, unless the player actively chooses not to bolster them with good rolls from the second phase of dice-rolling.  If you have an ability that you really hate to have a low score, you have some power to mitigate it - you may end up only average in it, but at least you're not dismal. 

Of course, neglecting those low scores gives a little better chance of getting a very high score. 

It's pretty easy to get a very average character this way.  There's still a fair bit of luck involved, but deviations, either high or low, are to some extent the result of player choice rather than pure random chance.  That might be a good thing.  Sometimes it's more satisfying to know that your character's strengths and weaknesses are at least partly the result of your own choices. 

7 comments :

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the classic dichotomy. Are adventurers a cut above the masses due to their ability scores, or are they men and women of average ability who are exceptional because they're willing to risk their lives adventuring? I lean toward the latter position, though it's a matter of preference rather than correct or incorrect or The One True Way.

      I've never really liked 4d6 drop lowest because low scores are interesting to play too, and I abhor point buy because every character starts to look pretty much the same, but at the same time, I sympathize with not wanting to play a character who's severely unsuited for a particular class you really fancy. This feels like a nice middle ground to me; you may not get a monstrously strong fighter, but if you have your heart set on a fighter, you'll most likely be able to get at least a respectable average score.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think there's really any "wrong" way to generate stats; everybody has their favorites, and I'm just throwing another possibility in the ring.

      As for old school lethality, in my experience ability scores have minimal impact on a character's survivability. My own interpretation of the OSR and old school play is that lethality should be a consequence of poor play or informed risk-taking, not a "gotcha" game or purely random chance. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the play styles of Gygax or any of the other founders of the game to know how far my ideas of lethality diverge from theirs. I've been tinkering with a post on the role of lethality in D&D that I may some day get around to finishing and publishing.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete