I am developing a bell-curve system (3d8) and think rolling characters is fun because it allows for unexpected character strengths and weaknesses. Who cares if the party is slightly imbalanced? RPGs are not for tryharding. With such a wealth of options on what you can do, surely you can think of something to do with your character even if they are a tad underpowered statistically speaking.Nevertheless, he is a mainstay around the table and says building a character is the far superior mechanic because it leaves less room for disappointment. He is worried about the potential of other characters outshining his even on the things he is meant to be good at. Despite my wholehearted disagreement with this on principle, I am trying my best to be accomodating because I assume he is not the only player who sees things this way in case something comes out of this.If I were to provide a way for people who wish to do so to build their characters instead, what is the best way of accomplishing this, considering the bell curve is not flat? Values further away from the mean become less likely, meaning higher attribute values should cost more if there is a way to "buy" attribute points. Otherwise, that skews the balance in favor of his kind of playstyle too much. I don't mind if it's a little imbalanced, but that seems very strong unless I limit it somehow. For reference, my attribute modifiers range from -5 to +5. 0 if the dice roll 13-14, 1 for 15-16, 2 for 17-18, and so on. Because they're essentially about genetics, attributes are pretty much set for a characters lifespan. Skills and talents exist to provide modification post-creation.
Rolled 6, 2, 3, 1, 3, 4, 7, 2, 1, 6, 2, 5, 7, 6, 4, 7, 7, 1 = 74 (18d8)>>93250770Roll a character up and tell us about them, OP.
>>93250770>Who cares if the party is slightly imbalanced?The guy that gets shafted and is bad at everything.>attribute modifiers range from -5 to +5A 10 point swing is pretty huge, especially with the sort of curve 3d8 gives you. You will easily get parties that aren't "slightly imbalanced", but heavily skewed.Consider random distribution of a fixed stat total. Or partial random generation that players have to build on
>>93250770Need more info, how much weight do attribute bonuses have versus skill bonuses? Is it a moving target number or a set target number? How much do attributes factor into talent availability? If attribute bonuses don't matter as much as talents and skills, i don't mind it, but if rolling shitty attributes means youre going to have a character who can't pass rolls or can't spec into interesting character options, it kind of sucks.
>>93250829I don't know what the stats are for you system but:11, 8, 10, 13, 17, 15Strength: -1Dexterity: -3Constitution: -2Intelligence: +0Wisdom: +2Charisma: +1Sooo, what, a wispy clumsy healer? Not feeling it.
>>93250770So what happens if I roll a character who sucks shit? While the averages work out I'm sure once the dice hit the table I'm going to get a number not the average expected number.I can get behind wanting to roll so that you find the character in the dice, but if the character is "a guy who sucks" then that's boring and will limit my capacity to actually engage in the game.
>>93250861Here's my character art
>>93250852The likelihood of edge cases is exceedingly low. -5 or +5 would be a genetic freak. The AGE system has the possibility of a +4 modifier on a 3d6 system, so I don't see this as all that different.There are 7 stats rolled 10 times, so you drop 3 of your results.>>93250860Skills come in seven ranks. Untrained (-2), Familiar (0), Apprentice (+1), Journeyman (+2), Expert (+3), Master (+4), Virtuoso (+5). Beyond skills and talents, we also have X-factors from the environment and other circumstances.The GM sets the target number in unopposed checks. Opposed checks are skill vs. skill as normal.
>>93250770>Who cares if the party is slightly imbalanced?Your friend. And you saying it like that shows that you don't give a fuck about his opinion and preferences. Have you tried dropping your "friend" from the group and taking another player?
Rolled 6, 6, 6, 4, 3, 2, 6, 6, 1, 5, 7, 4, 3, 7, 8, 2, 4, 4, 6, 1, 5, 2, 3, 5, 1 = 107 (25d8)>>93250930Walk us through character creation. Then we can see actual reactions to rolls.
>>93250959Lol. You think I don't care about a friend because of his opinion on a game? TTRPGs aren't life or death. Get a grip.I valued his opinion enough to post this. I also ask him for his input on a lot of stuff precisely because we don't agree on everything. He has played with me from the start so no, I won't "drop" him.
Rolled 4, 8, 6, 8, 6 = 32 (5d8)>>9325097225 dice limit
>>93250770For what it's worth even Gygax was of the opinion that letting people keep rerolling their characters until they get one they're satisfied with is a good thing since otherwise you end up with that one dude who keeps suiciding since his character is bad at the things he wants to be good at.
>>93250770Preroll (party size * 3) characters and let them pick freely between them>Everyone gets something they like>Nobody gets exactly what they want>It's still random but not unfair
>>93250930>The likelihood of edge cases is exceedingly lowWhy not make it zero?In any case it's kind of beside the point. One set of rolls at the start of the game will have a huge effect on what you can do throughout it.
>>93250930You mention the extreme ends are very unlikely - which is by design.But if you make the system so a player would probably not get those numbers its for a reason I assume? That a -5 or +5 would wildly swing the game out of line.In that case, what happens when a player *does* roll a -5. Unlikely doesnt mean impossible
>>93250979>>9325097218, 9, 13, 16, 18, 10, 12, 10, 13, 20So drop 9, 10 & 10+2, +0, +1, +2, -1, +0, +3Gotta say, Counting 13 & 14 instead of 12 & 13 or 14 & 15 is weird. Takes a couple seconds more to process and I wouldn't be surprised if I got the modifiers wrong.
>>93251000>why not make it zero?Because the characters aren't special. They are born into the world just like anyone else. The world has geniuses in it just as it does morons. The reason players get extra rolls because one roll comes from their father's luck, another from their mother's, and the third from themselves.Doing away with variation in characters would be super lame and is not what I am trying to do.>>93251004Correct. It doesn't mean impossible, but you could do away with three of those -5 rolls because you roll 10 times for 7 attributes. The chance of rolling a -5 for a single roll is less than one percent.
>>93251032While I appreciate the desire to have characters randomly given out and have the players take on a result given to them rather than just pick and choose exactly what they already had in mind, my ultimate issue is that - even if unlikely - one set of dice rolls can leave a player permanently gimped for the whole game.Personally if you want to keep the roll for stats I would add an additional layer to balance out the chance of getting kicked in the dick. For example if your game has skills, providing players who rolled poorly with the chance to get extra skills would help things smooth out. Etc etc.Now players aren't just hoping for a good roll and potentially throwing their character into danger for another chance at good stats, they go "oh cool, my character is weaker! now I get to see what other ways they get around that/compensate for it".
>>93251032>Because the characters aren't specialIrrelevant. Argue game design, not whatever absurd nonsense you're aiming for.Besides which they are special solely by virtue of being player characters. You're simply wrong.>Doing away with variation in charactersIs not remotely what anyone has told you to do, including your friend. If you aren't going to bother reading responses why did you bother asking the question? It seems like you're just looking for people to echo your own opinion back at you to "prove" your friend wrong.
Just let them use point-buy. That's the best method to use for players who already have a concept in mind and/or want things to be fair amongst the party. Rolling character stats is for when you don't have a particular concept in mind up-front and/or don't particularly care about the mechanical attributes matching up perfectly with the concept.
>>93251073I am willing to let them use point buy. I just don't know how to balance it with extremes being less likely.>>93251054Whatever you say. Any attempt at "making it zero" by definition allows for less variation in characters.I never bring up stuff from online to IRL friends, so you're just wrong. Looking for more data. That does not mean I will swallow what you have to say wholesale.
>>93251081>Looking for more dataYou don't seem to have bothered trying to understand anything you're being told. For a start, "bring up stuff from online to IRL friends" is largely irrelevant to what I actually said: you've already decided what you want to do and want your ego soothed by seeing people agree with you.
>>93251096lol
>>93250770>I am developing a bell-curve system (3d8) and think rolling characters is fun because it allows for unexpected character strengths and weaknesses. Who cares if the party is slightly imbalanced?Okay. You just rolled a total of 3. What now?>I'm just going to accept the results it's all about averages and it evens out eventually, maybe my next character is-Your next character just rolled a total of 3. What now?
OP not beating the faggot allegations today. Handwaving concerns and cherrypicking points to support your preconceived result does not a good friend make. Check your autism.
>>93251223I have been more than fair. I am willing to do point buy. I am asking how to balance it. I am willing to roll extra characters and having people choose from the pool of them. I am also not opposed to giving players who get the short end of the stick extra XP at the start because they've had to struggle in life.What I think is absurd is eliminating the chance of edge cases altogether or pretending that getting a sheet full of notable minuses with three rerolls is a likely scenario.>why not make it zero?>That's not remotely what anyone has told you to doHow am I "handwaving concerns", by not agreeing with this, exactly? By definition making edge cases 0 means character variation narrows.>It seems like you're just looking for people to echo your own opinion back at you to "prove" your friend wrong.>"bring up stuff from online to IRL friends" is largely irrelevant to what I actually said: you've already decided what you want to do and want your ego soothed by seeing people agree with you.This is all retarded nonsense said by someone who takes themselves way too seriously, and you expect me to address it as if it has some kind of merit?Meanwhile, this is what I've actually said:>I am trying my best to be accomodating because I assume he is not the only player who sees things this way in case something comes out of this.>If I were to provide a way for people who wish to do so to build their characters instead, what is the best way of accomplishing this, considering the bell curve is not flat? Values further away from the mean become less likely, meaning higher attribute values should cost more if there is a way to "buy" attribute points.
>>93251274What part of point-buy needs balancing?
>>93250862If you can't get into it, that's valid. But if you ask me, the guy who sucks and is somehow still here because he's a magnificent bastard is anything but boring.
>>93250770Your friend is a retard, a min/maxing faggot, and probably a habitual metagamer too.>Because they're essentially about genetics, attributes are pretty much set for a characters lifespan.Incredibly based. This sounds like some kind of d20 knock-off, so I'm not very interested, but this is a good way to approach things.>If I were to provide a wayThey already have one, and that's Rule 0 if the group or the GM truly do not like the base way to approach character creation. I recommend not providing an "alternate" way to the way you want it, because it muddles the waters as to the intended style of play and what these numbers represent, weakening the mechanical-thematic interconnectivity. People that cry about the mere risk of their characters not being the absolutely best at something at every opportunity in all context, all the time, are insufferable min-maxing autistic mongoloids that should be bullied to death.>>93250852Shit opinion.>>93251000>Why not make it zero?Because characters are people, npt cookie-cutter molds.
>>93251054>muh game design! m-muh design!>I-I bet you don't even have a degree!Absolutely plebian. "Game design" is truly a brainrot, especially when it comes to traditional games. Nobody that actually plays gives a shit about muh balance, and only the most worthless of autists obsess over their numbers. All that matters is that choices are compelling and interesting.
>>93251314Say I let people use a predetermined number of them. Just as an example, let's give people 7 points.One point could equal +1 for simplicity's sake. They could potentially also lower a rating to get access to more points and encourage specialization... BUT ratings beyond +1 would need to cost more points. Consider a character with +1 across all seven attributes versus another with +4, +3 on another, and zero on the rest. The latter player's character has his points spread better because the worth of attributes differs on a bell curve.This problem is worse if some players do want to roll whereas others build. The extreme values are less likely both ways. I should also consider those who DO want to roll, no?
>>93251157Laugh.
>>93251353When players roll for skill checks, what do they roll?
>>93250770Player's right. You're not.
>>93251350Everyone who isn't fucking retarded cares about balance.
>>93250770>I am developing a bell-curve system (3d8)Gee wiz anon, that's definitely going to change up the games you run and make them totally interesting and not boring anymore.
>>93251032>Because the characters aren't special.The characters being not played by you while everyone else is makes them inherently special.>The chance of rolling a -5 for a single roll is less than one percent.A mechanic that will come up for less than 1 in 100 characters sounds quite pointless, especially for a homebrew system that I'm guessing <10 people in the entire world will ever play, if even that.
>>93251334>This sounds like some kind of d20 knock-off, so I'm not very interested, but this is a good way to approach things.I'd say my influences are GURPS, the AGE systems (Dragon Age being the first), and the Genesys system. I also borrowed some concepts from Dark Heresy, such as hit location, probably because that's what we have been actively playing.I hate dice pools and symbols like in genesys, but I like the potential for varied outcomes it offers, so I decided to make a system with its features but with numbers and a consistent roll mechanic instead. To do it, I looked at 3d6 systems at first, but decided to go with 3d8 for a greater variance in numbers. The auto-success feature of GURPS is present but with some twists and turns to it. The amount of books available in GURPS also makes the system feel overwhelming for me.The Dragon Age RP was my first. It was meh, but the idea of a differently-colored die came from it. It does things in the game like determine hit location without needing a separate roll. If a weapon would do 2d8 of damage, the third die can be used in the same roll to determine hit location on a non-aimed blow. Because it's a different color, it won't cause confusion.
>>93251528>A mechanic that will come up for less than 1 in 100 characters sounds quite pointless, especially for a homebrew system that I'm guessing <10 people in the entire world will ever play, if even that.True, it could be seen as redundant, which is why I considered 3d6 at first. There are a couple reasons beyond the increased range in values why I chose to go with 3d8. One is that I have 8 hit locations which can now be simulated with the differently-colored die for non-aimed strikes (left arm, left leg, right arm, right leg, head, neck, upper torso and lower torso). It makes the rolls faster by not requiring a separate roll. Also, seeing as a d8 can be converted into a d4 easily, I can also use the same die in cases where I need more options for damage calculation.
>>932514623d8 + attribute + skill governed by attribute (+ x factors if there are any)Let's say a player tries to lift a heavy rock. That's an ATH (Strength) check, where ATH stands for athletics, as one might assume. If he is slightly more athletic than the average person, he gets +1 for that and adds his strength skill to it. Let's say he has the apprentice rating for another +1. There is nothing in the environment that would make it more difficult or easier, so let's say the X-factor is a 0.3d8 + 2 would be the final roll.
Each player chooses one:A) Roll and assign with one discard rollB) Point-buy, upgrading costs the new numerical value (so 1, 3, 6, 14, 29 for totals) final must be zero or less.While B allows for precise character building a powergamer will be compelled by the higher expected total of A.If you want to please grogs or people who don't have a concept and insist on rolling per stat give them for rerolls to use on any die they want.
>>93250770>even if they are a tad underpoweredWhat if they are more than a "tad" underpowered? Does your system prevent someone from being bad at everything?>wealth of options you can doWhen others can also do that, and better than you, what's the point? Does this character creation allows for characters to be unique and have things that only they can do?Point-buy systems usually makes this possible, as the berserker is usually the strongest dude in the party, so whenever anything that needs strength is needed, he shines.When the berserker is not that much strong, or sometimes not even the strongest member of the team, it's easy to understand how the player would feel like his character isn't even needed there other than being another stat stick to throw at the enemies.
>>93251687This is a nice idea. I wonder how I would balance it with my 3 extra roll idea. The ability to place attributes reflects parental genetics. One reroll is from the father's luck, another is from the mother's. The last one is from the person themselves.It's thematic. The way luck works in my setting is to allow for rerolls.
>>93250852>Consider random distribution of a fixed stat total.This is the best way forward.
>>93251868>What if they are more than a "tad" underpowered? Does your system prevent someone from being bad at everything?The number of rerolls I allow for results in a median of 15 and spare change. 15 translates to +1 rather than a 0 attribute rating.>Does this character creation allows for characters to be unique and have things that only they can do?Players can use starting XP to take on advantages, disadvantages and character quirks.>Point-buy systems usually makes this possible, as the berserker is usually the strongest dude in the party, so whenever anything that needs strength is needed, he shines.I understand that. The problem is balancing a point buy system with a roll system so that the point buy system does not allow for picking too many extremely good ratings.The idea mentioned above is a good implementation for that. Another idea would be to give players more starting XP for having worse characters in the beginning. This starting XP could then be used to buy traits.
>>93250770Give the players some points to allocate where they please on top and they'll be far more accepting I reckon.
>>93251904>>The number of rerolls I allow for results in a median of 15 and spare change. 15 translates to +1 rather than a 0 attribute rating.This is entirely the incorrect lens to view your system through. Instead of checking the average, check the likelyhood of getting above or below a threshold, and then figure out what the likelyhood of seeing that event across an entire table.For example, lets say that your system works out to every attribute having a 70% chance of being above a -2 mod, with anything at -2 or below being defacto dogshit without huge investment. Not bad, right? 70% chance of being at least passably acceptable in any one thing.Well, no. Lets assume that only 3 attributes are strongly combat linked, and the other three are strongly non-combat focused. The chance of getting bad rolls on three particular attributes are at about 3%. Taken together, the chance of getting a bad roll on either all combat or all non-combat attributes is around 6%. Across a table of 6 players, there's about a 1 in 3 chance that someone on that table has absolutely fuck all to do for half the game because their attributes across the board are fucking awful in that domain. I could throw in a couple of additional scenarios that also feel fucking awful, and that 1 in 3 would get considerably higher. Plus I haven't even gotten to some players getting god rolls in an otherwise lackluster table, or the entire table being universally bad at some things because nobody rolled a specific attribute high. But hey, maybe you get lucky and nobody rolls shit. Or you get unlucky and the entire table is suffering because Bob can't fight, Jim can't do anything but fight, and Steve can do fucking anything except read because he got amazing rolls on most of his attributes, but that lack of reading is a problem because *nobody* can read particularly well.
>>93252289(cont)More generally, if you really want your random character generation without lots of RNG feelbad, then you should be trying to eliminate the chance of rolling an ineffectual character entirely. Not kinda sorta maybe minimize it enough that you can lie to yourself that it won't happen. Eliminate any possibility of it. Either make it so that you physically cannot roll "poorly", or so that poor rolls don't actually matter that much.For example, instead of rolling each stat separately, you could do several rolls to randomly select attributes that are individually buffed, with any that aren't rolled defacto being weak (and rerolling if you hit a cap). This requires that all attributes are relatively useful, and it requires that there isn't a huge gap between a highly focused specialist and a generalist, but if those are both true then every player is guaranteed to be either very flexible or highly competent at *something*, with a wide spread of possible characters generated by the system.There are other ways to design random stats, but the key is that no outcome should be outright bad, only different. If outcomes can sometimes be bad, then some people will randomly discover that "sometimes" means really often in their case due to sheer RNG.
>>93250770I think your players (and a lot of people) would have more fun rolling characters if character death was ultra-common and the game forced them to roll multiple characters per session.Just sayan. If there's a chance of rolling a bad character, the longer you're forced to play that character the less fun it will be. Conversely, rolling characters takes the edge off of character death and makes it more exciting (even if your old character was really good there's still a chance that you'll get something interesting). It's just not a good convention for long games, it's a good convention if you're playing wretched goblins whose lives are cheap.
>>93250770>3d8What in the autism?
>>93251687I think I have a solution! I should figure out the Build Point values of each attribute. Then, the GM could let those who want to build characters calculate the average build points of those who roll to make their pool of BP.
My homebrew hell system does 3d6 down the line but you can swap two attributes with eachother and/or swap your entire sheet with someone else at the table.We also have each player roll two characters and use the weaker one (or stronger one if you want a challenge) as a starting follower.You can increase ability scores in my system through magic and training but I don't have concrete rules for that yet since we're still just messing around with how combining the entire party into a blob works.
>>93250770>I am developing a bell-curve system (3d8)There is no good reason for that.
>>93250770>Nevertheless, he is a mainstay around the table and says building a character is the far superior mechanic because it leaves less room for disappointment. He is worried about the potential of other characters outshining his even on the things he is meant to be good at. Despite my wholehearted disagreement with this on principle, I am trying my best to be accomodating because I assume he is not the only player who sees things this way in case something comes out of this.Not the first time I've seen this. While I'm not going to claim 'this' is the answer I'll share my experience.The players that seem to have been afflicted with this mind set are often A: players who don't kind grasp the difference between video games and TTRPG. But FAR more common are kinda "Hurt" players. Either through just bad luck with the dice, or a combination or not knowing what class to play / getting "suggested" what classes to play by other player. They end up in a position where they want to do action, but end up being unable because they picked the wrong class.My general fixes for this was allowing said player to completely change class and skill sets. Two or three times even! After the three they tend to settle into whatever role they picked, and their complains fade.For the bad luck players, a "Lucky" reroll mechanic granted to their players often time help them out.For the VG afflicted players? Well. I have no help, only experience can help them.
>>93250770>For reference, my attribute modifiers range from -5 to +5This is where you lost me. Rolling for stats works way better in systems that aren't don't have such a massive swing between high and low results.This isn't how you get characters who are 'slightly imbalanced'. If you want that, you should be looking at B/X and other early versions of D&D where the bonuses from statd didn't scale linearly, so rolling a character with 9s across the board wasn't the end of the world.That's the sort of environment where rolling for stats was conceived, and so you should just be blindly applying rolled stats with modern D&D styled modifiers without actually considering the implications of what you're doing.
>>93251904>Players can use starting XP to take on advantages, disadvantages and character quirks.So we get back to the initial point of the character not having a "wealth of options", since their options would be limited to what they put points in, otherwise you better be the best at some score in your party. Any clever idea you have on how to solve the situation would be better handled if another character did it.>average 15If you gave a coinflip for the players to either get a full 10's or a full 20's score, that would also average 15. Averages mean nothing in this context when there is a plausible chance of your character simply sucking balls and every session you wish that your character would just die already.>not allow for picking too many extremely good ratingsThen do that. Simply make a rule that stops them from minmaxing too much.
>>93253171I have considered them.Doing it the way they did originally makes the characters more than average unless you also skew checks to account for that. In such a case, there is no point to moving the curve forward in the first place.I don't want characters to be separate from normal people beyond being player controlled. No people are born Great Men. They work with what they have been given. Sink or swim. Making characters be somehow destined for greatness over other NPCs makes their victories hollow.
Remember some time ago a few anons figured out a way to determine stats using a deck of cards. It got quite in depth with the composition of the deck. Can't find it unfortunately. Anybody else remembers that thread?
>>93253214>Doing it the way they did originally makes the characters more than averageNot even remotely true. Older editions had more characters being more average because most results didn't impact your abilities in a major way.Like, you were talking earlier about 'less than a percent', but you know what AD&D has? Exceptional Strength, if you roll an 18 on 3d6 as a Fighter, you get to roll a d100, and if you roll 100 on that, you get the best attack/damage boost you can possibly start with.You want to know the difference between a 3 Strength Wizard and a max Strength Fighter? The Wizard has -3 to hit and -1 to damage. The Fighter has +3 to hit and +6 to damage. Without the Exceptional Strength mechanic? You'd be capped at 18 Strength, which is +1/+2. If we ignore the 3 Strength result, much like you've brushed aside concerns of someone actually getting a -5 to their stats with your system, then the differences are even smaller. >I don't want characters to be separate from normal people beyond being player controlled. Nothing you've posited has anything to do with that. Rolling stats on a bell curve is not the issue. Having the bellcurve apply stats in such a linear fashion is the issue. Changing the way modifiers are assigned to scores work is not changing anything about that.>No people are born Great MenExcept, of course, the guy who rolls 20+ across the board, who is rivaling Experts and Masters of various skills without even trying. The fact that skill bonuses are so low means that high starting scores are only going to have a greater impact. >Making characters be somehow destined for greatness over other NPCs makes their victories hollow.Do NPCs also get to roll ten times and drop three results when being created? You mentioned that the expected averages of that method was 15s, rather than 13.5. Is +1 to every stat across the board standard, or are NPCs averaging +0 while PCs are averaging +1?
>>93253363I roll every NPC the same, yes. Luck from their father, their mother, and themselves. The placement of attribute values represents trait heritability over blank slate.You missed the point of the Great Men comment. If everyone must work with what they have, being gifted does still not make someone great. People aren't judged from where they begin.If, on the other hand, the players are somehow magically protected from ever rolling low... Say an intellectual disability, they are ubermensch.
>>93253458>If, on the other hand, the players are somehow magically protected from ever rolling lowHow many times do I have to repeat it? This is not what is being argued against and you seem to be intentionally trying to miss the point of what I am telling you.To put it more simply, why is -5 to +5 the range of numbers that you chose for modifiers, specifically?
To be clear, I am making a setting where the characters are just people. Where heroes can die being stabbed in the street. Where some are John Von Neumann and others are profoundly disabled.Is it fair that Leonardo DaVinci got to stay ambulatory and Stephen Hawking didn't? Perhaps not. At least he still had his mind to fall back on. Not all who have ALS even have that.A world of Heroes and the unwashed masses is lame. It's meant to be chaos. Anything can happen... No Ubermensch. Being special is a hollow victory.I said from the outset that I did not understand my friend, but I am willing to compromise to accommodate him. This is why. Life isn't fair. This is a game where you have many lives... Why waste them by being perfect every time when you can be flawed and overcome it?Point buy does not destroy the world. Giving additional starting XP to account for a hard life does not ruin its philosophy. Skewing the curve does. Making it so the difference between bad and good is minuscule does. Is it fair to an average PhD that they are not Einstein? No... But they can still do the best they can.
>>93250770What happens if you make a wizard and then roll shitty INT
>>93253608Why those values? As opposed to what?A whole host of reasons. Granularity. Compensating for the curve being flatter than 3d6.-4 vs +4 narrows the gap between talent and lack of it.
>>93250770They're right, but it exists because of the expectation they'll be fucking munchkins.
>>93251586What is the target number for an average check? Average in the sense that "a normal roll under normal circumstances."I would like this system a lot better if you had a static target number, because as it is you have -/+ from situation, *and* variable target number, which just seems like clunky design to me.
>>93253736>Why waste them by being perfect every time when you can be flawed and overcome it?I think this is what you're misunderstanding. If you make a character that is bad at combat, and is forced to think creatively in combat to overcome that difficulty, that could be fun and rewarding. If you make a character who is kind of shit at everything, and can do nothing to overcome any difficulty, that feels shitty. The other thing in regards to minmaxing, is that unless your game is focused on a single activity, min/maxing isn't bad. People get pissed at min/maxers in 3.pf because the entire game is focused around combat, so a player who solely focuses on combat is going to be more mechanically useful that anyone else. If you have a player who totally specs into combat, as long as the only thing that you do isn't combat, it isn't a deal breaker. They get to be very good at one, focused thing (which doesn't go against your thematic desires at all) but are kind of crummy at the rest.
>>93253822>Why those values?That's what I'm asking.>As opposed to what?A higher or lower number. >Granularity. A higher number would offer more granularity.>-4 vs +4 narrows the gap between talent and lack of it.So the design goal is to have the party be majorly imbalanced or end up with characters that are severely underpowered. Not sure why you downplayed that in the OP, but now we're getting somewhere.My suggestion is to cut down on the extra rolls. If you care about that slim chance of somebody having a -5, then you should own it and make it statistically relevant. To add to this, simply make it so the 'pointbuy' starts every score at 13. A player can reduce a score by 1 point and put that point somewhere else. For example, they can drop their other six scores to 12 for a single 19. Statistically, that's going to be worse than just rolling, but it would allow someone to pick a few subpar stats for a single above average one. This encourages the players to actually roll and make cripples.
>>93253899>I would like this system a lot better if you had a static target number, because as it is you have -/+ from situation, *and* variable target number, which just seems like clunky design to me.That's fair. I should perhaps remove the X-factor and take it into account in the TN. I feel like static TN is a bit clunky for systems that neither roll under nor are as intuitive as d100
