Alternative Characteristic Rolling Techniques?

[PFVA63]

Hi

One thing I'm playing around with trying to do right now is to separate STATs from representing anything quantitative and instead trying to treat them more qualitatively. That way someone who only has a STR of 2 isn't really capable of only carrying 1/3rd as much as someone with a STR of 6 (or 1/4 of someone with a STR of 8, etc) but rather they are just at the far end of what might be typical for most characters, whereas someone with a STR of 7 is pretty much right at average, etc.

As suc, even if someone had a UPP of 222222 it wouldn't necessarily mean that he/she is barely able to lift anything, handle anything, or get winded almost immediately, nor the he/she is very uneducated, intelligent or a social pariah, but rather that they are at the lower end of the type of people that you might likely meet in normal daily encounters, etc.

As part of this though I think it will probably require a revision to how damage is handled though.

 

[Shonner]

A 222222 would be a crazy old bum in my game.

 

[far-trader]

One thing I'm playing around with trying to do right now is to separate STATs from representing anything quantitative and instead trying to treat them more qualitatively.

An interesting idea... but I'm not sure it'll work. At first blush I get the feeling it'll end up meaning all restaurants are Taco Bells

What I mean is basically the rolls won't mean anything. A 2 will be almost as good as a 12 and they'll both be pretty much the same as a 7... so why not just assign everyone a 7 in everything is what it will boil down to.

Maybe you'll find a way to make it work, and maybe sleeping on it I'll realize it won't be that bad

I do like the idea of making the extremes a little less extreme, but not at the cost of making everyone (more) average (and generally, though not always, boring imo).

Maybe some kind of bell curve progression would work? The problem is we're talking a 2D6 system with some added range above. There's not much you can tweak without spinning it out of reason.

 

[aramis]

Thinking about Dan's description made me think "heighten the bell"...

4d6 drop lowest die and highest die. This makes a 2 or a 12 a 21/1296 instead of 1/36.

_ Att n/1296 _) n/36 __ ∆n/36
__ 2 ____ 21 __ 0.58 __ -0.42
__ 3 ____ 54 __ 1.50 __ -0.50
__ 4 ___ 111 __ 3.08 __ +0.08
__ 5 ___ 156 __ 4.33 __ +0.33
__ 6 ___ 201 __ 5.58 __ +0.58
__ 7 ___ 210 __ 5.83 __ -0.17
__ 8 ___ 201 __ 5.58 __ +0.58
__ 9 ___ 156 __ 4.33 __ +0.33
_ 10 ___ 111 __ 3.08 __ +0.08
_ 11 ____ 54 __ 1.50 __ -0.50
_ 12 ____ 21 __ 0.58 __ -0.42

The n/36 col is for comparison to 2d6... and is rounded down to the 100th

 

[Shonner]

Other die rolls have a better chance now.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

An interesting idea... but I'm not sure it'll work. At first blush I get the feeling it'll end up meaning all restaurants are Taco Bells

What I mean is basically the rolls won't mean anything. A 2 will be almost as good as a 12 and they'll both be pretty much the same as a 7... so why not just assign everyone a 7 in everything is what it will boil down to.

Maybe you'll find a way to make it work, and maybe sleeping on it I'll realize it won't be that bad

I do like the idea of making the extremes a little less extreme, but not at the cost of making everyone (more) average (and generally, though not always, boring imo).

Maybe some kind of bell curve progression would work? The problem is we're talking a 2D6 system with some added range above. There's not much you can tweak without spinning it out of reason.

Hi,

My thought was that it'd kind of be like how in design work you sometimes here about things being built to accommodate everything form a "5th percentile female to a 95th percentile male", where a a 5th percentile person would be larger or stronger (depending on which characteristic that you are looking at) than only 5% of the rest of the population, while a 95th percentile person would be being or stronger etc than 95% or the rest oft he population.

Here then rolling a 2 in any STAT would give that character a STR, DEX, END, EDU, INT, or SOC equivalent more or less to a 5th percentile person in those areas and someone with all C's would represent someone similar to a 95th percentile person in those areas.

Regards

PF

 

[McPerth]

Thinking about Dan's description made me think "heighten the bell"...

4d6 drop lowest die and highest die. This makes a 2 or a 12 a 21/1296 instead of 1/36.

_ Att n/1296 _) n/36 __ ∆n/36
__ 2 ____ 21 __ 0.58 __ -0.42
__ 3 ____ 54 __ 1.50 __ -0.50
__ 4 ___ 111 __ 3.08 __ +0.08
__ 5 ___ 156 __ 4.33 __ +0.33
__ 6 ___ 201 __ 5.58 __ +0.58
__ 7 ___ 210 __ 5.83 __ -0.17
__ 8 ___ 201 __ 5.58 __ +0.58
__ 9 ___ 156 __ 4.33 __ +0.33
_ 10 ___ 111 __ 3.08 __ +0.08
_ 11 ____ 54 __ 1.50 __ -0.50
_ 12 ____ 21 __ 0.58 __ -0.42

The n/36 col is for comparison to 2d6... and is rounded down to the 100th

TY for running the numbers. You can see with this system about 17/36 will be on the 6-8 ranga (not far from the 16/36 in 2d6), and the extremes (2/12) will be less than 0.5/36 each, with most of increasing results being among the middl up/middle low results, more or less what I intended in this system.

See that those middle results (6-8) are what is considered average both in your system (stat/3) and in MGT, and with this system represent nearly half of the rolls.

 

[aramis]

I think I'll run them with 6D6keep middle 2.
_Roll _ n/6^6 _ N/36 __ ∆N/36
__ 2 ___ 406 __ 0.31 __ -0.69
__ 3 __ 1220 __ 0.94 __ -1.6
__ 4 __ 3786 __ 2.92 __ -0.08
__ 5 __ 5560 __ 4.29 __ +0.29
__ 6 __ 8246 __ 6.36 __ +1.36
__ 7 __ 8220 __ 6.34 __ +0.34
__ 8 __ 8246 __ 6.36 __ +1.36
__ 9 __ 5560 __ 4.29 __ +0.29
_ 10 __ 3786 __ 2.92 __ -0.08
_ 11 __ 1220 __ 0.94 __ -0.94
_ 12 ___ 406 __ 0.31 __ -0.69

 

[Shonner]

I think I'll run them with 6D6keep middle 2.
_Roll _ n/6^6 _ N/36 __ ∆N/36
__ 2 ___ 406 __ 0.31 __ -0.69
__ 3 __ 1220 __ 0.94 __ -1.6
__ 4 __ 3786 __ 2.92 __ -0.08
__ 5 __ 5560 __ 4.29 __ +0.29
__ 6 __ 8246 __ 6.36 __ +1.36
__ 7 __ 8220 __ 6.34 __ +0.34
__ 8 __ 8246 __ 6.36 __ +1.36
__ 9 __ 5560 __ 4.29 __ +0.29
_ 10 __ 3786 __ 2.92 __ -0.08
_ 11 __ 1220 __ 0.94 __ -0.94
_ 12 ___ 406 __ 0.31 __ -0.69

6, 7, 8 results clump together as equal chances. I'm not used to there not being a tip value there.

 

[McPerth]

I think I'll run them with 6D6keep middle 2.
_Roll _ n/6^6 _ N/36 __ ∆N/36
__ 2 ___ 406 __ 0.31 __ -0.69
__ 3 __ 1220 __ 0.94 __ -1.6
__ 4 __ 3786 __ 2.92 __ -0.08
__ 5 __ 5560 __ 4.29 __ +0.29
__ 6 __ 8246 __ 6.36 __ +1.36
__ 7 __ 8220 __ 6.34 __ +0.34
__ 8 __ 8246 __ 6.36 __ +1.36
__ 9 __ 5560 __ 4.29 __ +0.29
_ 10 __ 3786 __ 2.92 __ -0.08
_ 11 __ 1220 __ 0.94 __ -0.94
_ 12 ___ 406 __ 0.31 __ -0.69

It's quite surprising that you have slightly higher chance to get a 6 or 8 than a 7 in this system, so breaking the bell curve....

 

[Shonner]

I did a test (what the heck) rolling 5D6 twice and keeping just the middle die value from both, then adding them together. It's a nice curve.

 

[Andrew M]

If I want to get a 2d6 roll weighted towards the centre I roll 3 or more dice and keep the highest and lowest. I'm not keen on using this for rolling stats though.

BTW there is this site if you want to look at probabilities.

 

[Hyphen]

...they'd be booted form the game or their character eaten to show the rest how the monster works.

ROFL! (Unfortunately, I'm on a train into Brisbane, so I getting funny looks...!)

Love it! BTW, I usually allow "3D6 and drop the lowest" as well, although I've toyed with the idea of rolling 7 groups of 3d6 and keeping the highest 6 groups. Really, it doesn't matter, it's altogether too easy for the GM to kill off a PC, so why not let the players be happy? (Until they get eaten, of course.)

(Higher stats become important if you're using a ruleset that uses more generic skills, or where many tasks are unspecified and therefore default to rolls against bare stats.)

For my money it's more important to keep a complete record of chargen, so the GM can throw in things from a PC"s past for them to encounter / get sidetracked by / or otherwise trip over. Past missions, hospital recoveries (bad survival rolls ==> "Hello, Nurse!), and use of brownie points (who owes whom a favour, now?) can all generate adventure ideas and casual encounters. For the same reason, even though I'm sold on MT, I throw in TNE's "Contacts" rules. It all helps round out the PC.

 

[Easterner9504]

http://www.signalgk.com/

I roll up 11 1 term characters. Pick the best LIVE one and use that UPP, players having probs I advise do likewise.

 

[Darkwing]

I give points to buy stats, roll a career, and then give points based on length of career for skills. Some ideas:
1. roll 1d6 for brownie points. Then 2d6 X 6. Limit how many of those brownie points can be spent on any given stat.
2. roll 2d4+2 X 6.
3. roll 2d6 X 8, select the 6 best.

 

[Greylond]

I generally don't have a problem with the 2d6 6 times. In MgT you get to arrange them how you want, so that allows you to design the stats the way you want to do it. IMO, a real "Ironman" CharGen would be 2d6 in order Str, Dex, End, Int, Edu, and then Soc and keep what you roll.

 

[Shonner]

Lately, I've been using 2D6 for normal and 1D6+6 for better than normal characters. I play strickly Mongoose Traveller.

 

[Greylond]

And I could be interested in some form of Stat Increase Training. Body Building/Endurance training seems very possible. Education increase seems logical through some kind of type of school/training. Soc Class would seem to be the hardest to adjudicate to me, possibly involving some kind of service and/or monetary "donation." Something along with the way the U.K eventually started allowing wealthy people to purchase titles.

All of this is off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could come up with something...

 

[CosmicGamer]

My biggest issue with beefing up characteristics is how much effect it has - essentially the reason people do it.

Should a character with high dex and almost no training and skill as a doctor really be as good, or a better surgeon than a skilled doctor with average dex? To me, no. Sure you made a really nice cut but weren't you supposed to cut over here? I can live with it but personally I wouldn't encourage methods of rolling characteristics that produce a lot of bonuses.

I also don't believe in systems for increasing physical characteristics. The characters are aged. Their current physicality is based on their background. If the character didn't exercise before, why would they suddenly start now. If you want your character to exercise, fine, but who says they haven't been doing it all along and that is how they got their current physique. Perhaps they need to keep being physical to keep their characteristics at the level they are currently at. Perhaps they need to increase physical activity just to stay some of the effects of aging.

 

[Greylond]

Should a character with high dex and almost no training and skill as a doctor really be as good, or a better surgeon than a skilled doctor with average dex? To me, no. Sure you made a really nice cut but weren't you supposed to cut over here? I can live with it but personally I wouldn't encourage methods of rolling characteristics that produce a lot of bonuses.

That's why Medic is based off of Int or Edu and not Dex...

I also don't believe in systems for increasing physical characteristics. The characters are aged. Their current physicality is based on their background. If the character didn't exercise before, why would they suddenly start now. If you want your character to exercise, fine, but who says they haven't been doing it all along and that is how they got their current physique. Perhaps they need to keep being physical to keep their characteristics at the level they are currently at. Perhaps they need to increase physical activity just to stay some of the effects of aging.

Yea, I understand that and normally agree with it. I doubt I'd start using any kind of system like this any time soon.