Two 15s

[JCBoney]

Over the years, I've had better luck by getting off the bellcurve method and going straight linear. Roll 1d20, 1 and 2 equals a 3 while 19 and 20 equals an 18 to weight off both ends. For some mathematical statistical reason I can't fathom, I've seen higher scores off of this. Shrug.

[AxeMental]

Our attitude is if you can't get good enough roles with 4d6 placing them as you like, you should suck it up and play smart (to compensate). By the time you survive the first glorious battle your "into" your less then average fellow. This isn't "super heroes" its ordinary doing the extraordinary. In a party of 6 PCs I'd expect only half to have an attribute that really stood out as exceptionally helpful (a 17 or 18 Str or Dex say). As far as needing two 15s? Nah, they might as well be 9s down the line (+1 con and -1 AC hardly noticeable, with no bonus help to Strength).

[Chainsaw]

This isn't "super heroes" its ordinary doing the extraordinary.

I think there is some middle ground here. While I agree AD&D's not about superheroes (although high-level AD&D can feel like that), it's not about ordinary guys with all 9s either. Else, why even bother with attributes north of 9?

Do you need two 15s to play AD&D? Of course not. Is it recommended/encouraged? Yes, at least according to some people intimately involved with the game's creation (like EGG). So, I have no problem with an attribute generation system enabling at least two 15s in AD&D (or something roughly equivalent, like a single 17 or 18). I don't think this is extreme anyway, not even close to superhero levels. Nevertheless, if someone wants to play a guy with no bonuses (to prove what a badass player he is), that is fine too, but I am pulling no punches.. so good luck!

P.S. For shits and giggles, let's not forget that a level 1 fighter in OD&D is called a veteran (not an ordinary guy) and a level 8 fighter is called a superhero (not a lucky ordinary guy).

[T. Foster]

A character with one 17 or 18 and all other average stats is likely better off than someone with two 15s. A character with no 15s but several stats in the 13-14 range is probably better off than someone with two 15s but everything else in the 9-11 range - such a character is more likely to qualify as a ranger and could do well as a multi-classed demihuman. A player might also prefer a character with all 6 stats in the 10-14 range than someone with two 15s but also one or more really low stats (low enough to get penalties).

So while I agree with the notion that player character stats should generally be above-average and that you shouldn't stick a player with a character with average (or below average) stats, I think it's more nuanced than just saying "two stats of 15 or higher" - that a character with two 15s and four 6s should automatically be judged more worthy than one with three 14s and three 13s, or one with one 17 and five 11s.

[Chainsaw]

That all makes sense to me.

[Terrex]

We were lax about rolling for a long time. And, during our UA days, we often used the ultra-favorable method in that book. It ended up leading to an unhealthy inflation in ability scores. Too many fighters with 18/ str, too many clerics with 18 wis, etc. for my tastes.

Since we reverted to a PHB/DMG-only campaign, we adopted the 4d6 arrange method and make rolling part of the game where we always roll at the table with everyone looking on. You roll up one set of stats and that's the guy you get. Most players have embraced the system, although a couple would still rather see a bunch of 17s and 18s on their character sheets. We also roll hit points at the table, and that's another opportunity for a low-stat character to possibly get some redemption down the line (and for the high-stat guy to possibly face some challenges in the future).

I kind of like the results we've been getting. Keep in mind the average roll for 3d6 is 10.5. So the average roll for the 4d6 method is definitely north of 10.5, probably something like 12+.

Here's what I like about 4d6 and arrange:
1. A little excitement and differentiation for the 18s (and 17s to a lesser degree)
2. A sensible limiting of many of the sub classes that require a bunch of minimum attributes which feels right to me -- i.e. more fighters than rangers and paladins
3. We've seen some creativity and decision making in managing the occasional 5-7 rolls we've had. I don't think we've had anyone roll a 3 or 4. It was interesting to see a cleric choose dex for his 5 roll. We've never had anyone have to add to their AC score for low dex before! Given the large party size and his role in combat it actually made some sense.
4. There's something more satisfying about rolling 6 results rather than a bunch of rolls that you manipulate. I just like rolling methods that have me generate six simple scores that I apply as the character's attributes,

[ScottyG]

For my game I use 3d6, drop the lowest, + six, six times, arrange as desired, bump to meet class minimums of a class you want to play but don't qualify for. The PCs are on the heroic side, which is the way I prefer them to be, and the players don't complain.

[T. Foster]

FWIW my current preferred method of stat generation is to tell the players if you already know what you want to play, pick whatever stats you want. If you want something random, roll using whatever method you prefer. If a player decides to give all 18s they get an exasperated sigh, eye roll, and "really?" in an attempt to shame them out of being such a cheeseball. If that doesn't work I reserve the right to lower the character's stats to whatever I feel is reasonable.

At this point I have no real interest in forcing a player to play a character they don't like.

[AxeMental]

This isn't "super heroes" its ordinary doing the extraordinary.

I think there is some middle ground here. While I agree AD&D's not about superheroes (although high-level AD&D can feel like that), it's not about ordinary guys with all 9s either. Else, why even bother with attributes north of 9?

Do you need two 15s to play AD&D? Of course not. Is it recommended/encouraged? Yes, at least according to some people intimately involved with the game's creation (like EGG). So, I have no problem with an attribute generation system enabling at least two 15s in AD&D (or something roughly equivalent, like a single 17 or 18). I don't think this is extreme anyway, not even close to superhero levels. Nevertheless, if someone wants to play a guy with no bonuses (to prove what a badass player he is), that is fine too, but I am pulling no punches.. so good luck!

P.S. For shits and giggles, let's not forget that a level 1 fighter in OD&D is called a veteran (not an ordinary guy) and a level 8 fighter is called a superhero (not a lucky ordinary guy).

I agree with all of that, but if you make a system where you basically require players to have at least two 15s it won't feel special any more.

[BlackBat242]

I agree with all of that, but if you make a system where you basically require players to have at least two 15s it won't feel special any more.

And this is so true - while I enjoy characters with great stats (I always make sure that the reason for those is part of the character's story, but I ALWAYS roll them) I still have never been so satisfied with the success of any characters the way I was and am with those two characters.

I have seen people here & on DF who would have refused to play a M/U with a 14 Int, or a Fighter with a 12 Str and only Int above 14 - and all I can say is they don't know what it is like to succeed with a "hopeless character".

I played them with caution and with the Fighter as the tactical leader (and using missile weapons as much as possible), and no one could accuse me of metagaming or using player knowledge unfairly - the DM always created his own dungeons, and I had not played at all before, so everything was new and unknown. I thought my way through adventures, and the first time I played them with another group they were shocked at how well things worked with those "poor stats".


My best statted-character was a human Ranger - rolling 4d6 (re-roll 1s and drop lowest, arrange to suit) - two 18s and four 17s! Man, he was incredible - all rolls were made in front of the whole group, using the same dice I always used, and it all looked so great. Unfortunately, that was the only adventure I ever ran him in - the group never continued that campaign, and no other DM ever let me bring him in afterwards, refusing to believe I hadn't "pencil-whipped" his ability scores.

What good are high scores if no one lets you play the character?

[AxeMental]

I think what rubs me the wrong way with this attitude that PCs somehow need to be beefed up before the game starts is 1. the game did start, -you earn your good roles by rolling them, and being lucky...no different then when you role a 19 to hit in battle and finish off a stone giant saving the group. "Whoya! Fuck yah!" Same deal when you manage to role two 18s you should feel an accomplishment. The thing is, when you role your stats its a temporary "game on" sweating situation, after which you break to create the character.

Like in poker, when you are dealt a good hand and beat the other blokes at the table, everyone just has to suck it up. In life there are winners and loosers, people with born advantages over others...why sugar coat it. People just compensate. Ever notice really hot chicks with average dweeby looking guys. They simply used what they did have.

Stats also imply a sort of back story (no details, just a general impression, with an 18 str. I must have been working out, with an ¡8 charisma, hot with the ladies etc.). Whats it like being a fighter with 12 str. Well, if you force the player to take two 15s you'll never know. And it is forcing, because if its offered everyone will take it (not unlike that silly UA weapons specialization "option" so many of you...cough...TRP..cough...UA lovers drool over).

2. As the above poster points out, people tend to play their characters differently if they know they are weaklings (compared to the others in their class) -different weapons choices, different physical location in the group, different in game behavior (he was more cautious, acted as battle tactician, in short he compensated). Without average stats this guy would have never developed this sort of personality. In real life, we all have to compensate for our natural "God given" weaknesses, shouldn't we do the same in a game that in a way emulates reality. What this "two 15's" rule does is level the playing field (Sorry Joe you rolled like crap, here take two 15s it will make you feel less "inadequate" compared to Franks fighter with 16 str. And sorry Frank, your not really that special after all" ).

3. And last, what about the mental image the variation in types you get from attributes. You want the dimwitted MU (who barely made it into his robes) the weakling fighter (who specializes in smaller weapons), the clumsy thief (who manages to get out of jambs with the help of his friends)...because thats what people are like sometimes, they do things not because they are naturally good at it, but because they want to (or perhaps their parents want them to or whatever). In any event the occasional odd ball "types" are often the "spark" of the game (if nothing else the foil for the cool guys, as the game plays out ).


The only time I might make a concession is if a player really wants to play a particular character type (say a druid or paladin) then I will break just that once and role over lowest attributes or fudge it to make the minimum. Its supposed to be a fun game.

As for Gygax's suggestion about having two 15s. I disagree with it if its supposed to be a rule. I always read that as general advice, more for new players rather then experienced ones (who don't really need that boost). I certainly don't think EGG wanted every player at his table to have at least two 15s. At least I hope not.

*The bottom line is, yes your supposed to be playing an above average person most of the time (which is what an "adventurer" is) and thats what happens (statistically) if you use the 4d6 drop the lowest, drop anything lower then 9 method. But every now and then you get a guy who doesn't role a 15 or better, well my point is, he still might not be "average" because he brings to the table himself...in truth we are always playing ourselves -just wearing different masks. This subpar stat roller might turn out to be the coolest and most rememberable character of the night...because of greater caution or better luck.

Perhaps its just that I prefer a more "fast and loose" approach to all this rather then caring if things are so even steven (the game has always worked well for us after all, why fix whats not broken). Plus, I don't care so much for the attitude that if you didn't role well it was unfair (you had your chance with the D6s, just like everyone else) Let the chips fall were they may...and make the best of your PC...which is alot of the fun anyway. And if you are delt an average shlub kill it off and then role a new one. Its not like it would take more then 5 minutes (when everyone can take a chip or bathroom break).

[Ahriman667]

I suppose that stat generation really was the start of the 'arms race'. I'm sure there were several 'crib deaths' before most players found a set of stats they thought they could work with.

I can tell you - at least from my perspective - that it makes a difference when you have a fighter with 18/00 (rolled legit) and one with 16 in the same party. Throw in wpn spec and two-handed damage (a +2 to any damage caused when wielding a weapon two-handed) and the one was causing d8+11 with every swing, vs d8+3 (including magic weapon bonus) damage. In this case the the guy with the 16 str (my son) was quite content to play him as such and didn't mind the Conan of the group (actually he was a Northman viking type) doing the overkills. Eventually he picked up a pair of Guantlets of the Ape (from Yggsburgh) so that kind of eased the difference a bit (in my mind)...I'm sure he didn't care.

Currently I favour the 4d6, reroll 1's and drop the lowest method. The player can then do a 2 for 1 swap with any stat, but no stat can be reduced below 10. That or Method III

[Matthew]

It is worth noting that almost every pregenerated character in G1-3 and D1-3 has an 18 in one attribute or another. Gygax and crew definitely were not shy about high attributes. Same story with the pregenerated characters for S1.

[ScottyG]

Yes, EGG definitely preferred the PCs to be heroic. When they were creating the PCs Greyhawk is famous for, they rolled numerous sets and picked the ones they were happy with. The Rogues Gallery stats for Robilar are accurate. The stats for the rest were not exact, but close (based on Blume's memory of the characters).

[T. Foster]

The comparison of a character's rolled stats to a hand in poker would only be accurate if a poker player had to stick to a single hand of cards for, potentially, years on end. Sticking with what you rolled and making the best of cruddy stats and playing a character of a different class than you want to because that's what you rolled is all well and good when you're 11 years old on summer break playing D&D 40 hours a week and building up a stable of a dozen or more characters, or for a one-off session at a game day or con where you're only ever going to play the character once. But when you're in a campaign that only meets once or twice a month (or less) and your character is (assuming it survives) the only one you're going to be playing for the next year or two, then I think it's incumbent upon the GM to allow the players to have characters they actually like playing and are satisfied with. If a player enjoys playing a gimp character and making the best of it, more power to that player, but that doesn't mean all the rest of the players should also be forced to have their enjoyment of the game permanently compromised.