1E actually gave you four official options for rolling up, and then UA gave another. Noneof them have a player roll only 3d6 6 times.
The "3d6" only originated, I think, with Basic. But the 1E DMG provides four canon ways to roll characters up, one of which is the perennial favorite of rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest, repeating five more times, and arranging as you want.
The 1st. Edition DMG does indeed include the most common method used today. (METHOD I)
The remaining three proposed methods use 3d6. And only one of them suggests allowing players to arrange the numbers as they wish. (METHOD II)
One of them has players make several 3d6 rolls for each attribute. Increasing their chances of rolling something "useable"—for want of a better word—for each attribute. (METHOD III)
Frankly by that point you might as well just allow players to make up the numbers!
The other is 3d6 in order. Just with players rolling multiple sets for potential characters and choosing from these. (METHOD IV)
It is a method that mirrors how it is done in games in which characters begin as 0-level characters. In which players begin with multiple characters.
METHOD IV suggests players roll 12 sets. Which is excessive. I have my players roll 4. Or 8 if I am feeling generous. (I run many games for newcomers and the quicker character creation can be over and done with the better.)
It's worth noting that the most popular earlier edition of the game that serves as the source material for most OSR games and even for later games inspired by 5th. Edition in terms of modernizing and streamlining the rules but that is more old-school in look and feel is B/X.
Folks, character generation methods in 1e has nothing to do with backgrounds in 5e. Maybe take that discussion to a different thread.
Totes fair. It is tangentially related in the sense that backgrounds are best used to encourage roleplaying (imo), and this method for stat generation also fosters creativity. But I agree that it's a bit off topic
InfamousArchmage, my point was that not one of the canon methods for rolling ability scores in 1E had players roll 3d6 only six times. The methods that use 3d6 do so in a way that increases the chances for better ability scores due to the sheer number of rolls.
Later, when UA came out, it offered an incredibly generous method for rolling based on class. For instance, if you chose to run a fighter, you could roll SEVEN d6 for your STR score (but only 3d6 for Wisdom).
My whole point being: the idea of there being some kind of virtue in a strict 3d6 only six times is one that was not supported by a key designer of the original game.
InfamousArchmage, my point was that not one of the canon methods for rolling ability scores in 1E had players roll 3d6 only six times. The methods that use 3d6 do so in a way that increases the chances for better ability scores due to the sheer number of rolls.
Later, when UA came out, it offered an incredibly generous method for rolling based on class. For instance, if you chose to run a fighter, you could roll SEVEN d6 for your STR score (but only 3d6 for Wisdom).
My whole point being: the idea of there being some kind of virtue in a strict 3d6 only six times is one that was not supported by a key designer of the original game.
I knew what you meant. I was just clarifying how each method worked.
Personally I don't care what method different tables use. You could roll nothing and just write whatever numbers in the boxes you want for all I care. You could put 18s against every attribute if you wish. I have simply defended d6 in order from those who want to insist "no one" used or uses this method as if a preference for this method does not exist. It does. It is how attributes continue to be rolled at some tables and is baked into many popular OSR games.
I prefer this method. And I have given reasons why. I believe it is more conducive to producing characters of the same class that are more varied in their attributes. Instead of every fighter having high this and that and low this or that. It also sees characters with imperfections. With at least one dismally low attribute. And these have often brought out the best storytelling at tables at which I have played.
Nothing wrong with people doing it differently. But there is no need for them to pretend "everyone" hates 3d6 in order.
If I used rolled attributes at all, I would require rolling attributes in order, because to the degree there's a value to rolled attributes, it's that it produces the occasional unexpected character, and if you can rearrange the attributes at will, that goes away.
InfamousArchmage, my point was that not one of the canon methods for rolling ability scores in 1E had players roll 3d6 only six times. The methods that use 3d6 do so in a way that increases the chances for better ability scores due to the sheer number of rolls.
Later, when UA came out, it offered an incredibly generous method for rolling based on class. For instance, if you chose to run a fighter, you could roll SEVEN d6 for your STR score (but only 3d6 for Wisdom).
My whole point being: the idea of there being some kind of virtue in a strict 3d6 only six times is one that was not supported by a key designer of the original game.
I knew what you meant. I was just clarifying how each method worked.
Personally I don't care what method different tables use. You could roll nothing and just write whatever numbers in the boxes you want for all I care. You could put 18s against every attribute if you wish. I have simply defended d6 in order from those who want to insist "no one" used or uses this method as if a preference for this method does not exist. It does. It is how attributes continue to be rolled at some tables and is baked into many popular OSR games.
I prefer this method. And I have given reasons why. I believe it is more conducive to producing characters of the same class that are more varied in their attributes. Instead of every fighter having high this and that and low this or that. It also sees characters with imperfections. With at least one dismally low attribute. And these have often brought out the best storytelling at tables at which I have played.
Nothing wrong with people doing it differently. But there is no need for them to pretend "everyone" hates 3d6 in order.
I have also played this way, and it is a fun way to play, it makes for very different characters, and creates an opportunity to stretch the creative muscles.
I have also played in an extreme min/max style of games.
I am not sure what the communities consensus is, but I plan to use the old backgrounds (not custom) with the flavourful features, and either allow the players to pick the feat they want, or associate it with where they are now. The expanded backgrounds that have no feat, I probably will let them pick, but I might just assign "skilled" as a catch all. And, finally, will allow them to put their stat boosts wherever they would like. At least as my general rule for character creation.
Sometimes, 3d6 down the road, and pick your locked in selection version of the backgrounds would be fun.
I would note that you can simply remove ASIs from backgrounds entirely -- it's just 3 attribute points, you can accomplish the same by adjusting your die rolling scheme (or point total, for point build) to produce slightly higher attributes. For example, if you're rolling 3d6 down the line, the average character on 4k3 with backgrounds (76 attribute points) is about the 95th percentile, so rolling twenty characters and picking your favorite (with no adjustment for background) will produce a character with about as many attribute points as the standard rules (though inefficiently distributed, so probably worse than a character built with the standard rule; you probably need 50-100 to expect something better than standard).
1E actually gave you four official options for rolling up, and then UA gave another. Noneof them have a player roll only 3d6 6 times.
The "3d6" only originated, I think, with Basic. But the 1E DMG provides four canon ways to roll characters up, one of which is the perennial favorite of rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest, repeating five more times, and arranging as you want.
I bet pre-basic/advanced split also had 3d6 down the line. It had to come from somewhere in basic. (Also, what method did the original PHB present? That's the method players were presented with.)
I don't think you do "completely agree" with me. Because if you did you would plainly see how how the 2024 ruleset handles this is far worse. It encourages min-maxing.
2014: Players choose their race because that is the race they want to play. Players could then choose any background and so would do so for purposes of characterization.
2024: Players choose their race because that is the race they want to play. Background becomes nothing more than a choice to be made by most to gain attribute boosts.
Lots of players in the 2014 rules, new and old, felt constrained to pick race based on what class they wanted to play.
The structure of the game encourages this. Stat bonuses are important enough, especially at low levels, that you reasonably feel like you're handicapping yourself by not doing it. (In practice, it's not as important as it feels initially, but it does matter.)
Min-maxing your initial stats is not a bad thing, and doesn't need discouraging, especially for newer players. It definitely doesn't need discouraging by making players think they have to choose between effectiveness and concept.
We did. It's what the book said to do, so we did it.
It's terrible for role-playing, because it reduces investment in the character. You're not playing the character you wanted, you're playing "the best class for your stats", or, if you rolled poorly "a fighter, I guess". (But then, the basic box didn't really introduce the concept of role-playing. It was much more in the "character as game piece" mode.)
The opposite is true. 3d6 down the line encourages actual roleplaying. You roll. You see what the numbers make possible. Then you are required to get creative and conceive of a character based on where the dice land and play that character. Not just play something prescripted. Most other methods result in characters with either just one mildly less than average attribute or all attributes being average or above average and above.
It's clear to me that your definition of roleplaying is at odds with many, many other people's.
For most people, the concept comes first. It's frequently pretty simple at first -- for instance, "I wanna play a wizard this time". They then dial the initial interest in through the game options -- "Warlock looks neat. Great Old One sounds cool. I'm going to dial the creepy factor up to eleven, but the character has no idea there's anything wrong with them."
Sure, if you have no ideas, a randomizer could help, but you can achieve the same effect by rolling a d12.
3d6 down the line avoids such homogenization.
Randomized stats add variance. 3d6 down the line is just the highest-variance version. And variance is not necessarily good. For every "interesting quirk because of high unused side stat", there's also "unsuited for a class you want to play", "mediocre at everything" (in AD&D those were typically forced into fighter, even if they were bad at it, because it was the only class without a required stat minimum), and the ever-popular "overshadowed by somebody else because they just flat-out rolled better".
There are plenty of ways to distinguish characters that don't have such inherent problems. Backgrounds, for one.
Like I said:
I have played in a three-year long campaign that was essentially 5th. Edition with added innovations from a number of OSR games. We used 3d6 down the line. No one complained.
You played in a game that with people who self-selected to play in that type of game. Of course they didn't complain.
Just because many players today can't bear to think their characters might not be "perfect" doesn't mean we are all like that.
"Perfect" is a straw man. What most people prefer is "everybody starts from the same baseline".
It's not as if an entire movement within the hobby has returned to a more old-school approach.
It's not a particularly large movement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable to the number of people who still play 4e. (But there's no real way to tell)
But "a bunch of people like this" does not mean a larger number of people would. Nor does it mean it's not bad game design. (But, of course, what's good or bad game design depends in part on the goal. There are design goals for which it's fine. But they're not the goals of modern D&D. (And it's questionable that it's been a good fit for the goals of any version of D&D.))
It's not a particularly large movement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable to the number of people who still play 4e. (But there's no real way to tell)
Well, you can look at the ORR report for roll20, though it hasn't been updated for a couple years. Back in 2021 AD&D (1e and 2e) was 0.19% of games, 4e was 0.17%, OD&D was 0.05%.
I bet pre-basic/advanced split also had 3d6 down the line. It had to come from somewhere in basic. (Also, what method did the original PHB present? That's the method players were presented with.)
I remember programming my Vic-20 to churn out 3d6x6 stat sets, so I'm guessing that was Red Box Basic
The 1e PHB didn't suggest a method of rolling them up at all -- they were all in the DMG (page 11 in the copy I just pulled off the shelf), which offered the following:
Method I: 4d6 times six, dropping lowest, arranged however you want Method II: 3d6 rolled 12 times, taking the best six, arranged however you want Method III: stats rolled in order, but 3d6 times six for each stat, taking the one you want for each Method IV: 3d6 times six in stat order, but done 12 times (so you're rolling up 12 different sets), then you take the one you want
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I bet pre-basic/advanced split also had 3d6 down the line. It had to come from somewhere in basic. (Also, what method did the original PHB present? That's the method players were presented with.)
The 1e PHB didn't suggest a method of rolling them up at all -- they were all in the DMG
Wait, the PHB (published before the DMG) didn't include any complete method of making a character?
I'd like to say I find that unbelievable, but it's not.
I bet pre-basic/advanced split also had 3d6 down the line. It had to come from somewhere in basic. (Also, what method did the original PHB present? That's the method players were presented with.)
The 1e PHB didn't suggest a method of rolling them up at all -- they were all in the DMG
Wait, the PHB (published before the DMG) didn't include any complete method of making a character?
I'd like to say I find that unbelievable, but it's not.
The exact quote on page 9 is
Each ability score is determined by random number generation. The referee has several methods of how this random number generation should be accomplished suggested to him or her in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE. The Dungeon Master will inform you as to which method you may use to determine your character's abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I bet pre-basic/advanced split also had 3d6 down the line. It had to come from somewhere in basic. (Also, what method did the original PHB present? That's the method players were presented with.)
The 1e PHB didn't suggest a method of rolling them up at all -- they were all in the DMG
Wait, the PHB (published before the DMG) didn't include any complete method of making a character?
I'd like to say I find that unbelievable, but it's not.
More interestingly, the monster manual was released first, a whole year before the PHB. Most people just generated scores however they had been previously with the white books or followed the rules found in the basic set (Holmes)
It's not a particularly large movement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable to the number of people who still play 4e. (But there's no real way to tell)
But "a bunch of people like this" does not mean a larger number of people would. Nor does it mean it's not bad game design. (But, of course, what's good or bad game design depends in part on the goal. There are design goals for which it's fine. But they're not the goals of modern D&D. (And it's questionable that it's been a good fit for the goals of any version of D&D.))
3d6 in order started with OD&D in 1974.
I have explained the shortcomings of the min-max approach. It homogenizes characters. Background choices or whatever backstories are provided characters doesn't change the fact the characters are practically identical in terms of their physical and mental prowess. Neither the fiction that inspired the game nor myth nor legend reduces all heroes to the point their physical and mental prowess is identical. Many warriors in sword and sorcery fiction are deeply philosophical. Or highly charismatic. They have flaws. They vary in their strengths and weaknesses. Not all are exceptionally strong. The min-max approach is an approach that makes for strong "characters." But it is not at all conducive to prioritizing characterization and prioritizing roleplaying over rollplaying. A wizard with barely above average INT but who has made it as a wizard is a wizard fit for fiction. In a world in which most wizards are exceptionally intelligent that character is exceptional. That is a wizard worth writing about least of all one worth playing. Who cares if rolling a success may occur less often? It is a roleplaying game. Not a rollplaying game. Do you see what I'm saying?
For many the concept does come first. And that's fine. I have played in games in which we have used that approach. And had plenty of fun! But no more so than I have had in those I remember from my formative years with the game or recently in games in which characters were even rolled randomly and we didn't even get to pick our race or background least of all allocate attributes however we wanted.
What attributes are "unsuited" to a class? Can no wizard be strong? Is there no such thing in the literature? Can no player come up with something to explain this? A wizard in possession of immense physical strength is a wizard with a story to tell. A gentle giant for example. I once played a firbolg thief who was just that.
Mediocre at everything? Roll again. The AD&D DMG suggests rolling 3d6 in order 12 times and choosing the best set. I should imagine even the pickiest of players is going to find one satisfactory unless he or she wants the character to earn a spot on the Justice League of America. And what do you mean by mediocre? Just how many scores "must" be above average? More than one? "Must" a player have at least one 18 after adjustments are made? Why?
Overshadowed? Again. A storytelling opportunity lost in which that gentle giant could outclass the fighter but chose a life of study over one of violence.
You have essentially proven my point: Talk of "unsuited" attributes. A character being outclassed by one belonging to another class. The powergaming mindset that drives min-max is just not as conducive to roleplaying as is randomization. It means an infinity of possible stories are discarded to again build a party that consists of characters not too dissimilar to almost every other party. Wizards could add a hundred new classes and it wouldn't solve that problem. It's not for a lack of options. It's players wanting to have the "best" fighter or the "best" wizard. Instead of playing a fighter or a wizard. This is why many have walked away from modern gaming. Why many even newcomers to the hobby who enjoyed 5th. Edition for years have walked away from it. Why they too now prefer the old-school approach: It is unpredictable.
My point about the OSR or even those who still play older editions is not that they are right. It is that their preferred style of play is as valid as yours. That movement however relatively small began in protest against what is a more modern approach to D&D and the "build" approach is a part of that and one that really only saw an increase in popularity following the arrival of 3rd. Edition and more and more with the advent of immersive video role-playing games. I played extensively throughout the lifecycles of 1st. and 2nd. and among those I played with then the only people who wanted to "build" their characters instead of seeing how their characters would evolve throughout the campaign—for example a player deciding to multi-class because it makes sense provided something that happened in the story and not just to gain this or that ability—were the types of players who would bring inconceivably high attributes to the table and expect everyone to believe these numbers were rolled. They were considered problem players. I really don't care if that's how people want to play. Like I said I couldn't care less if you assigned 18 to every single attribute. I have simply explained why many of us like 3d6 in order. Given some thought they could speak for everyone and say "no one" did it and "no one" likes it.
The game that swept the ENNIEs this year uses 3d6 in order. (Players get to re-roll if they have not managed to roll at least one number that is equal to or greater than 14.)
Does that mean it is an immensely popular method? Not particularly. But people shouldn't pretend "no one" does it and "no one" likes it. That game will never boast the sorts of numbers Wizards do. But its popularity cannot be overstated.
It's not a particularly large movement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable to the number of people who still play 4e. (But there's no real way to tell)
But "a bunch of people like this" does not mean a larger number of people would. Nor does it mean it's not bad game design. (But, of course, what's good or bad game design depends in part on the goal. There are design goals for which it's fine. But they're not the goals of modern D&D. (And it's questionable that it's been a good fit for the goals of any version of D&D.))
3d6 in order started with OD&D in 1974.
I have explained the shortcomings of the min-max approach. It homogenizes characters. Background choices or whatever backstories are provided characters doesn't change the fact the characters are practically identical in terms of their physical and mental prowess. Neither the fiction that inspired the game nor myth nor legend reduces all heroes to such two-dimensional "characters" whose physical and mental prowess is identical. Many warriors in sword and sorcery fiction are deeply philosophical. Or highly charismatic. They have flaws. They vary in their strengths and weaknesses. Not all are exceptionally strong. It is a method that makes for strong "characters." But not strong characterization. Which you would think might be prioritized in what is a game used to essentially tell stories.
For many the concept does come first. And that's fine. I have played in games in which we have used that approach. And had plenty of fun! But no more so than I have had in those I remember from my formative years with the game or recently in games in which characters were even rolled randomly and we didn't even get to pick our race or background least of all allocate attributes however we wanted.
What attributes are "unsuited" to a class? Can no wizard be strong? Is there no such thing in the literature? Can no player come up with something to explain this? A wizard in possession of immense physical strength is a wizard with a story to tell. A gentle giant for example. I once played a firbolg thief who was just that.
Mediocre at everything? Roll again. The AD&D DGM suggests rolling 3d6 in order 12 times and choosing the best set. I should imagine even the pickiest of players is going to find one satisfactory unless he or she wants the character to earn a spot on the Justice League of America.
Overshadowed? Again. A storytelling opportunity lost in which that gentle giant could outclass the fighter but chose a life of study over one of violence.
The powergaming mindset that drives min-max is just not as conducive to roleplaying as is randomization. It means an infinity of possible stories are discarded to again build a party that consists of characters not too dissimilar to every other party. Wizards could add a hundred new classes and it wouldn't solve that problem. It's not for a lack of options. It's players wanting to have the "best" fighter or the "best" wizard. Instead of playing a fighter or a wizard. This is why many have walked away from modern gaming: It is predictable.
My point about the OSR or even those who still play older editions is not that they are right. It is that their preferred style of play is as valid as yours. That movement however relatively small began in protest against what is a more modern approach to D&D and the "build" approach is a part of that and one that really only saw an increase in popularity following the arrival of 3rd. Edition and more and more with the advent of immersive video role-playing games. I played extensively throughout the lifecycles of 1st. and 2nd. and among those I played with then the only people who wanted to "build" their characters instead of seeing how their characters would evolve throughout the campaign—for example a player deciding to multi-class because it makes sense provided something that happened in the story and not just to gain this or that ability—were the types of players who would bring inconceivably high attributes to the table and expect everyone to believe these numbers were rolled. They were considered problem players. I really don't care if that's how people want to play. Like I said I couldn't care less if you assigned 18 to every single attribute. I have simply explained why many of us like 3d6 in order. Given some thought they could speak for everyone and say "no one" did it and "no one" likes it.
The game that swept the ENNIEs this year uses 3d6 in order.
Does that mean it is an immensely popular method? Not particularly. But people shouldn't pretend no does it and no one likes it.
I enjoy this style of play, and almost all of your points are well considered and I agree with, depending on what sort of game I want to run. The only two caveats I will point out: 1) Using this method, not every GM who does this, will allow multiple rerolls. Heck, I tend to limit them to six set, pick the set you like best. 2) You are entirely capable of wanting to play a wizard, and ending up with an 8 intelligence, so people's criticism of this method is not 100% invalid, and is wholly dependent on the GM running the game.
The book gave options. Maybe 1e was 3d6 in order only, but 2e was certainly not and NOBODY wanted to use that and end up with a terrible character. I never got to actually play 1e, so my experience doesnt go back that far.
I think 2e was pretty much in line with most of the 5e character creation rules. As for Basic, it is blurry to me mostly because all of those rules were revised and consolidated in the Rules Cyclopedia. From there you would use 3d6 down the line, but after you decided your class, you were allowed to go back and take two points off of your scores and add only ONE point each time to your primary requisite score. The only restrictions were none of the ability scores could be lower than 9 and you couldn't lower Charisma, Constitution or Dexterity at all.
So is this thread about frustrations with background creation/customization or with wanting to optimize? Has this been resolved, because I thought the book clarified that you can still customize your background and bring in legacy species in Chapter 2.
If this has already been addressed in the five pages of topics, disregard.
So is this thread about frustrations with background creation/customization or with wanting to optimize? Has this been resolved, because I thought the book clarified that you can still customize your background and bring in legacy species in Chapter 2.
If this has already been addressed in the five pages of topics, disregard.
It has been addressed (imo). That is exactly how I handle it, the books are clear about it, etc. I think the discussion moved from "this doesn't work" to seemingly "how this should work"
I enjoy this style of play, and almost all of your points are well considered and I agree with, depending on what sort of game I want to run. The only two caveats I will point out: 1) Using this method, not every GM who does this, will allow multiple rerolls. Heck, I tend to limit them to six set, pick the set you like best. 2) You are entirely capable of wanting to play a wizard, and ending up with an 8 intelligence, so people's criticism of this method is not 100% invalid, and is wholly dependent on the GM running the game.
1. You are right. Not every DM would be kind enough to allow players to roll more than one set. A bit too strict I would agree. But if everyone at the table is perfectly happy with how that DM runs things then who are we to complain? Me I tend to get players to roll up four sets of numbers for four potential characters. Eight if I am feeling rather generous. Consider what each might be. What class exactly might make the most sense for each of those sets of numbers. Give at least some thought to explaining other attributes and why things might be so uncharacteristically high or low. And then make their choice.
2. I wouldn't want to play wizard if I only rolled an 8 for INT. I would just choose a different class. I can totally understand players' wanting to try a class they have never tried or even coming up with an idea and hoping to use it at the table but it is not the end of the world if that has to wait. The real point of 3d6 in order is that class not be chosen until after the numbers are rolled.
Concepts are fine. But they can place constraints on characters and on their players. Like many I too used to write somewhat elaborate backstories for my characters. Up until just recently. And then I discovered the joy of doing one of two things: Either (a) waiting until after the first session to see how the character has played. To see who the character really is. And then and only then writing anything at all. Or (b) writing nothing more than the briefest of vignettes that depict a mere moment in the character's past. This has been liberating. It allows the character to grow in a way that is much more organic. It's not prescripted. It's not caged within the space of a page.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The 1st. Edition DMG does indeed include the most common method used today. (METHOD I)
The remaining three proposed methods use 3d6. And only one of them suggests allowing players to arrange the numbers as they wish. (METHOD II)
One of them has players make several 3d6 rolls for each attribute. Increasing their chances of rolling something "useable"—for want of a better word—for each attribute. (METHOD III)
Frankly by that point you might as well just allow players to make up the numbers!
The other is 3d6 in order. Just with players rolling multiple sets for potential characters and choosing from these. (METHOD IV)
It is a method that mirrors how it is done in games in which characters begin as 0-level characters. In which players begin with multiple characters.
METHOD IV suggests players roll 12 sets. Which is excessive. I have my players roll 4. Or 8 if I am feeling generous. (I run many games for newcomers and the quicker character creation can be over and done with the better.)
It's worth noting that the most popular earlier edition of the game that serves as the source material for most OSR games and even for later games inspired by 5th. Edition in terms of modernizing and streamlining the rules but that is more old-school in look and feel is B/X.
Which uses 3d6 in order.
Folks, character generation methods in 1e has nothing to do with backgrounds in 5e. Maybe take that discussion to a different thread.
Totes fair. It is tangentially related in the sense that backgrounds are best used to encourage roleplaying (imo), and this method for stat generation also fosters creativity. But I agree that it's a bit off topic
InfamousArchmage, my point was that not one of the canon methods for rolling ability scores in 1E had players roll 3d6 only six times. The methods that use 3d6 do so in a way that increases the chances for better ability scores due to the sheer number of rolls.
Later, when UA came out, it offered an incredibly generous method for rolling based on class. For instance, if you chose to run a fighter, you could roll SEVEN d6 for your STR score (but only 3d6 for Wisdom).
My whole point being: the idea of there being some kind of virtue in a strict 3d6 only six times is one that was not supported by a key designer of the original game.
I knew what you meant. I was just clarifying how each method worked.
Personally I don't care what method different tables use. You could roll nothing and just write whatever numbers in the boxes you want for all I care. You could put 18s against every attribute if you wish. I have simply defended d6 in order from those who want to insist "no one" used or uses this method as if a preference for this method does not exist. It does. It is how attributes continue to be rolled at some tables and is baked into many popular OSR games.
I prefer this method. And I have given reasons why. I believe it is more conducive to producing characters of the same class that are more varied in their attributes. Instead of every fighter having high this and that and low this or that. It also sees characters with imperfections. With at least one dismally low attribute. And these have often brought out the best storytelling at tables at which I have played.
Nothing wrong with people doing it differently. But there is no need for them to pretend "everyone" hates 3d6 in order.
If I used rolled attributes at all, I would require rolling attributes in order, because to the degree there's a value to rolled attributes, it's that it produces the occasional unexpected character, and if you can rearrange the attributes at will, that goes away.
I have also played this way, and it is a fun way to play, it makes for very different characters, and creates an opportunity to stretch the creative muscles.
I have also played in an extreme min/max style of games.
I am not sure what the communities consensus is, but I plan to use the old backgrounds (not custom) with the flavourful features, and either allow the players to pick the feat they want, or associate it with where they are now. The expanded backgrounds that have no feat, I probably will let them pick, but I might just assign "skilled" as a catch all. And, finally, will allow them to put their stat boosts wherever they would like. At least as my general rule for character creation.
Sometimes, 3d6 down the road, and pick your locked in selection version of the backgrounds would be fun.
I would note that you can simply remove ASIs from backgrounds entirely -- it's just 3 attribute points, you can accomplish the same by adjusting your die rolling scheme (or point total, for point build) to produce slightly higher attributes. For example, if you're rolling 3d6 down the line, the average character on 4k3 with backgrounds (76 attribute points) is about the 95th percentile, so rolling twenty characters and picking your favorite (with no adjustment for background) will produce a character with about as many attribute points as the standard rules (though inefficiently distributed, so probably worse than a character built with the standard rule; you probably need 50-100 to expect something better than standard).
I bet pre-basic/advanced split also had 3d6 down the line. It had to come from somewhere in basic. (Also, what method did the original PHB present? That's the method players were presented with.)
Lots of players in the 2014 rules, new and old, felt constrained to pick race based on what class they wanted to play.
The structure of the game encourages this. Stat bonuses are important enough, especially at low levels, that you reasonably feel like you're handicapping yourself by not doing it. (In practice, it's not as important as it feels initially, but it does matter.)
Min-maxing your initial stats is not a bad thing, and doesn't need discouraging, especially for newer players. It definitely doesn't need discouraging by making players think they have to choose between effectiveness and concept.
It's clear to me that your definition of roleplaying is at odds with many, many other people's.
For most people, the concept comes first. It's frequently pretty simple at first -- for instance, "I wanna play a wizard this time". They then dial the initial interest in through the game options -- "Warlock looks neat. Great Old One sounds cool. I'm going to dial the creepy factor up to eleven, but the character has no idea there's anything wrong with them."
Sure, if you have no ideas, a randomizer could help, but you can achieve the same effect by rolling a d12.
Randomized stats add variance. 3d6 down the line is just the highest-variance version. And variance is not necessarily good. For every "interesting quirk because of high unused side stat", there's also "unsuited for a class you want to play", "mediocre at everything" (in AD&D those were typically forced into fighter, even if they were bad at it, because it was the only class without a required stat minimum), and the ever-popular "overshadowed by somebody else because they just flat-out rolled better".
There are plenty of ways to distinguish characters that don't have such inherent problems. Backgrounds, for one.
You played in a game that with people who self-selected to play in that type of game. Of course they didn't complain.
"Perfect" is a straw man. What most people prefer is "everybody starts from the same baseline".
It's not a particularly large movement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable to the number of people who still play 4e. (But there's no real way to tell)
But "a bunch of people like this" does not mean a larger number of people would. Nor does it mean it's not bad game design. (But, of course, what's good or bad game design depends in part on the goal. There are design goals for which it's fine. But they're not the goals of modern D&D. (And it's questionable that it's been a good fit for the goals of any version of D&D.))
Well, you can look at the ORR report for roll20, though it hasn't been updated for a couple years. Back in 2021 AD&D (1e and 2e) was 0.19% of games, 4e was 0.17%, OD&D was 0.05%.
I remember programming my Vic-20 to churn out 3d6x6 stat sets, so I'm guessing that was Red Box Basic
The 1e PHB didn't suggest a method of rolling them up at all -- they were all in the DMG (page 11 in the copy I just pulled off the shelf), which offered the following:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wait, the PHB (published before the DMG) didn't include any complete method of making a character?
I'd like to say I find that unbelievable, but it's not.
The exact quote on page 9 is
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
More interestingly, the monster manual was released first, a whole year before the PHB. Most people just generated scores however they had been previously with the white books or followed the rules found in the basic set (Holmes)
3d6 in order started with OD&D in 1974.
I have explained the shortcomings of the min-max approach. It homogenizes characters. Background choices or whatever backstories are provided characters doesn't change the fact the characters are practically identical in terms of their physical and mental prowess. Neither the fiction that inspired the game nor myth nor legend reduces all heroes to the point their physical and mental prowess is identical. Many warriors in sword and sorcery fiction are deeply philosophical. Or highly charismatic. They have flaws. They vary in their strengths and weaknesses. Not all are exceptionally strong. The min-max approach is an approach that makes for strong "characters." But it is not at all conducive to prioritizing characterization and prioritizing roleplaying over rollplaying. A wizard with barely above average INT but who has made it as a wizard is a wizard fit for fiction. In a world in which most wizards are exceptionally intelligent that character is exceptional. That is a wizard worth writing about least of all one worth playing. Who cares if rolling a success may occur less often? It is a roleplaying game. Not a rollplaying game. Do you see what I'm saying?
For many the concept does come first. And that's fine. I have played in games in which we have used that approach. And had plenty of fun! But no more so than I have had in those I remember from my formative years with the game or recently in games in which characters were even rolled randomly and we didn't even get to pick our race or background least of all allocate attributes however we wanted.
What attributes are "unsuited" to a class? Can no wizard be strong? Is there no such thing in the literature? Can no player come up with something to explain this? A wizard in possession of immense physical strength is a wizard with a story to tell. A gentle giant for example. I once played a firbolg thief who was just that.
Mediocre at everything? Roll again. The AD&D DMG suggests rolling 3d6 in order 12 times and choosing the best set. I should imagine even the pickiest of players is going to find one satisfactory unless he or she wants the character to earn a spot on the Justice League of America. And what do you mean by mediocre? Just how many scores "must" be above average? More than one? "Must" a player have at least one 18 after adjustments are made? Why?
Overshadowed? Again. A storytelling opportunity lost in which that gentle giant could outclass the fighter but chose a life of study over one of violence.
You have essentially proven my point: Talk of "unsuited" attributes. A character being outclassed by one belonging to another class. The powergaming mindset that drives min-max is just not as conducive to roleplaying as is randomization. It means an infinity of possible stories are discarded to again build a party that consists of characters not too dissimilar to almost every other party. Wizards could add a hundred new classes and it wouldn't solve that problem. It's not for a lack of options. It's players wanting to have the "best" fighter or the "best" wizard. Instead of playing a fighter or a wizard. This is why many have walked away from modern gaming. Why many even newcomers to the hobby who enjoyed 5th. Edition for years have walked away from it. Why they too now prefer the old-school approach: It is unpredictable.
My point about the OSR or even those who still play older editions is not that they are right. It is that their preferred style of play is as valid as yours. That movement however relatively small began in protest against what is a more modern approach to D&D and the "build" approach is a part of that and one that really only saw an increase in popularity following the arrival of 3rd. Edition and more and more with the advent of immersive video role-playing games. I played extensively throughout the lifecycles of 1st. and 2nd. and among those I played with then the only people who wanted to "build" their characters instead of seeing how their characters would evolve throughout the campaign—for example a player deciding to multi-class because it makes sense provided something that happened in the story and not just to gain this or that ability—were the types of players who would bring inconceivably high attributes to the table and expect everyone to believe these numbers were rolled. They were considered problem players. I really don't care if that's how people want to play. Like I said I couldn't care less if you assigned 18 to every single attribute. I have simply explained why many of us like 3d6 in order. Given some thought they could speak for everyone and say "no one" did it and "no one" likes it.
The game that swept the ENNIEs this year uses 3d6 in order. (Players get to re-roll if they have not managed to roll at least one number that is equal to or greater than 14.)
Does that mean it is an immensely popular method? Not particularly. But people shouldn't pretend "no one" does it and "no one" likes it. That game will never boast the sorts of numbers Wizards do. But its popularity cannot be overstated.
I enjoy this style of play, and almost all of your points are well considered and I agree with, depending on what sort of game I want to run. The only two caveats I will point out: 1) Using this method, not every GM who does this, will allow multiple rerolls. Heck, I tend to limit them to six set, pick the set you like best. 2) You are entirely capable of wanting to play a wizard, and ending up with an 8 intelligence, so people's criticism of this method is not 100% invalid, and is wholly dependent on the GM running the game.
I think 2e was pretty much in line with most of the 5e character creation rules. As for Basic, it is blurry to me mostly because all of those rules were revised and consolidated in the Rules Cyclopedia. From there you would use 3d6 down the line, but after you decided your class, you were allowed to go back and take two points off of your scores and add only ONE point each time to your primary requisite score. The only restrictions were none of the ability scores could be lower than 9 and you couldn't lower Charisma, Constitution or Dexterity at all.
So is this thread about frustrations with background creation/customization or with wanting to optimize? Has this been resolved, because I thought the book clarified that you can still customize your background and bring in legacy species in Chapter 2.
If this has already been addressed in the five pages of topics, disregard.
It has been addressed (imo). That is exactly how I handle it, the books are clear about it, etc. I think the discussion moved from "this doesn't work" to seemingly "how this should work"
1. You are right. Not every DM would be kind enough to allow players to roll more than one set. A bit too strict I would agree. But if everyone at the table is perfectly happy with how that DM runs things then who are we to complain? Me I tend to get players to roll up four sets of numbers for four potential characters. Eight if I am feeling rather generous. Consider what each might be. What class exactly might make the most sense for each of those sets of numbers. Give at least some thought to explaining other attributes and why things might be so uncharacteristically high or low. And then make their choice.
2. I wouldn't want to play wizard if I only rolled an 8 for INT. I would just choose a different class. I can totally understand players' wanting to try a class they have never tried or even coming up with an idea and hoping to use it at the table but it is not the end of the world if that has to wait. The real point of 3d6 in order is that class not be chosen until after the numbers are rolled.
Concepts are fine. But they can place constraints on characters and on their players. Like many I too used to write somewhat elaborate backstories for my characters. Up until just recently. And then I discovered the joy of doing one of two things: Either (a) waiting until after the first session to see how the character has played. To see who the character really is. And then and only then writing anything at all. Or (b) writing nothing more than the briefest of vignettes that depict a mere moment in the character's past. This has been liberating. It allows the character to grow in a way that is much more organic. It's not prescripted. It's not caged within the space of a page.