"4d6 drop lowest puts your most common number at an 8"

Uhm, i dont think so. 

Your statistical average is.somewhere around  12 or 13.

Also, rolling 6 times means you have average high score of 16.  If you roll 4d6 drop lowest and repeat six times, your highest ability scroe, out of all six scores, on average, is a 16.

Thats on average. And you do have a smaller chance of your highest score being a 17. I think its like 30%. And you have like a sliver of a chance (5% i think) of your highest star being an 18.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"4d6 drop lowest puts your most common number at an 8"

Uhm, i dont think so. 

As is obvious from context, that was supposed to be “highest” and sleep deprivation/habit of writing the more common system took over. I have since corrected the post.  The numbers are, however, correct - 4d6 drop highest gives you a mode of 8, and an average of 8.76, and standard deviation a bit over 2.  That does not lend itself to a viable stat spread.

That isnt true at all.  It might provide variation in the stats, but its not going to provide the variation in what is actually viable to build.  And that is the pt.  You cant compare the two.  Dropping the highest v dropping the lowest is NOT going to give you the same result.  By definition.  So why in the world would anyone WANT to drop the highest score and make definitively far worst characters (mechanically)?  I mean, sure I guess there are some drama/narrative only people who think this might be fun...but its generally I cant see it.  Again, it just seems that people have shifted from thinking powerful characters are good to this idea that flawed/weak/sub optimal is the goal...and I just wont get that perspective.  No character, ok few characters, are actually going to be able to pull off being super good at everything (even with 4d6/drop lowest) and that is total reasonable, but that doesnt mean you need to [nerf] yourself.  Doesnt real life to that to people enough??  LOL. 

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Sure, it gives you random stats - but it gives you statistically unplayable stats, likely even eclipsed by standard array.  Mathematically your idea is not a very good one.  It does not add anything 4d6 drop lowest does not already do, and does the same thing in a way that is statistically terrible for players.  

I mean, I'm playing in a campaign right now where we were given the option of rolling straight d20s for our stats (I did... it didn't go great :P), so I'm game for just about anything, but 4d6 drop highest sounds like the kind of antagonistic 'DM vs. players' nonsense we should have left behind in the last century

Point buy/array is designed to give you a total of about 72. 4d6 drop lowest comes in a little above that (roughly 74 on average), but not by a whole lot. 4d6 drop highest would come in significantly below that 72 target

I dont mind there being a nice competition between DM and players.  Again, this is DnD, which to me invokes dungeons and epic fights and if the DM isnt going 100 percent best they can, I dont think its satisfying.  I been playing since 1982 or so, and ya this is probably a generational thing.  That isnt to say the DM just makes unwinnable encounters, just that I'd rather they dont pull punches or put in mechanics that basically save them at the last moment.  Its why I hate Death Saves so much.  It doesnt teach players to be smarter, more cautious, and attentive.

Quote from shadow_2099 >>

I been playing since 1982 or so, and ya this is probably a generational thing.

I've been playing since AD&D/Red Box. I still remember the days of programming my VIC-20 to spit out sets of 3d6 and sifting through them looking for a playable PC. Frankly, generating stats that way sucked -- even the AD&D DMG offered better ways to generate stats than just straight 3d6 six times

DMs are there to guide the players toward the best/most entertaining story for the group. For most tables, that isn't going to involve the DM saying right from the jump, "y'all are going to have bad stats. Deal with it"

Quote from shadow_2099 >>

I dont mind there being a nice competition between DM and players.  Again, this is DnD, which to me invokes dungeons and epic fights and if the DM isnt going 100 percent best they can, I dont think its satisfying.  I been playing since 1982 or so, and ya this is probably a generational thing.  That isnt to say the DM just makes unwinnable encounters, just that I'd rather they dont pull punches or put in mechanics that basically save them at the last moment.  Its why I hate Death Saves so much.  It doesnt teach players to be smarter, more cautious, and attentive.

 DMs not pulling punches is certainly a valid play style. You don't need to adjust stats to do that though. You just... don't pull punches in fights. In many ways, it's easier when that stats are higher because you can afford to punch harder.

Quote from shadow_2099 >>

I dont mind there being a nice competition between DM and players.  Again, this is DnD, which to me invokes dungeons and epic fights and if the DM isnt going 100 percent best they can, I dont think its satisfying.  I been playing since 1982 or so, and ya this is probably a generational thing.  That isnt to say the DM just makes unwinnable encounters, just that I'd rather they dont pull punches or put in mechanics that basically save them at the last moment.  Its why I hate Death Saves so much.  It doesnt teach players to be smarter, more cautious, and attentive.

 I’ve been playing since ‘83 and disagree. Of course, if that’s fun for you and your table, then have at it. But it very possible to still have epic fights without it being DM v. everyone. Ideally, everyone is on the same side, the one where everyone has fun.

And I’m really not sure what kind of lessons you’re trying to teach the players, or for that matter, why they need to be taught anything. I’m trying to blow off steam and goof with my friends, not learn how to pretend to be cautious. Really, all you’ll learn is how to counter the idiosyncrasies of that particular DM and how they design their encounters. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from shadow_2099 >>

I dont mind there being a nice competition between DM and players.  Again, this is DnD, which to me invokes dungeons and epic fights and if the DM isnt going 100 percent best they can, I dont think its satisfying.  I been playing since 1982 or so, and ya this is probably a generational thing.  That isnt to say the DM just makes unwinnable encounters, just that I'd rather they dont pull punches or put in mechanics that basically save them at the last moment.  Its why I hate Death Saves so much.  It doesnt teach players to be smarter, more cautious, and attentive.

 I’ve been playing since ‘83 and disagree. Of course, if that’s fun for you and your table, then have at it. But it very possible to still have epic fights without it being DM v. everyone. Ideally, everyone is on the same side, the one where everyone has fun.

And I’m really not sure what kind of lessons you’re trying to teach the players, or for that matter, why they need to be taught anything. I’m trying to blow off steam and goof with my friends, not learn how to pretend to be cautious. Really, all you’ll learn is how to counter the idiosyncrasies of that particular DM and how they design their encounters. 

Was in a few years earlier, and as there is no DM vs players, the DM challenge is how to bring the excitement/challenge of towing the line and get your toes to touch the line without crossing it.  Sometimes it doesn't work because either the DM pushed past the line or we never even got close.  A great DM can read the room to determine how much we are trying to blow off steam and how much is goof with friends.

Quote from Xalthu>>

Quote from shadow_2099>>

I dont mind there being a nice competition between DM and players.  Again, this is DnD, which to me invokes dungeons and epic fights and if the DM isnt going 100 percent best they can, I dont think its satisfying.  I been playing since 1982 or so, and ya this is probably a generational thing.  That isnt to say the DM just makes unwinnable encounters, just that I'd rather they dont pull punches or put in mechanics that basically save them at the last moment.  Its why I hate Death Saves so much.  It doesnt teach players to be smarter, more cautious, and attentive.

 I’ve been playing since ‘83 and disagree. Of course, if that’s fun for you and your table, then have at it. But it very possible to still have epic fights without it being DM v. everyone. Ideally, everyone is on the same side, the one where everyone has fun.

Quote from shadow_2099 >>

I dont mind there being a nice competition between DM and players.  Again, this is DnD, which to me invokes dungeons and epic fights and if the DM isnt going 100 percent best they can, I dont think its satisfying.  I been playing since 1982 or so, and ya this is probably a generational thing. 

 No, it really isn't (I started on blue box D&D). The reality is, if the DM wants to kill the PCs, the DM is going to kill the PCs, because the DM doesn't have a budget. The real questions are "when designing an encounter/dungeon/whatever, how hard do I make it (and is it tuned for the PCs)" and "when running an encounter/dungeon/whatever, what do I have the monsters actually do?" with a side order of "and if the encounter doesn't go more or less as expected, do I cheat".

All of these have varying answers.

Never cheat.  If things go badly, that is the game part of RPG.

I’m skipping most of this thread and it’s five years old so…

to go back to the original posters thing. as a DM I like 4d6, with the backdrop of the point by. so if you do just get crappy luck and roll a 10 a 9 a 9 a 7 a 704 etc. etc. you can at least backdrop to point by. Players are the heroes. They are the protagonist they are supposed to be, the Tom Brady, of the world.

now as a DM what I probably would’ve done is taking those rolls created a character based on them. Use him as an NPC that hated the group and all the adventures. Because he was scorned and left out because of one thing. Either he was a wimp or he was sick all the time or he wasn’t very intelligent. there’s a magic item to fix just about every stat in the game to a 19 or 21. Give him that and have him become the group nemesis throughout the entire campaign.

Wow! Some of you would not have coped with 3d6 down-the-line and roll for HP at level one. 

Try getting a 1e AD&D monk with 1hp-and-dead-at-zero to level two. Or maybe a first level magic user with their ONE, -count them, ONE- spell per day when you rolled Ventriloquism for your spell

Perhaps—and I'm just spitballing here—but just maybe 3d6 down the line was not very popular even back then, which is why 4d6k3 was an option as early as the 1st edition DMG...?

During the 90's when we played AD&D 2nd edition 3d6 down the line wasn't common practice. We always preferred to assign score as desired, and usually involved some reroll, either 1s, if not luck roll.

IIRC it was a method in the AD&D 2nd editions PHB.

EDIT Method I

Method I: Roll three six-sided dice (3d6); the total shown on the dice is your character's Strength ability score. Repeat this for Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, in that order. This method gives a range of scores from 3 to 18, with most results in the 9 to 12 range. Only a few characters have high scores (15 and above), so you should treasure these characters.

It was also the only given option in Basic/Expert, and probably in pre-AD&D versions.

One other method I've seen bandied about a bit -- roll six 3d6 keep 2, and then either the player or the DM adds a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 (only using each one once) to each stat as the third die based on your backstory. i.e., if your character grew up on a farm, you might put the 4 or 5 in STR -- even if your character grew up to become a wizard