I rather like this type of character creation, that is that the rolls and choices dictate what "job" the character has dedicated himself to. It reminds me of earlier editions of DND and lends itself less to min maxing and more rounded characters. I also like the idea of a setting where something like a a genie would be less likely than a human given that there are so many more humans in most parts of the world.
To me, that's the opposite of how a good character should be made.
I don't approach a game with no idea of what I want to do or play. I'm perfectly happy to discuss with my other players to determine what they want to do, and find myself a niche to occupy and fill. I'm a big fan of the session zero, for character prep and generation (but, coming from GURPS, that's an important step). Hand of Bobb likes to play spell casters. If he rolls a set of attributes that have a high Str and Con and an abysmal Int and Wis, why would he want to continue in a class he doesn't enjoy? KaosKoyote likes rogues and other Dex Monkeys. If she's tacked with an abysmal Dex, and forced into, say, a spell caster (which she hates to play), would she have any fun? Why would you want to force players into playing something they don't want to play?
Someone I consider a wise man once said: run what the players want to play, not what you want to run. Heck, that's why I'm playing D&D. Four of the six of us wanted to give it a try (Hand of Bobb and I were the holdouts). But, if my players are having fun, then I'm doing my job correctly.
To me, that's the opposite of how a good character should be made.
I don't approach a game with no idea of what I want to do or play. I'm perfectly happy to discuss with my other players to determine what they want to do, and find myself a niche to occupy and fill...
Look, I can't disagree with anything you're saying here, but neither of us said this was a method designed to generate "good" characters - it results in interesting characters where many of the weaknesses and strengths are not completely chosen by the player. Obviously (like all other possible creation methods) it is only appropriate for people who would enjoy using it. I personally do not enjoy using point-buying. Not one bit.
And to clarify, when I refer to some other methods feeling backwards I am particularly thinking of methods where you choose the class then roll for each stat and live with those results. I remember old computer games (Bard's Tale from the 80s) you would choose to be a rogue then sit there for ages clicking reroll until you had something that even vaguely resembled a rogue's stats. I just feel the most appropriate order for creating a person is race -> stats (via whatever method) -> class. It just feels wrong to start by creating a fighter and then later down the line choose to be a half-orc to make that fighter stronger...
So you can choose who your parents are (or more likely, who they were, before some monster of your choosing ripped them to pieces, leaving you an orphan), where you were born, how old you are, what colour your eyes are, whether you have a phobia, noble blood, or even an impressively large [CENSORED].
But you can't choose to have eaten well and gone to the gym? Put effort into your social skills and learned the tricks to real self confidence? Intelligence (and wisdom) we are probably stuck with, but given a positive attitude (sadly lacking in yours truly) amazing results can be expected.
Robert E. Howard was a pale, stick-thin nerd until he decided he didn't like being a pale, stick-thin nerd. He buffed up and became a toned, fit, self-confident nerd who wished he was Conan. Arnie was probably never a pale, stick-thin nerd, but he surely wasn't born as a Conan look-alike.
Please note, I do not own a gym. I do not sell, or market health foods and/or steroids. I am, - except for some traitorous, middle-aged belly fat - a pale, stick-thin nerd. But ultimately, that is down to me.
Random stats should have been binned in the eighties.
Like I say, I'm not arguing here that a way is better than any other another way. But we are saying we enjoy different things. I see people all over these forums suggesting that no one could possibly have fun unless all characters are equal, unless each player gets to choose their exact idealised character setup, and that each character fits neatly into a preassigned slot in an optimised party. I don't enjoy that. I, and also other people, enjoy other things. I enjoy making do with imperfect resources. I enjoy throwing together a rag-tag bunch of ill-prepared nobodies and hoping they can triumph in the end. The method I described is an attempt to start that story.
To me, that's the opposite of how a good character should be made.
I don't approach a game with no idea of what I want to do or play. I'm perfectly happy to discuss with my other players to determine what they want to do, and find myself a niche to occupy and fill. I'm a big fan of the session zero, for character prep and generation (but, coming from GURPS, that's an important step). Hand of Bobb likes to play spell casters. If he rolls a set of attributes that have a high Str and Con and an abysmal Int and Wis, why would he want to continue in a class he doesn't enjoy? KaosKoyote likes rogues and other Dex Monkeys. If she's tacked with an abysmal Dex, and forced into, say, a spell caster (which she hates to play), would she have any fun? Why would you want to force players into playing something they don't want to play?
Someone I consider a wise man once said: run what the players want to play, not what you want to run. Heck, that's why I'm playing D&D. Four of the six of us wanted to give it a try (Hand of Bobb and I were the holdouts). But, if my players are having fun, then I'm doing my job correctly.
Monday Morning, so I am playing Devil's Advocate:
So you can choose who your parents are (or more likely, who they were, before some monster of your choosing ripped them to pieces, leaving you an orphan), where you were born, how old you are, what colour your eyes are, whether you have a phobia, noble blood, or even an impressively large [CENSORED].
But you can't choose to have eaten well and gone to the gym? Put effort into your social skills and learned the tricks to real self confidence?
Intelligence (and wisdom) we are probably stuck with, but given a positive attitude (sadly lacking in yours truly) amazing results can be expected.
Robert E. Howard was a pale, stick-thin nerd until he decided he didn't like being a pale, stick-thin nerd. He buffed up and became a toned, fit, self-confident nerd who wished he was Conan.
Arnie was probably never a pale, stick-thin nerd, but he surely wasn't born as a Conan look-alike.
Please note, I do not own a gym. I do not sell, or market health foods and/or steroids. I am, - except for some traitorous, middle-aged belly fat - a pale, stick-thin nerd. But ultimately, that is down to me.
Random stats should have been binned in the eighties.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Like I say, I'm not arguing here that a way is better than any other another way. But we are saying we enjoy different things. I see people all over these forums suggesting that no one could possibly have fun unless all characters are equal, unless each player gets to choose their exact idealised character setup, and that each character fits neatly into a preassigned slot in an optimised party. I don't enjoy that. I, and also other people, enjoy other things. I enjoy making do with imperfect resources. I enjoy throwing together a rag-tag bunch of ill-prepared nobodies and hoping they can triumph in the end. The method I described is an attempt to start that story.
83
Testing the feature!
Another test: Compare (2d6 + 6) x 7 drop lowest with 24d6 drop lowest 4.
1. 2d6 + 6 x 7: 14 11 11 13 9 15 9
2. 24d6 drop lowest 4: 5 4 4 4 4 3 5 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 6 6 3 3 2 1 3 2 4 4
Lot's of stuff ...