Here's a stat roll system I came up with over christmas and have tested a little bit.

For each of DEX, STR, CON, and APP, roll 1d6+10. That's your score.
For SIZ, you have a base score of 14.
Add +1 SIZ for each of the 4 stats you have at 11-12, and -1 for each at 15-16.

This system generates wildly varying characters, but makes it hard to have a really good all-round character who is also really big. Characters tend to be evenly spread between 4d6 and 5d6; but those who are good alround tend to have 4d6, and those who are more variable (some low) tend to have 5d6. You cant roll a stat of 17 or 18 (SIZ might be that high if you roll badly everywhere else), though players can of course still improve stats in the final part of character design, as normal. You also cant roll a stat below 10, so that works out.

This means you have a stat roll system that never generates characters so awful you really want to reroll them, or too good that everyone else hates you. :)

Lets say you roll
DEX 11, STR 11, CON 11, APP 11.
You have 4 stats in the 11-12 range, so your SIZ is 18.
Then you get +3 to CON if a cymric, so you have
HP 32, DMG 5d6.

Now lets say you roll
DEX 15, STR 13, CON 16, APP 14.
You have no low stats, and 2 at 15-16, so your SIZ is 14-2 = 12.
Add +3 CON for 19.
HP 31, DMG 4d6.

One final example:
DEX 14, STR 11, CON 14, APP 16
You get +1 to SIZ for the 11, and -1 for the 16, so it remains at 14.
Affter adding +3 CON (17), we have 31 HP, 4d6 damage.

Well, I'm really against rolling stats, partly because stats are important to players and I don't want to force players to play characters with stats they don't like, and partly because it is so hard to strike a balance between randomness and playability. Rolling 3d6 straight produces 80% unplayable characters in KAP, where stats really matters. SIZ should be at least 14 and CON probably in the 12-14 region to have a character with a reasonable chance of survival.

But if I did allow rolling, I think I should go for this system. I really like the way you try to keep SIZ-inflation in check. And, of course, since SIZ will be at least 14 and SIZ can be increased four steps during character creation, the min-maxer get their due: the can start with SIZ 18 - if they really want it (but would be horribly poor fighters if they do chose that way). I player could be saddled with a CON 11 character, but he at least has the option of increasing it before play. And most characters ar Cymric anyway, so would have a good solid CON of at least 14.

I like the general idea, but it seems odd set up Str and Siz as antagonistic--big frames can carry more muscle.

I can certainly see Dex and Siz as being negatively correlated.

I can see an argument for CON being negatively correlated with SIZ if it is really stamina and not general health. Endurance athletes are usually light.

My rolling preference in and 3-18 stat game is to roll 4d6 and drop the lowest with some ability to re-distribute points along the way (say 3 pts). It might be worth having some rules about contrasting traits (Siz and Dex) such that only one of the two could be over 14 or something like that.

NT

With the roll 4d6, discard 1 die method, I have seen quite a few overpowering characters, and many bad characters, and more bland characters. I've also seen GMs who use that system get frustrated and end up modifying it further, allowing players to discard individual rolls, or sets of rolls, until one comes up that is playable.

This system here was designed to make every character playable, no further tweaking necessary. It was designed to give players more points than the 60pt standard, averaging somewhere close to the older 70pt standard, but ensuring the distribution of those points had a random element, while also ensuring no player was overwhelming more powerful or weaker than any other. I think it succeeds at those goals. It was also designed to be dead simple (the system I used prior to this required a spreadsheet or programmable calculator....).

My thoughts on applying 'realism' to character design: I see what you're saying, but it is not meant to be an accurate simulation of the real world. I'm concerned with producing well-balanced characters but varied characters, who are playable. The results aren't unrealistic - they are plausible, but balanced.

With this system I'm not correlating high SIZ with negative STR or DEX (any more than players do when using the points allocation system: do you ask a player who assigns SIZ 18 and STR 11 to rethink that because high SIZ should be accompanied by high STR?). I'm correlating high SIZ with greater character power and survivability, and balancing the other stats with respect to that. If you have high SIZ, you dont need a bunch of other stats as high. You have a perfectly playable character as long as the other stats meet some minimum standard (guaranteed in this system). If you have high in all round stats, then having high SIZ as well arguably makes you too good. (Only as far as initial character deisgn goes - I have no objection to players developing their characters in any way they like - high size +str, etc. But players will stat from a more even position, just as they would with, say, the 60pt allocation method.)

But if I did allow rolling, I think I should go for this system. I really like the way you try to keep SIZ-inflation in check. And, of course, since SIZ will be at least 14 and SIZ can be increased four steps during character creation, the min-maxer get their due: the can start with SIZ 18 -


Thanks Sky. Though SIZ doesn't have a minimum of 14, it can be as low as 10. If all other stats are at 15-16, thats 4 penalties to the base score of SIZ. BUT, if you end up with, say, a SIZ 12 or below, it means you are very good everywhere else. I've had players with playable characters of SIZ 11 and 12, which means -
* they roll knockdowns more often, but possibly have higher dex, so don't fall over as often as the, say, SIZ 16 DEX 8 character I often see in the 60pt generation method.
* they have fewer hit points from siz, but their CON is probably higher so this compenasates - and they will suffer fewer major wounds too!
* and since STR is probably higher, they dont suffer in damage rolls either.

A decent tweak to the system might be:
Roll DEX, STR, and CON on 1d6+10.
SIZ is base 15, add +1 for each of above stats at 11-12, and -1 for each at 15-16.
This gives a SIZ range of 12-18.
Then roll APP whatever way you like - 3d6, 2d6+6, 1d6 +10, etc. It doesn't affect character survivability in the same way as the other stats do.

I'm all for the idea of more playable characters. But in the end, the generation method doesn't really matter. What matters is providing the proper opponents. In a lot of games, PCs are generated on one scale, but NPCs seem to be generated on another, more powerful scale.

If one harkens back to 3d6 as the scale of attributes, your average, random NPC knight should have stats around 11. A PC knight with 60 points is then a bit better than your average NPC knight. Just keep the power scale of NPCs relevant to the power scale of the PC knights.

And...I don't think STR and SIZ need to be correlated. I just think they shouldn't be negatively correlated.

E

I'm all for the idea of more playable characters. But in the end, the generation method doesn't really matter. What matters is providing the proper opponents. In a lot of games, PCs are generated on one scale, but NPCs seem to be generated on another, more powerful scale.

If one harkens back to 3d6 as the scale of attributes, your average, random NPC knight should have stats around 11. A PC knight with 60 points is then a bit better than your average NPC knight. Just keep the power scale of NPCs relevant to the power scale of the PC knights.

True, true. An "Average knight" in the rule book has SIZ 14, DEX 11, STR 14, CON 14 and APP 11. This should be the baseline, and whenever I use knightly opponents against my PKs one third of them (on average) is of this level, not matter who good or bad my PKs are.

The problem with the random model is, well, that's it random, and in many cases creates PKs that are inferior to these, run-of-the-mill, non-heroic knights. I just rolled five such PKs with 3d6 (I here assume that they are all Cymric):

Knight #1: SIZ 13, DEX 11, STR 9, CON 12, APP 12
Knight #2: SIZ 8, DEX 14, STR 7, CON 12, APP 13
Knight #3: SIZ 17, DEX 8, STR 12, CON 12, APP 11
Knight #4: SIZ 10, DEX 9, STR 12, CON 8, APP 12
Knight #5: SIZ 9, DEX 16, STR 9, CON 19, APP 7

Knight #2 and #4 are inferior to the average knight, even if they increase their stats with all four possible points; Knight #1 is just plain boring (and average), Knight #3 is actually playable and knight #5 would be decent if he increased his SIZ all four steps (but aging and/or Major Wounds could send him to bed early in his career).

Darren system is random - and gives more balanced PKs.

You could roll 2d6+6 to, I guess, but that will still generate some rather unplayable PKs - and some monster PKs. I think that 2d6+6 combined with a Darren-like system to keep SIZ as a balancing factor could work too.

But buying stats is still the best system ... ;)

... I just rolled five such PKs with 3d6 (I here assume that they are all Cymric)

Your argument would be stronger if the actual random chargen rules were used, so I've refigured the examples you gave per BoK&L p50 (ie 3d6+4 for SIZ, 3d6+1 for the others) and added in the secondary stats that derive from them:

Knight #1: SIZ 17, DEX 12, STR 10, CON 13, APP 13 (Pts=65, HP=30, Dam=5d6, HR=2, Mv=2)
Knight #2: SIZ 12, DEX 15, STR 8, CON 13, APP 14 (Pts=62, HP=25, Dam=3d6, HR=2, Mv=2)
Knight #3: SIZ 21, DEX 9, STR 13, CON 13, APP 12 (Pts=68, HP=34, Dam=6d6, HR=3, Mv=2)
Knight #4: SIZ 14, DEX 10, STR 13, CON 9, APP 13 (Pts=59, HP=23, Dam=5d6, HR=2, Mv=2)
Knight #5: SIZ 13, DEX 17, STR 10, CON 20, APP 8 (Pts=68, HP=33, Dam=4d6, HR=3, Mv=3)

Examples #2 and #4 are below the point-buy budget of 63 and somewhat fragile granted - but not disastrously so, especially if you are willing to devote your freebie advances to patching up the weak stats.

Of course point-buy chargen has its own issues - as illustrated by the various and sundry posts on this board about how to get players to stop using APP and/or DEX as dump stats during chargen...

Regards
Luke

Guess I should have done that. The +1 makes a significant difference to the starting lineup. And +4 SIZ is extremely generous (and is there, I guess, to make more random characters playable). With these additions and +3 from Culture should give an average of 63,5 stat points if I got the math correct. Even with this, Knight #2 and #4 seems rather poor, and their players would have to make a choice between starting with either poor stats and good combat skills or decent stats and poor combat skills. Not a fun choice to make.

But +4 in SIZ make PKs way to unbalanced compared to regular knights, in my view. That is, if you want PKs to start out somewhat better than average knights, but not totally so.

I think that in the end it boils down to what you want from the system. I want to empower players - even if the price is a lot of characters with weak DEX and APP - and I want a fair system, one that do not saddle some players with poor or just plain weird stat lines and gift some players with super heroes - so I use the point by system.

I think that the system Darren has presented here solves many of the problems with the system presented in the BoKL if you want your players to roll their PKs stats.

Your argument would be stronger if the actual random chargen rules were used, so I've refigured the examples you gave per BoK&L p50 (ie 3d6+4 for SIZ, 3d6+1 for the others) and added in the secondary stats that derive from them:

Knight #1: SIZ 17, DEX 12, STR 10, CON 13, APP 13 (Pts=65, HP=30, Dam=5d6, HR=2, Mv=2)
Knight #2: SIZ 12, DEX 15, STR 8, CON 13, APP 14 (Pts=62, HP=25, Dam=3d6, HR=2, Mv=2)
Knight #3: SIZ 21, DEX 9, STR 13, CON 13, APP 12 (Pts=68, HP=34, Dam=6d6, HR=3, Mv=2)
Knight #4: SIZ 14, DEX 10, STR 13, CON 9, APP 13 (Pts=59, HP=23, Dam=5d6, HR=2, Mv=2)
Knight #5: SIZ 13, DEX 17, STR 10, CON 20, APP 8 (Pts=68, HP=33, Dam=4d6, HR=3, Mv=3)


Those are only 5 chgaracters rolled up very quickly. Over the course of a campaign, you could see ten times that many, easily, and will see more variation. You'll have the rare character with no stats between 15, and you'll see all too many characters with no stats above 11. I have seen stats like this far too many times: 8, 6, 9, 11, 12. (In fact, when i'm playing the game, those are the kinds of stats I tend to roll!)

Those are only 5 chgaracters rolled up very quickly. Over the course of a campaign, you could see ten times that many, easily, and will see more variation. You'll have the rare character with no stats between 15, and you'll see all too many characters with no stats above 11. I have seen stats like this far too many times: 8, 6, 9, 11, 12. (In fact, when i'm playing the game, those are the kinds of stats I tend to roll!)


Yup! I was just trying to make a point - so many 3d6-rolled characters are just plain doomed a very quick death. I did roll stats at the beginning of my last campaign, but eventually abandoned it for the point buy system with the agreement of my players. And I think that the quest for the "right" way to roll stats proves how hard it is to strike a balance between randomness and character survivability. This is what your system accomplishes, if I haven't missed something.