Troll Lord Games

Its been my experience, when given the choice, that players like to have characters with high stats. I don't mind them having high stats because my biggest challenge as the CK is to challenge their characters without killing them, and allowing them to have higher stats and hit points makes that a little bit easier on me.

Yet some players, only 1 for me in the last 15 to 20 years that I can recall, like the added challenge of playing a character that they rolled only 3D6 for.

I've done pretty much every form fo character creation there is, from the old 3D6, in order, to the various methods offered in Dragon magazine and Unearthed Arcana, to a variety of "point buy" systems.

Then I eventually hit upon a thought. Why do I care how my players create THEIR character? Its their character, so why do I tell them how to create it? Especially things as critical as their attributes? The most important thing there is in order for them to play that highly charismatic thief they are thinking about, or their version of Conan? Or whatever other character that tickles their fancy? Why should I control and restrict that?

So for the last few years my rules for character generation in C&C have been this:

"Create characters however you wish within the 3-18 range, then racial modifiers. If you want a kind of random method then use either 10+2d4 or 4d6, reroll 1's and 2's until all dice are a minimum of 3, take best 3, arrange stats as desired.

I believe in high stat characters. If you don't I suggest you do for my games. Low stat characters will be very obviously less capable in comparison to high stat characters. So if you want to use low stats, go ahead, but don't complain about it later.

Hit Points: Max Hp's at first level. d4 HD reroll 1's, d6 and d8 reroll all 1's and 2's, d10 and d12 reroll 1-3's. You can also ask me about "take the CK's roll" before you roll for your HP.

Equipment: Max starting gold. Write everything on your character sheet. You don't write it down, you don't have it. Even when I remember you having it. So DON"T FORGET! You may want to use the starting bundles listed at/near the end of this document."


I have to say it has worked. My players are playing exactly the character concept they wanted and I have a little easier time keeping their PC's alive.

Not that their PC's don't still die. Even with Luck Points I have a fair amount of PC mortality. More than any other CK I play under, such as Kayolan, nwelte, Rigon, Titania LeFay and Rhuvein. Nwelte is probably closest.

I've also ran one campaign from level 1 to currently 17 and 18th level. Which is my home game with my family and a friend or three over the years. I do mean years, its over 7 years old now. My last on line game went to level 14 in 3 years, and the current game is at levels 8 and 9 in just over 2 years now, I think. So lots of PC death and lots of usage of Reincarnation, Raise Dead, and occasionally even Resurrection. Wish has been used a few times as well.

Still, some times players do decide its time to let their old PC stay dead, and to play a new one. I think my rules make that decision an easier one, because they don't have to worry about the new character not being as good as the old one.

I like to rolls stats, and I have my players roll stats for C&C. For me, it's 3d6 because that is what the rules say. Long ago I got tired of players in 3E demanding to have pretty much perfect stat lines. I think that is no fun, and I try to play up those things in the game in such a way that characters have fun with a low stat or two.

However, my 3d6 method is modified by letting the player roll 3d6 36 times and randomly arraging the rolled scores on a 6x6 grid (like a bingo board). The character can than choose a row, column, or diagnal of stats to use for their character. For the most part the players have had fun with this.

Though some of the 3E hold-overs HAVE to have all positive bonus stats. They cannot get around the fact that characters cannot have ANY negatives to them.

I actually agree with Treebore in the theory of letting players play the PC exactly as they want. Unfortuately I play with people who would abuse that to no end, and in doing so make the game unfun for me. I like rolling stats, and playing characters. Therefore, even though it's old-school in thought and practice, I continue to play that way.

~O

I use an auction, like Amber Diceless. Or rather, I have.

Basically, every player, separately, tells me what stats are their character's best. I then keep this in mind. If Player 1 wants to have Strength most important and no one else does, Player 1 gets to have Strength 18, plus racial adjustments. If Player 1 and Player 2 both want the same score to be best, they dice for it -- the player who wins gets to have an 18, and the other gets a 16. If three want the same to be best, they all dice and the winner gets an 18, second gets 16, and the third gets 14. I've never had more than 3 players want the same score to be their best.

In some cases, where players seem to want to play the same character (for example, if Player 1 and Player 2 both want Strength and Constitution to be best, then they alternate which of them "wins.) Sometimes, I'll even give the winner a slight bonus, like "get Strength of 18, but you get an extra +2 on Strength checks; the other guy who wanted Strength as best gets an 18, no extra bonus."

For most of my games, though, I just say "write down whatever you want for the attributes between 3 and racial maximum. Start at level 1. If you want max HP, get them... if you want to roll them, do that. I don't care how you create the character as long as you'll have fun playing it. If you want to be a race or class or both that doesn't exist in the PHB, talk with me about what you want and we'll work on it."

In the end, high stats are not game-breakers in C&C. Getting Prime in everything is. Therefore, as long as I know what they expect (ie, semi-gods because of super-attributes), then I can tweak what they see along the way... that keeps them in balance with the "world."

Personally, for my own PCs, I like to roll for it all. The randomness makes me think about the character and play differently than I might have thought. Maybe my character "thinks" he's a strongman and cheats to prove it (average Strength but good Intelligence?)

I give 'em 78 points to do with what they will. Compared to NPC's, 3D6 (ave roll) is above normal anyway...

78 gives the same average as 4D6 drop lowest.

Oh, one other thing. I don't use luck or fate points and equipment is usually selected by me. At least... the weapons and armor. Other gear can be purchased by the player. I do this because there are often restrictions like no axes found in Masaya, City of Flowers, or no metal armor to be found in the Dwellings of Friedhof. So, if characters are going to be from there, they can't possibly have that type of equipment.

I used 4d6 drop the lowest for years. Then while playing 4e i went to point buy. 4e really, and I mean REALLY, emphasized optimized, specialized PC's. To the point of being ineffective if you veered from the formula. However, recently I have become a fan of 3d6 reroll 1's. For C&C and the stat bonuses available, this works great! Stats average about a 11-12 and every once in a while you get a good roll so your PC becomes truly exceptional. I also integrated a "fellowship phase" or "winter phase" so PC's age, grow old and die/retire. This allows for a constant stream of new PC's and the creation of legacies. Yes, I borrowed it from Pendragon

I've always used rolled stats. Though I abandoned the straight 6 roll along time ago. Now it is either a version 4d6, roll 7 times for the 6 stats discard the lowest, And I have always let the players select where the stats go so they can at least get close to the character they want. But, by no means do I relent if somehow they got a suck roll.

Us old guys remember a time where this was just accepted. Now it is power gaming with groups needing specific character classes in a group. So, you might get stuck with something you didn't want to play. But like the old days this new way of thinking is just accepted. (To be clear I have no problem about other peoples fun, its just power gaming is not my thing.)

My personal idea of GMing is to base adventure style on the characters created. If they all want to be fighters, that is fine with me. I'll just adjust monster/treasure and whatever else to fit the adventuring group.

The group should determine the adventure style not the adventure dictating to the group.

I don't try to keep PCs alive. I present situations for the PCs to encounter and the characters live and die based on their decisions and fate.

I found out long ago that stats rarely matter. I like giving them 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 and just letting them place them where they want. Or roll whatever way they want. Or just assign whatever they want, within reason. You figure, an ability score of 10 gives you no pluses, while a score of 18 gives you a +3. So basically, having the highest score you can possibly have gives you a +15% chance. I can live with that.

Gosh, I feel like a hard a$$ because I was thinking of making my players roll attributes by the book (3d6, arrange as desired) in my upcoming campaign!

Coming off of years of 3.5, I've used the 4d6, keep the three highest, and arrange as desired method for the longest time That is, until a couple of years ago. I switched to a 3d6, twelve times, keep the best six scores and arrange as desired...the old "Method II" from AD&D. This is the method I'll probably use for C&C (unless I go for the by the book method). I find the scores are a little bit lower, but you get more in the average range. Where the "4d6, three best" method gives you better chances for higher numbers, this method give a slighter chance at the high range, and many scores fall within the average to slightly above average range.This thread from Dragonsfoot goes into greater detail. I'm not knocking anyone's style when I say this, but to me having a 16+ at my table still represents a heroic attribute and is near the "human" (read: PC race) peak. Even in 3.5, when I brought this method to the table it brought back the feel that having a 16 or higher meant something. Of course, that gets shadowed as the campaigns move along with attribute gain and stat-inflating items. But for those first 3-5 levels, having a 16 or better became pretty remarkable...for a little while, at least.

I know we live in the days of greater freedoms with character stories and everybody sits down at the table at the start of a campaign with the class and race in mind of what they are going to play, but I'll proudly admit that I miss the days when you rolled for stats first, checked to see what race you could qualify for, picked one you did have the stats for, then picked what class you could meet the requirements for. I know that's passé these days, but damn if I didn't think that was great fun.

Lord Dynel wrote: but I'll proudly admit that I miss the days when you rolled for stats first, checked to see what race you could qualify for, picked one you did have the stats for, then picked what class you could meet the requirements for. I know that's passé these days, but damn if I didn't think that was great fun.

Yes! I remember going many campaigns using my 2nd or 3rd choice for race & class. It really meant something if you rolled a PC that quall'ed for being a Paladin or the like.

I'll use a different method for different styles of game.

If I want a game to be more gritty I do 3D6 reroll 1s and arrange how you like. Or give the players an array of ability scores to assign.
For a heroic or more average game I usually allow 4D6, keep any three you like. Assign as you like.
For more epic games I (only done it a few times) Allow 4D6, reroll 1s and 2s. Keep any three. Assign as you like.

I had the idea of trying something different, But have not gotten the chance yet.
I want to try 4D6 with the option to reroll 1s and 2s. If you choose not to reroll you can instead choose to add a +1 to the next ability rolled for each 1 or 2 rolled and kept.

For example on my first roll I get a 6,4,2,1. I could choose to reroll both the 2 and the 1. Or keep both and take a +2 on the next ability score rolled.
Or I could keep just the two and take a +1 to the next ability and reroll the 1.

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: but I'll proudly admit that I miss the days when you rolled for stats first, checked to see what race you could qualify for, picked one you did have the stats for, then picked what class you could meet the requirements for. I know that's passé these days, but damn if I didn't think that was great fun.

Yes! I remember going many campaigns using my 2nd or 3rd choice for race & class. It really meant something if you rolled a PC that quall'ed for being a Paladin or the like.

+1

A method I have used that helps players tailor a characters attributes is to grant a pool of dice to use and spread between the attributes. I tried a few different methods and finally landed on 24 dice (which allows for 4d6 across the board if so the player desires), keeping only the top 3 results rolled. The player then can assign X number of dice to any ability, the minimum assigned to any attribute is 3 dice, the max is 5. So if the player wanted to be a Fighter the dice spread may look like this -
STR: 5d6
INT: 3d6
WIS: 3d6
DEX: 4d6
CON: 5d6
CHA: 4d6

A Paladin may look like this -
STR: 4d6
INT: 3d6
WIS: 5d6
DEX: 3d6
CON: 4d6
CHA: 5d6

I've used point buy for the longest time, but I got real tired of seeing the same spread over and over again. One 18 (prime attribute), a couple low to mid-teens, and three 9s or 10s.

I'm now a fan (again) of the old 4d6, drop the lowest and arrange to preference, rule.

Omote, I have been really lucky with my players. They do tend to give themselves 3 or 4 really high stats, but usually only 1 18, but they also give themselves 2 or 3 stats that are usually only +0, but a few times I have seen them give themselves a -1 attribute.

I did have one player who did all 18's, but he asked me for permission, citing he just would like to find out what it was like, so I let him.

Most usually they use one of my suggested rolling methods. I've also been known to offer an array, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, and 8, arrange as desired. Think that is what I offered for the Ravenloft game. I may have offered 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, and 13. Ravenloft is very deadly, so high stats can only help.

So yeah, if I had players who simply wanted to maximize for the sake of maximizing all the time, then I'd go back to point buys or rolling. Guess I should be thankful to have had such good players that they give themselves a range of attributes where they are definitely exceptional, but at least they don't always want to play the "perfect" racial specimen and give themselves all 18's before racial modifiers.

Ancalagon wrote:I don't try to keep PCs alive. I present situations for the PCs to encounter and the characters live and die based on their decisions and fate.

Agreed. Have you noticed my sig quote?

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: but I'll proudly admit that I miss the days when you rolled for stats first, checked to see what race you could qualify for, picked one you did have the stats for, then picked what class you could meet the requirements for. I know that's passé these days, but damn if I didn't think that was great fun.

Yes! I remember going many campaigns using my 2nd or 3rd choice for race & class. It really meant something if you rolled a PC that quall'ed for being a Paladin or the like.

I've used 4D6 drop lowest as well as 4D6 re roll 1's and 2's a for decent periods of time and like them. As you can see I still have a 4D6 and re roll 1's and 2's as part of my house rules.

When we do our one off Swords and Wizardry games we've created PC's by the old 3D6, but we only require the roll and keep in order maybe half the time. The other half we allow arranging as desired.

I basically agree with ya Treebore. PC's are meant to be heroic, it's part of the game, A bunch of crappy stats and the players feel less heroic.

However I do not mind a low stat or two as a player or DM, I think it can make for a more interesting character. My all time favorite character started with a 8 Wisdom, it became part of the rolling playing, here was an Elven Fighter/Mage with a In 16 who was prone to all kinds of rash actions. It was awesome. My son's first character was a knight with a 7 strength. At the time he was 8 years old so it played right into his experience, the Knight was limited in the same way a young boy is. In the long run the 7 was a shrewd choice, although I can't believe he knew at the time that strength items are the easiest to find, later in the game when a gauntness ogre power came in the weakness was solved.

-Mike

Added: I do 4d6 drop and arrange these days. Although I've been thinking about letting humans also replace a single die with a 6 just to give them a little more advantage. I seem to end up with mostly demi-human players. Which is also understandable since it's a fantasy game, who wants to play the same race they already are.

My prefered method is 4d6 drop lowest die, 7 rolls drop lowest score, and arrange as desired. I've tried the 3d6 route and just didn't like the "low" results. I've been thinking of letting the players pick there scores but capping the the total modifer bonuses to a +5. I've also been know to give an array of 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, and 13 when I want more powerful PCs.

R-

I would also like to say that as I still use the 3d6 Method of Champions, I present lots of chances to improve attributes through game play. I learned long ago that players like to see other stats increase, not just hit points. Players tend to love increasing a stat here and there, with magic, level increases, or whatever method. I also think having the same stat line for many levels is boring.

~O

I did notice your sig, Treebore. Good stuff there. But I also saw this included in the opening post:

Treebore wrote:I have to say it has worked. My players are playing exactly the character concept they wanted and I have a little easier time keeping their PC's alive.

Emphasis mine.
Maybe I misread the intent of the statement but it sounded as though you work to prevent PC death.

mgtremaine wrote:I basically agree with ya Treebore. PC's are meant to be heroic, it's part of the game, A bunch of crappy stats and the players feel less heroic.

This is an interesting point. I think this has a lot to impact on how a campaign begins, runs, and feels. I think I might branch this into another thread.

Lord Dynel wrote:

mgtremaine wrote:I basically agree with ya Treebore. PC's are meant to be heroic, it's part of the game, A bunch of crappy stats and the players feel less heroic.

This is an interesting point. I think this has a lot to impact on how a campaign begins, runs, and feels. I think I might branch this into another thread.

Yes but, what is "crappy"? As compared to what? As compared to the max possible for PC's? Compared to 3.x bloat rules? If one is talking about as compared to "non-hero" NPC's; PC's ARE heroic in their attributes.

The non-classed (most of the game world) people they meet have an average str, dex, con, etc., of only 8. On average, with 3D6, PC's ability scores are close to 40% HIGHER at 11.

The average NPC attribute modifier is -1. I think that if the PC attributes were 4-24 (4D6) and NPC's stayed at 3-13 (per da rules now) someone would consider 15 as being a "crappy" score...

Ancalagon wrote:I did notice your sig, Treebore. Good stuff there. But I also saw this included in the opening post:

Treebore wrote:I have to say it has worked. My players are playing exactly the character concept they wanted and I have a little easier time keeping their PC's alive.

Emphasis mine.
Maybe I misread the intent of the statement but it sounded as though you work to prevent PC death.

I can say for certain, that that isn't the case. Tree has killed my PCs a a time or two. Nothing like Nwelte, who kills me once every other session, but enough to make you play smart.

R-

Arduin wrote:The non-classed (most of the game world) people they meet have an average str, dex, con, etc., of only 8. On average, with 3D6, PC's ability scores are close to 40% HIGHER at 11.

I believe non-classed individuals have an average score of 9 not 8. That would give them a +0 modifier.

The average NPC attribute modifier is -1. I think that if the PC attributes were 4-24 (4D6) and NPC's stayed at 3-13 (per da rules now) someone would consider 15 as being a "crappy" score...

Which book did you see that NPC attributes were 3-13?

R-

Rigon wrote:

Arduin wrote:The non-classed (most of the game world) people they meet have an average str, dex, con, etc., of only 8. On average, with 3D6, PC's ability scores are close to 40% HIGHER at 11.

I believe non-classed individuals have an average score of 9 not 8. That would give them a +0 modifier. Which book did you see that NPC attributes were 3-13?

R-

NPC's are 2D6 (avg. 7) +1 =8. CKG is where it is 1st laid out for the CK. And thus, average PC's would seem almost super by comparison. But, the OP hasn't defined "heroic"...

Arduin wrote:

Rigon wrote:

Arduin wrote:The non-classed (most of the game world) people they meet have an average str, dex, con, etc., of only 8. On average, with 3D6, PC's ability scores are close to 40% HIGHER at 11.

I believe non-classed individuals have an average score of 9 not 8. That would give them a +0 modifier. Which book did you see that NPC attributes were 3-13?

R-

NPC's are 2D6 (avg. 7) +1 =8. CKG is where it is 1st laid out for the CK. And thus, average PC's would seem almost super by comparison. But, the OP hasn't defined "heroic"...

Thanks, I'll have to check that out. Not that I agree with it, but I'll definitely check that out.

R-

Rigon wrote: Thanks, I'll have to check that out. Not that I agree with it, but I'll definitely check that out.

R-

Your welcome. I don't know if I agree or, disagree with it either. We just needed a common definition to be able to discuss the topic in context.

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote:

mgtremaine wrote:I basically agree with ya Treebore. PC's are meant to be heroic, it's part of the game, A bunch of crappy stats and the players feel less heroic.

This is an interesting point. I think this has a lot to impact on how a campaign begins, runs, and feels. I think I might branch this into another thread.

Yes but, what is "crappy"? As compared to what? As compared to the max possible for PC's? Compared to 3.x bloat rules? If one is talking about as compared to "non-hero" NPC's; PC's ARE heroic in their attributes.

The non-classed (most of the game world) people they meet have an average str, dex, con, etc., of only 8. On average, with 3D6, PC's ability scores are close to 40% HIGHER at 11.

The average NPC attribute modifier is -1. I think that if the PC attributes were 4-24 (4D6) and NPC's stayed at 3-13 (per da rules now) someone would consider 15 as being a "crappy" score...

Well, I would guess he meant "below average." That's kind of synonymous with crappy...don't ya think?

Seriously, though, having stats at 9 or below (in C&C) would constitute "crappy" to me. And I don't mean just one stat...I mean your average, or highest, stat being 9. When the best you'd have would be in the average range, that might be a little depressing. Like you said, Arduin, the average NPC score falls into the 10-11 range (10.5 being the average score) having too many stats below 9 would be pretty crappy.

Now, does having a bunch of stats in the 10-11 range constitute as "crappy?" This is a good question. The question is subjective, as I feel it would depend on the person asked. To me, stats in the 10-11 range are perfectly fine. To some people I know, and have actually played with, they aren't truly happy with their stats unless the modifiers average +2. No joke.