Conan 321

[Supplement Four]

DM, I don't think he cares. I think he wanted a cheer squad, not a critique. But maybe I'm just cynical!

You are being cynical. I actually want to find problems with 321. But, from the few lines I saw of your post, you said nothing of 321 and everything about me being an elitest for stating that Heroic chargen is for munckin gamers.

I just chose not to play that game.

If you want to talk about 321, pros and cons both, then I'm all ears.

 

[Supplement Four]

If you want to talk about 321, pros and cons both, then I'm all ears.

BTW, I've setting on allowing my player to pick one of three systems for chargen.


1. (Straight from the Book) Roll 4D6, drop lowest, no arrangement.

2. Conan 321

3. 4D6, drop lowest for each stat. Then, roll 1d7 -1 (for 0-6) for the number of stats that cannot be arranged-to-taste (random rolled).

 

[Vortigern]

321 seems to be an OK system for what it is designed for... namely mitigating the occurence of a dump stat among certain kinds of players.

I'm not a big fan of random stat generation systems to begin with, mostly because I feel like it is a limiting factor on my creativity to make the concept and character that I want and that I usually approach the character creation session with.

That said... I can see the argument S4 has, even if I disagree and would be annoyed to make a character under his system, about creating a given number of fixed points about a character and then watching a concept with perhaps more depth form around those fixed points.

I just feel that a similar degree ( if not greater ) of depth can be achieved without such artificial methods of creativity. i.e. if I already have a multi-page character background, description, gear-list, and character build minus the attributes... ( I've done this for a concept and waited on those accursed random stats ) ... what do I do if my stats don't match my concept in the slightest? Make something else? Plead for a reroll? Bite my tongue and play a sucky version of my original concept?

I'm familiar with the 'let us roll some dice and see where they take us with a character' method. I just tend not to like it. It can however generate some 'real' and 'deep' characters depending on the player, and some players really do like it.

Now back on the central topic. The dump stat. Your system, S4, is OK for doing this assuming a given OOC equity in the manner in which your stats are grouped into the switching/selection blocks. It still has potential for 'abuse' if you want to call it that, but it is ok for basic deterrent purposes.

I do however think that you could, as people have said, get the same results of 'there is no automatic dump stat choice' to a better effect without restricting your players in chargen.

Your game premise and chargen presuppositions for example 'seems' ( it may not be ) predisposed towards a combat heavy game ( nothing wrong with that if it is, it just certainly isn't why I roleplay ). It does however raise the questions as to 'why' charisma appears to be devalued among your players to a point where they are willing to allow it to be a dump stat... which I'll discuss in a more general fashion by posing and giving a few answers to the overarching question here.

Why is charisma such a common dump stat among d20 players?

It isn't like there aren't skills based on charisma. You could make a good thief and blow just about all of his skillpoints on charisma skills if you worked at it. Feats as well.

Why are such characters such a rarity among some circles of gamers?

I think it has to do with an element of roleplaying approach towards social encounters vs. combat encounters. People like to 'interact' and get credit for their clever dialogue and whatnot with the NPCs. Heck... it is a large part of the fun of roleplaying right? Why reduce these things to just a die role of a charisma based skill? ...

And I agree... but now what happens to the social character with the high charisma and heavy load of social skills? Is he getting his due when he 'should' mechanically speaking be more charming and intimidating both than the musclebound warrior getting all the wenches?

There comes a given element of OOC interaction with IC here. A thief or scholar with a +20 modifier to intimidate is just a spooky and scary sunofabitch, whether you know OOCly or not that they don't stand a chance vs. your barbarian or not. If you fail to resist the intimidation, you are afraid... period. In short, I think that social characters get cheated as to the mechanical benefits they pay for in a lot of games in favor of this 'roleplay' approach to social encounters vs. the mechanical approach to solving combat.

Solution?

Apply an even ammount of the roleplay and mechanical approach to all situations. No matter how good a character roleplays in a given social encounter that should only net them a given( possibly rather large ) bonus for instance on their diplomacy roll. Why?

For the same reason that the player with the seven intelligence acting like a genius and making savy and tactical decisions for the group all the time is out of character. If the character has a +1, total, for diplomacy... he isn't going to win the war of words with Mr. +20 without a major fluke of the dice. He just isn't, even if that particular player is better with words than the player of the character with the +20. The characters have too vast of a differing degree of social ability, concrete in their skills, for that to happen.

If you make charisma checks and skills have a force in the game, make it impact the roleplaying, then it will restore it's value. A lot of people object to this as an impingement on what they view of as their creative license to play their character however they want... my caveat to that is that otherwise charisma and it's related skills really does become devalued. It costs just as much in skill points, if not much much more, to make a socially adept character as it does to make any other concept. That mechanical build should be rewarded with the dividends the investment is due, or you will see people stop investing. Funny how that works?

 

[Supplement Four]

Why are such characters such a rarity among some circles of gamers?

Here's why.

First, look at the Conan rulebook and see the description of each stat, noting what it is used for. What's listed are the seven skills that use CHR as their key ability and a note about using CHR for checks when influencing others.

Then, look at what the other stats are used for.

Now, let's look at the real rolls my player threw the other night, using 4d6, drop lowest.

7, 14, 13, 15, 12, 11.

Now, we're going to arrange-to-taste and make a Soldier character. 1st level.

What's most important for a Soldier? STR (or DEX) and CON.

So, we put the two highest scores in there.

STR - 14 (for attack and damage bonus)
CON - 15 (for the hit point bump)

DEX is probably next important to a Soldier, because of the connection to initiative (and can be very important if the Soldier is an archer or light-armor wearer for the Dodge).

DEX - 13

INT is next in line of importance. It determines skills, which are useful in the game.

INT - 12

And, what's left is WIS and CHR. Since WIS is also tied to the WIL Save, that makes it a bit more important than CHR. So, we round out the character like this.

WIL - 11
CHR - 7



Now, I'm not saying that every player will set up his soldier like this every time. Some will go a different route, designing specific Soldier characters for specific reasons. What I am saying, though, is that the majority of the time Soldier charcters will be designed like this (becuase it is the best set-up for Parry-based Soldiers).

And, what that does is create CHR as a dump stat.

Conan 321 does a good job of minimizing the use of a dump stat while still allowing the player some limited choice in where he places his stats.

 

[Ichabod]

7, 14, 13, 15, 12, 11.

Now, we're going to arrange-to-taste and make a Soldier character. 1st level.

What's most important for a Soldier? STR (or DEX) and CON.

First, let me just agree with you that with this example I would believe that the norm would be to dump on CHA.

Second, let me say that this is a horrible example and that I wouldn't agree with most of the rest of your analysis.

2A: If I were going to pick classes to use for examples, I would pick barbarian to represent fighters, scholar to represent magic-users, and thief to represent everything else. In all likelihood, this doesn't change your primary complaint. I could easily see the 7 going in CHA for the barbarian.

2B: I'd be inclined toward assigning the stats thusly for a barbarian (or a future barbarian):

STR 15
DEX 11
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 13
CHA 7

DEX and CON are not remotely the next most important attributes. With different numbers, I wouldn't even say STR is the most important attribute. But, then, it depends upon the campaign.

In our campaign, INT is the most important attribute at the beginning of the game, though it can be ignored forever afterwards for non-scholars to jack up STR or whatever since there's little gained by INT increases after initial character creation.

DEX offers very little, being inferior to STR in almost every way. It helps with Reflex saves, which are fairly common in our campaign but not terribly deadly, and initiative. Initiative is a big randomfest of d20 variance, but it hardly matters since there's always Improved Initiative or, if Reflex saves are important, Lightning Reflexes to jack initiative. Some campaigns may find the DEX skills more important than the STR skills; ours doesn't.

CON's effect on hit points is trivial for fighters, being far more important to squishies - thieves, scholars. Massive damage saves are incredibly important, but the reality is that there isn't a lot you can do about them as it's really hard to get to the point where you can confidently survive them. Other Fortitude saves? Likely to be highly situationally dependent. I've had a character Death Touched twice in one combat, but that same character has had many more problems with Will saves ...

Meanwhile, WIS is extremely important. Failing a fear check when you are supposed to be a backbone of combattiness is a good way for a TPK. Fortunately, barbarians get Fearless and a min/maxed first level character will always have a Code of Honor, and fear checks don't tend to get too hard, and Fate Points can be burned on them, but still, so bad when failed. Failing against spells is often an efficient way to die or, in the more devastating situations, efficient way to achieve a TPK. Also, Spot has been kind of stupidly good as a skill in every d20 campaign I've played in.

At 4th level, I'd jack STR to go from +3 damage w/ 2H to +5. Actually, I'd probably just keep pumping STR to improve kill output.

Now, for a thief:

STR 7
DEX 15
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 11
CHA 13

I'd be tempted to do something like this. Eventually, Sneak Attack damage will result in autokills making STR damage bonuses irrelevant, though it would be nice to have a higher STR for various reasons, like carrying loot/bodies.

The CHA of 13 presupposes that the party consists of exactly one barbarian, one scholar, and one thief. The thief is suited to being the face of the party in such situations due to the # of skill ranks and wants a good Bluff anyway to make sure of Improved Feint kills. With another character to be social, CHA could be a dump stat and I'd be inclined to move the 13 to WIS and the 11 to STR. I suppose you could say this further supports your view that CHA is a dump stat, but *someone* in the party should be charismatic barring the "all we do is kill everything we encounter" style of adventuring, and I don't like piling the skill ranks of the scholar into social skills when there are so many knowledges to pile into.

Scholar:

STR 12
DEX 7
CON 11
INT ?
WIS ?
CHA ?

Scholars are complicated. I could see a different stat being the dump stat here, but I'd probably deal with initiative through Improved Initiative to make sure a spell goes off before the scholar sucks death. There are other reasons I might not want a low DEX, but these physical stats give the scholar a chance of doing some damage at low levels while having not awful hit points. The more barbarians the party has, the more I'd be inclined to switch STR and DEX to improve defense against ranged attacks, improve initiative, and because the barbarians are likely to be STR monsters.

Anyway, the ?'s are because it depends upon what sort of sorcery the scholar is engaged in. If the magic attack roll has to be godlike, then CHA could very well be the most important stat. I'd be inclined towards a 14 INT since 13 blows and 15 gains almost no benefit over 14 for the life of the character. WIS comes down to how important Power Points are going to be. Since scholars tend to develop a diverse batch of sorcery styles where some are MAR dependent and some aren't, CHA makes for a pretty junky dump stat.

Anyway, those would be my examples of plausible characters. I continue to not be concerned with this all-encompassing problem that S4 seems to have with the game.

 

[Vortigern]

If I intend to play a social character, and I often do, my first choice is not the soldier class. While even as a soldier social stats can have value, they may not be the top priority for a concept that made the player look at that class to begin with.

If they had a more social concept it is very likely in d20 Conan they would be looking more keenly at a different class. Even still, the possibility for a somewhat social soldier gearing to be an officer or some such exists... but the preponderence of likely concepts going towards this class are not social.

Doing the simple math and saying that charisma is the 'dump stat' for a non-social soldier class concept is pretty self evident. If that is the player's build... I'm not sure what the problem is, as long as they run into the potential problems that their lack of social skills should bring.

Want to get hired for a job? Want to negotiate a good paycheck from it? Want your employer to like you enough to want to hire you again instead of killing you to keep his money?

These are things that shouldn't be overlooked and often are, as a matter of course, with games that are social skill lite.

Apply these concepts and you should have at least one party social character in short order. And if the others rely on the social guy to handle all of those 'lite' and 'fru-fru' things... fine, that is their decision. And they shouldn't be surprised when the social character ends up the Duke of somethingorother with all the money and babes that the party earned for him but never knew about. Some people make characters that are combat focused... and they get what they pay for. The social character is just another build with an entirely different focus... and entirely different rewards.

You pointing out to me that your personal priority list for a soldier build is combat oriented ( as I admit is common ) just reinforces my personal view of the differences between a combat and social build character. At the risk of repeating myself in yet another form of phrasing, the key is simply to support all builds present in your party in your game.

 

[Supplement Four]

You pointing out to me that your personal priority list for a soldier build is combat oriented ( as I admit is common )...

Exactly. I mentioned that, sometimes, players will have certain ideas and arrange stats differently based on what they want to play.

With Conan 321, they can still do that.

And, as you say, going for the combat Soldier is most common. What I was trying to avoid was always have the combat soliders with low CHR.

Conan 321 ensures that CHR is all over the board, just like every other stat...and still provides the players with the ability to arrange some stats to taste.

At the risk of repeating myself in yet another form of phrasing, the key is simply to support all builds present in your party in your game.

That is one tool.

But, getting rid of the problem from the get-go works better.

Which is why Conan 321 is a better choice than having to force CHR checks when none are needed in a game.

 

[Vortigern]

My point is that they /are/ needed. Otherwise why spend points in diplomacy for instance? Why invest in that stat on my character sheet if my GM never lets me roll it in order to influence someone?

And if I can't do that, why invest in a good charisma stat?

If you don't make social skills valuable in the game... your players will not want them. It is almost, or even exactly, like economics. No market demand, and people aren't going to be rushing to have a supply.

Your objection to the 'everyone dumps charisma' syndrome, which I'd agree can be common, and then saying the game doesn't need charisma checks seems rather... self fulfilling.

How far would I get with a non-combat social scholar build for example in a game you were running? Say a divination specialist with advanced social skills all around, feats devoted to said social skills.

Such a character //revolves// around the art of using information and social skills to solve problems without fighting. If I was playing such a character and I was repetitively put into situations where I 'had' to fight... I'd throw the character away and make a new one coming to the realization that the build was worthless with that gm.

At this point I'm not certain we can continue debating this without simply repeating ourselves further. I may be wrong. If so, feel free to continue. :wink:

 

[rabindranath72]

Now, I'm not saying that every player will set up his soldier like this every time. Some will go a different route, designing specific Soldier characters for specific reasons. What I am saying, though, is that the majority of the time Soldier charcters will be designed like this (becuase it is the best set-up for Parry-based Soldiers).

And, what that does is create CHR as a dump stat.

Conan 321 does a good job of minimizing the use of a dump stat while still allowing the player some limited choice in where he places his stats.

You are generalising too much, I guess. My "majority of the time" experience (with AD&D), has been to have players of fighter characters who chose Int or Wis as dump stat, since they recognised charisma to be important to a fighter (for retainers, reactions, morale etc.)
I guess your bias in this respect is perhaps due to your style of DMing? If your players always (or nearly so) choose Cha as dump stat, that's because they do not see the point in using it. In all game systems I have played with, every stat is important for something, and it is the DM job to setup challenges that make all of them important. Charisma has always been one of those stats useful to ALL classes, since its benefits are in some way "orthogonal" to the typical classes' specialties.
If you design your campaigns so that every stat is useful, the "dump stat" syndrome disappears, and with it the need to have tailor-made character generation systems who attempt to solve problems which do not exist.

 

[DigitalMage]

DM, I don't think he cares. I think he wanted a cheer squad, not a critique. But maybe I'm just cynical!

You are being cynical. I actually want to find problems with 321. But, from the few lines I saw of your post, you said nothing of 321 and everything about me being an elitest for stating that Heroic chargen is for munckin gamers.

Can I just clarify to whom you are referring when you say "from the few lines I saw of your post, you said nothing of 321 and everything about me being an elitest"?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were no referring to me, because no where in my post did I refer to you as "elitest".

 

[DigitalMage]

Now, I'm not saying that every player will set up his soldier like this every time. Some will go a different route, designing specific Soldier characters for specific reasons. What I am saying, though, is that the majority of the time Soldier charcters will be designed like this (becuase it is the best set-up for Parry-based Soldiers).

And, what that does is create CHR as a dump stat.

Conan 321 does a good job of minimizing the use of a dump stat while still allowing the player some limited choice in where he places his stats.

The key thing in your example that is missing as a factor of the decision making process is the character concept - the choices you described were all based upon the mechanical aspects of the game. For example if the player envisioned his Soldier character eventually becoming a leader of soldiers Charisma would be very important (inspiring troops etc).

Now you mention that sometimes players will "go a different route, designing specific Soldier characters for specific reasons", the specific reason I imagine being most common is the character concept.

However your experience seems to show that the majority of the time players will base their decisions on the mechanics.

Can I suggest then that you discuss with each player their character concept before you even get to the mechanics of rolling attributes? Then when they have rolled stats (by whatever choice of method they make) if you believe the results undermine the concept and you think it is an interesting concept may I suggest that you be open to relaxing the restrictions on attribute score placement?

In my previous post I did actually show an example of how this could happen, specifically where a high result was rolled when a low score in that attribute was core to the character concept.

I have made many characters with non-random character creation - some games don't have a random method of creation - and yet most of my characters have been interesting, with weaknesses, backgrounds and motivations.

I sometimes go against the usual dump stat, and sometimes go with it - it depends on what fits my characters concept. But in neither case do I feel my character is more or less interesting.

For example, a character I created for Mongoose RuneQuest (which does have random stat rolling) I imagined as a large burly but gentle character somewhat retarded in his social and mental development, a carpenter by trade who actually does not like violence and tries to avoid it. Almost a Frankenstein's monster type character.

His highest stats were Strength and Size and his "dump stat" was Power because it fit the concept (he was naive and easily bullied), his Charisma was actually 13, the same value I put in Constitution and more than I put in Dexterity and Intelligence. His weapon skills were poor but his shield skill was significant (I imagined him picking up tables to shield himself from kids throwing rotten fruit at him).

If I had been asked to use a method similar to 321 (322 as there are 7 attributes) I would have found it an extra hurdle to get over to fulfil my character concept.

For example I would likely have had to have put Strength, Power and Constitution together so that I could put the worse roll in my desired "dump stat" and ensure Strength had a high stat, and put Size and Intelligence together so that I could ensure Size was high and Intelligence wasn't too high, and that would leave Charisma and Dexterity to swap between.

But what if I rolled a 15 and 16 for both Size and Intelligence, 16 would go in size but then I would be left with 15 to put in Intelligence - something that directly goes against my concept - he shouldn't be smart!!!!

So to summarise, I think you need to realise that Conan 321 may be exactly what you need to get your players making interesting characters, if your 20 years of game play with them has shown you that they always make "less interesting characters than if there are some constraints on the creation".

However if you get any new players, or you give the benefit of the doubt to your existing players as to how they will create characters, you may find that Conan 321 may be more a hinderance to fulfilling a character concept than anything that helps.

 

[DigitalMage]

Which is why Conan 321 is a better choice than having to force CHR checks when none are needed in a game.

If Charisma checks are not needed in your game - why are you so bothered with it being a dump stat? If it is not being used it won't matter whether Charisma has a score of 18 or 3.

I suspect however that Charisma is used is your games, but that it just isn't as great a focus.

Out of curiousity, if you were playing a d20 game in a sci fi setting where ranged combat is much more common and melees rare - would you have the same sort of issues if Strength became the dump stat as it becomes much less of a focus?

 

[kintire]

You are being cynical. I actually want to find problems with 321. But, from the few lines I saw of your post, you said nothing of 321 and everything about me being an elitest for stating that Heroic chargen is for munckin gamers.

If you insult people, its a little precious to complain when they get insulted.

I have been raising problems with 321 throughout my posts, and I had many in that one. Actually, Vortigern has now raised most of them. Heed him... it is sense that he is talking. However, I shall bring out my problems for you:

1) 321 has the significant problem that it rams players into specific archetypes according to the stats they roll. It does so less than a straight random no arrangment system, but still considerably.

2) 321 fails to establish party balance. This is especially serious since you have limited the starting classes to three. Someone who gets a string of low rolls at the 3 stage is in dead trouble.

3) 321 is unrealistic. It produces characters who would never become adventurers. Again, this is exacerbated by your campaign decision to restrict classes.

4) 321 is intended to avoid the "Heroic" character that you dislike so much... or at least that you don't want in this campaign. It doesn't do this, or not reliably. 6 rolls is not a large enough sample to cluster reliably. a string of high rolls can easily produce a character that someone using the points buy system could only dream of.

5) 321 is intended to avoid the "dump stat" problem. But it doesn't do this reliably either. If you roll a low total you will have to have a dump stat whether you want one or not.

In other words, it has all the disadvantages of the random roll system, and doesn't achieve the power restriction or lack of dump stat. It does mean that the dump stat won't always be charisma, but as has been frequently pointed out Charisma being less important is a factor of your campaigns, not a general problem.

If you are interested in my advice, I would dump Charisma: literally. You have said you don't use it, and your player's perfectly rational reactions seem to confirm that. Stick the social skills on Wisdom, Magic Attack (if you ever use it) on Int and go with five stats.

 

[Supplement Four]

Can I just clarify to whom you are referring when you say "from the few lines I saw of your post, you said nothing of 321 and everything about me being an elitest"?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were no referring to me, because no where in my post did I refer to you as "elitest".

I was responding to kintire, and that's who I was referring to.

 

[Supplement Four]

If you insult people, its a little precious to complain when they get insulted.

If you weren't a munchkin gamer, then you wouldn't have been insulted.

(IT'S A JOKE! JUST A JOKE! JUST MAKING LIGHT OF THE SITUATION!! DON'T GET YOUR LOIN CLOTH IN A WAD!!)

1) 321 has the significant problem that it rams players into specific archetypes according to the stats they roll. It does so less than a straight random no arrangment system, but still considerably.

It only rams players into a specific archetype if they refuse to play characters where their stats are less than perfectly chosen for a particular class.

In other words, Conan 321, keeps characters as individuals and does not always allow characters to maximize die rolls to particular, generic roles.

That's a benefit of the system.

2) 321 fails to establish party balance.

Not all people are created equal. I don't care if one person is weak and another is strong. That's life.

Again...it's a pro, not a con.

This is especially serious since you have limited the starting classes to three. Someone who gets a string of low rolls at the 3 stage is in dead trouble.

I hate to say this, but, to me, this is really munchkin gamer thinking. A character with all six stats at low rolls is a very viable character to play. It's a challenge. The guy won't be a fighter. But, a very interesting character can be pulled out of this type of rolls.

Ever read George R.R. Martin's Song of Fire and Ice series? If you haven't, then you should run to the bookstore and grab the first book (4.5 stars out of 5, given by close to 1500 reviewers, on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217453054&sr=8-2).

There's a character in that book. A dwarf (human dwarf). And, he's simply incredible.

It takes a better role player to play a character with low stats, absolutely. But, when done correctly, it's likely to "make" the game.

We've had several not-so-perfect characters stat-wise steal the show in our games in the past.

Not every character has to be maximized for his highest potential in his chosen class.

3) 321 is unrealistic. It produces characters who would never become adventurers. Again, this is exacerbated by your campaign decision to restrict classes.

Riiight. Well, we'll see on Saturday, I guess.

4) 321 is intended to avoid the "Heroic" character that you dislike so much... or at least that you don't want in this campaign. It doesn't do this, or not reliably. 6 rolls is not a large enough sample to cluster reliably. a string of high rolls can easily produce a character that someone using the points buy system could only dream of.

I'm not against "heroic" characters. I'm against super-uber-characters.

As the book says, rolling 4D6, dropping lowest, without any arrangement at all produces a better than average character.

5) 321 is intended to avoid the "dump stat" problem. But it doesn't do this reliably either. If you roll a low total you will have to have a dump stat whether you want one or not.

Then, you don't understand 321.

The dump stat is elliminated.

In other words, it has all the disadvantages of the random roll system, and doesn't achieve the power restriction or lack of dump stat.

Ah, you're a point-buy gamer.

Yep, I've never been fond, at all, of point-buy systems. For a bunch of reasons. I'm getting too tired debating this to go into it.

It does mean that the dump stat won't always be charisma...

Exactly! And, that's by design!

If you are interested in my advice, I would dump Charisma: literally. You have said you don't use it, and your player's perfectly rational reactions seem to confirm that.

I never said, anywhere, that I don't use CHR in my games.






Something tells me... that you would have similar complaints if I were advocating the official method in the book: Roll 4D6, drop lowest, with no arrangement to taste.

 

[Supplement Four]

If Charisma checks are not needed in your game - why are you so bothered with it being a dump stat? If it is not being used it won't matter whether Charisma has a score of 18 or 3.

I suspect however that Charisma is used is your games, but that it just isn't as great a focus.

CHR is used in my games. I never said it wasn't. I use it for what its used for. The skills its tied to, etc.

Out of curiousity, if you were playing a d20 game in a sci fi setting where ranged combat is much more common and melees rare - would you have the same sort of issues if Strength became the dump stat as it becomes much less of a focus?

I haven't played a d20 game in 15-20 years, and when I did, it was D&D.

I typically don't like d20. It's too complicated.

For Conan, I'm making an exception.

And, Conan 321 is designed to eliminate all dump stats (or change them up, depending on your point of view).

 

[Supplement Four]

The key thing in your example that is missing as a factor of the decision making process is the character concept - the choices you described were all based upon the mechanical aspects of the game.

That is how we tend to play.

Maybe that's the "rub" here. My group prefers random roll and "discovering" a character. It's been a long, long time since one of my players has come to me, pre-chargen, looking to play a certain type of character.

I typically tell them what's possible in the story I'm going to tell. They "roll up" characters, and we build the character from there.



I even have a new player playing with me this time--brand new to role playing (but not new to rpgs in computer games). I sent him info on the character classes for him to look over. Just the other day, I asked him, "What do you think you're going to play?"

His answer: "I don't know. I need to see how the rolls turn out."

 

[Supplement Four]

In all game systems I have played with, every stat is important for something...

A dump stat is the stat most likely to be least important to a majority of gamers. Just because it is a dump stat doesn't mean it's completely useless. Obviously, CHR in Conan is useful for some things.

CHR is "typically" the dump stat (not always the case) because, when compared to the other stats, it's usually the least useful--or represents the stat that can be compensated for easiest.

When a player is assigning stat throws to stats, he's working with limited resources. All stats are useful for something. The player has to decide which stats get the high rolls and which get the low rolls.

I'd bet real money that, on a large sample of different types of Conan players, the world over, that CHR is the lowest average stat if you averaged them all.

It's not that CHR is not useful. It's not that some players will find great use out of CHR and use some other stat, like WIS, as a dump stat.

But, on the whole, CHR is probably the stat least likely (if a large group of gamers were surveyed) to be considered a "prime" stat.

 

[Vortigern]

Not knowing what I want to play is an alien concept to me. I //always// sit down and come up with something that I think fits the game and will be fun to play and have in the game for the others.

So I think you are correct in that this factor is probably the major rub. I hate to have my character decided on randomly or by the GM. To me part of the collaborative nature of roleplaying is the player input into the story and most of that is through their PCs.

When I GM the most restriction I've ever placed on my groups has been 'The game is Argos and will involve sailing/water. Have a reason for being involved/there, and for being a /group/ instead of a gaggle of characters.'

Everything else I think is rightfully their decision. But then, that is a play style issue.

 

[Supplement Four]

When I GM the most restriction I've ever placed on my groups has been 'The game is Argos and will involve sailing/water. Have a reason for being involved/there, and for being a /group/ instead of a gaggle of characters.'

Everything else I think is rightfully their decision. But then, that is a play style issue.

For me, it depends on the adventure (and maybe other factors).

If I just don't have a notion either way, then I'll open the doors and let the players create whatever type of character they want.

"I" could have written the section on pg. 395 of the 2E rule book that discusses allowing certain character classes and not allowing others.

I may want to run a campaign or single scenario that focuses on a tribe of Cimmerians. In that case, I will most likely rule that all characters must be Cimmerians.

If a player comes to me with a burning desire to play a certain character type, then I am typically inclined to grant his wish (in spite of any restrictive ruling I might have made) if we can find a logical, interesting, story driven way to include what he wants to play in the story I'm about to tell.

With my current game, I limited character classes to the easier ones to play (soldiers and theives and borders) in an effort to make the game easier to learn (less to learn = easier to learn).

Plus, those character classes "fit" my version of Kovag-Re that I'm going to tell.

I'll open up other character classes later, as the opportunities present themselves in the story.

In my games, "story" is king.

(Which, I have found, makes the game damn interesting--it's what keeps them coming back for more.)