Conan 321

[Vortigern]

It amuses me that you would say story is paramount for that is precisely how I envision my own style. However I view the story and plotline of the game to mutually/collaboratively owned and decided upon by the whole group ( I expect characters to be proactive. ) rather than something the GM decides based on the story they want to 'tell'. The whole group tells the story.

But I understand your view completely.

 

[Supplement Four]

It amuses me that you would say story is paramount for that is precisely how I envision my own style. However I view the story and plotline of the game to mutually/collaboratively owned and decided upon by the whole group ( I expect characters to be proactive. ) rather than something the GM decides based on the story they want to 'tell'. The whole group tells the story.

But I understand your view completely.

I typically come up with a story and a "problem" for the PCs to figure. It's my story until the PCs do something to change it.

And, that's where it gets exciting.

I typically start off with a linear story in mind, but I am completely open (in fact, I get excited when) to player input changing what the "story" is.

I start off with a "plan". And, that plan continues until/when the players do something that alters the path of the river, so to speak.

They play off of me, and I play off of them.

I would say that I am the writer/director. The players are the actors. The game is the director's vision, but the actors can have some major input--can even altar the director's original vision.

 

[DigitalMage]

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.

Apologies, I re-read your post and you did only specify charisma checks not being needed in a game (rather than checks that are influenced by Charisma such as skills).

 

[DigitalMage]

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.

I think you are exactly right - if you and your group are used to have character concept driven by stats (rather than the other way around) then I imagine Conan 321 will indeed likely introduce more varied concepts.

However I hope you do now appreciate that there are other play styles out there in which Conan 321 may not be suitable, and where point buy etc won't lead to uninteresting characters.

Good luck with you game!

 

[kintire]

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!!)

Its not funny.

Let me put this simply for you.

1) Saying "I prefer random roll systems, I don't like point design" = Fine.

2) Saying "I prefer random roll systems, and people who use other systems are Munchkins" = Bad.

It is possible that you are not quite realising that calling people munchkins is an Insult. In-Sult.

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.

Rubbish. If you have Str 6 Dex 8 Con 6 you're not playing a fighter.

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.

Here, we profoundly disagree.

I've played in games where one character was unbalanced, one way or the other, and the situation is a bad one. It is boring to achieve nothing. It is not good when your character never gets the limelight, because you are inferior to everyone else. It is bad when the party based game slides into "Mr Uber-invincible and his faceless sidekicks". It is also bad when it slides into "the Three Heroes and... thingy.. that other guy they keep around for no very good reason..."A player who can't participate in the game is a bored player. Bored players are bad.

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.

A very interesting character can, in theory, be produced from any set of stats. But a character with low stat rolls will be inferior to the rest of the party. When someone is picked as group champion it will never be him. He will never be spokesman. It is most unlikely that he will be the one to surmount skill challenges. He won't shine in combat. He won't shine socially. He won't shine: period.

Of course you can give him an interesting background and throw plotlines his way. But you could have done all that if his stats were higher as well. If you make an interesting character out of him it is despite the low stats not because of them.

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.

And would that better roleplayer have done any worse with a balanced character?

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

Oh and there you go again. Everyone who doesn't use random stat systems is a maximising munchkin hmm?

For your information, stat design systems can also be used to create a character to a concept, its not about min maxing. But the vast majority of characters should be at least competent in there chosen class, otherwise they won't be much use to the party, and it is hard to explain how they made it into the class in the first place!

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.

18,18,17,15,14,12 is a better than average character eh?

For the third time: 4d6 drop lowest ON AVERAGE produces a better than average character. But six rolls are too few to get clustering around that average reliably. Under 4d6 you WILL get super uber characters from time to time: on a points buy system you never will (assuming you set the points allocation correctly of course).

Then, you don't understand 321.

The dump stat is elliminated.

Its not eliminated, unless the player is lucky. It is merely moved.

Ah, you're a point-buy gamer.

This comes as a surprise? You really aren't reading anything I say are you?

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

Not in so many words, no. But the fact that all your players use it as a dump stat speaks volumes.

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.

:roll:

Oh something tells you that does it? Would that something, by any chance be.... me?

I'm not sure why I bother really. You're not reading anything I say, are you?

 

[orcface999]

There are not enough role-playing hours in life to force a player to play a character he/she does not like. Ultimately the stats do not matter that much, so let the player use whatever method they want.
Yes, playing a character with a low stat can be rewarding and fun. If that is what you want then give incentives to players with those characters.
However, in the savage world of Conan, many with low stats are put aside by natural selection.

 

[Supplement Four]

Its not funny.

Let me put this simply for you.

Well, I tried, kintire. I tried to lighten the mood with a joke, and it seems you just want to fight instead of discuss.

Don't want the olive branch? No problem. I'll just stick you on the ignore list. Bye-bye.

 

[kintire]

You repeat the original insult, and call that an olive branch?

Ho hum!

well, if I am on your ignore list, given you havent read any criticism yet, I doubt I'll notice the difference!

 

[Vortigern]

You repeat the original insult, and call that an olive branch?

Ho hum!

well, if I am on your ignore list, given you havent read any criticism yet, I doubt I'll notice the difference!

From a sideliner's POV, I must say it seemed much the same to me. I think it may be a matter of 'intent' vs. 'perception' and the writer assuming our understanding will be the former and being suprised at the later... but that is being generous given the reptitive nature of some things.

 

[Supplement Four]

From a sideliner's POV, I must say it seemed much the same to me. I think it may be a matter of 'intent' vs. 'perception' and the writer assuming our understanding will be the former and being suprised at the later... but that is being generous given the reptitive nature of some things.

OK. In that case, kintire, I vote we just drop it. Forget it all, and just move on. The debate is tiresome and not moving anywhere (as many of these debates can be).

So, if you're willing to wipe the slate clean, then I am as well.

 

[kintire]

OK. In that case, kintire, I vote we just drop it. Forget it all, and just move on. The debate is tiresome and not moving anywhere (as many of these debates can be).

So, if you're willing to wipe the slate clean, then I am as well.

Very well, although if you would like to read my comments on your actual system, I would still be interested in your responses.

 

[Supplement Four]

Very well, although if you would like to read my comments on your actual system, I would still be interested in your responses.

Good. I'd rather not argue. I' more interested in pleasant discussion.

The problem, I think, is that you and I are two different players with two different styles. When I first read the chargen chapter, I was most attracted to the first system, where stats are rolled and there is no arrangement at all.

In fact, the player that has already rolled up his character chose to use that system first. I had to talk him into using Conan 321 so that he'd have a little room to adjust stats if needed.

That's all Conan 321 is--it's a measure in-between the two official standard methods.

The first standard method has players rolling 4d6, dropping lowest, with no arrangement.

The second is the same but with arrangement.

Conan 321 fits nicely into the middle of those two standard methods. It's not as restrictive as the first method, but more restrictive than the second method.

To be honest, my first choice would be the second official method if this game didn't have dump stats. If all stats were equally important to all types of characters, then I'd use the second standard method.

I think the first method is just a tad too restrictive for this heroic-based game.

Conan 321 feels about right, right in the middle of the two.

I know I'm happy with the results of the first character that used it.

 

[Vortigern]

You confuse me S4.

The very nature of d20, with character classes and class abilities set to the tune of given stats, means some characters are going to have a given set of stats that are the most important to them from any perspective. Beyond those... the only thing that makes any of the others important is character concept and what the player -wants- to make their character into.

I get the impression your game uses roleplaying-centric methods for handling all social things and very little of the actual skill rolls for diplomacy or intimidation etc. ( I shall not go over the point again how I think this influences character generation/stat assignment. )

It does however confuse me how you seem to think of this outcome as a flaw in the system when, to my mind, you simply aren't playing it as designed. ( Meaning including all of these social stats/skills and rolling them etc. ) If you aren't doing that you are deviating from the RAW, and then whatever outcome you are experiencing can't logically be seen as a reflection of the RAW.

 

[Supplement Four]

You confuse me S4.

In what way?

The very nature of d20, with character classes and class abilities set to the tune of given stats, means some characters are going to have a given set of stats that are the most important to them from any perspective. Beyond those... the only thing that makes any of the others important is character concept and what the player -wants- to make their character into.

To put it simply, if I had 100 players wanting to play a Soldier class, and all of happen to think CHR should be the lowest stat if they were given the power to assign throws to attributes, I want to see a fairly even distribution of low, med, and high CHR.

Otherwise, it breaks my sense of "fairness" with the universe.

I get the impression your game uses roleplaying-centric methods for handling all social things and very little of the actual skill rolls for diplomacy or intimidation etc.

Yes. My group are strong role players, and its much more important to us to role play an encounter rather than just roll it up and see what the dice say.

If roll is involved, I typically judge their role play as a modifer on the dice throw. But many times, there is no dice throw.

It does however confuse me how you seem to think of this outcome as a flaw in the system when, to my mind, you simply aren't playing it as designed.

I play it as designed. I wouldn't roll play a feint maneuver, for example. I'd roll it (and CHR and Bluff would be important to that throw).

I will throw CHR checks behind the GM's screen to guide me in how I play NPCs, if I don't already have a pre-conceived notion.

 

[kintire]

The problem, I think, is that you and I are two different players with two different styles.

That is certainly true, and when you were saying you preferred it, there was no problem. However, you were saying one reason you preferred it was because you don't like excessively heroic characters. Having sat next to a player who took 4d6 drop 1 and rolled 18,18,17,15,14,12 I am not sure that is actually an advantage. With a point buy you can rule out heroic characters by restricting the number of points available.

To be honest, my first choice would be the second official method if this game didn't have dump stats.

The game doesn't have dump stats. Of course, any character design will be based around some stats more than others, but I think you are seriously underrating Charisma. A soldier with a high charisma, improved feint and intricate swordplay and a few dice of sneak attack is a highly effective combatant. And far more likely to get promoted!

Also, I am unconvinced by your argument that the random roll is more realistic. While you don't get to pick who you are when you are born, teachers do get to pick their students, and given that PCs are members of elite professions, it seems unrealistic that they should have been given that training unless they were suited to it.

 

[Supplement Four]

That is certainly true, and when you were saying you preferred it, there was no problem. However, you were saying one reason you preferred it was because you don't like excessively heroic characters. Having sat next to a player who took 4d6 drop 1 and rolled 18,18,17,15,14,12 I am not sure that is actually an advantage. With a point buy you can rule out heroic characters by restricting the number of points available.

You have me wrong, though. If a player used Conan 321 and rolled those stats, we'd cheer!

You can't control many things about yourself when you're born, and I think the randomness shows that.

 

[kintire]

You have me wrong, though. If a player used Conan 321 and rolled those stats, we'd cheer!

You can't control many things about yourself when you're born, and I think the randomness shows that.

Well, I no longer see what your problem with heroic chargen is then...

You can't control many things about yourself when you're born. But we aren't creating babies. We are creating people who have been accepted into elite professions.

Also, I care about party balance too much to go for 321. we've had games with large differences in PC capability, and they suck.

You may be interested to hear that the player who rolled those stats junked them.

 

[cbrunish]

Without insulting anyone, I feel that the 321 method does sound interesting. I personally use the "official" method only because our group has used that form for the past 20 or so years. Actually we rolled 4d6 drop the lowest, 7 times and drop the lowest set. Even then you might not get great rolls. I remember rolling a barbarian in the old AD&D with the alternate method in back of Unearth Arcana. 8d6 and I actually rolled a 6!!!! Boy did that suck.

SF if the 321 works with your group, go to it! Just remember the game is about fun and every different group might use different methods. As long as that group has fun, that is all that counts.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, I no longer see what your problem with heroic chargen is then...

It's simple. It deliver stats that are too high.

Also, I care about party balance too much to go for 321. we've had games with large differences in PC capability, and they suck.

We've had several games in different rpgs where some characters are stat-powerful while others are stat-low. All of the characters turn out to be true characters, no matter what their stats (due to the players).

Just last Traveller campaign, one of my players rolled incredibly well throughout character generation, rendering this real tank of a character.

The other players weren't upset. They had the same chance to roll as he did.

 

[kintire]

It's simple. It deliver stats that are too high.

:?:

You have me wrong, though. If a player used Conan 321 and rolled those stats, we'd cheer!

Just last Traveller campaign, one of my players rolled incredibly well throughout character generation, rendering this real tank of a character.

The other players weren't upset.

:?:

So you object to high stats, but high stats are fine?

The other players weren't upset. They had the same chance to roll as he did.

My objection to random variation in stats is not that it is in some sense "unfair" but that a poorly balanced party is less enjoyable (and harder to design encounters for) than a balanced one.