|
Post by Jeff on Apr 22, 2005 10:25:10 GMT -5
(Can I just say that I have an abiding interest in broadly scientific answers to how and why questions. I interpret this domain to end somewhere in the middle of psychology, excluding sociology for the most part. Justin is right though, in the humanities, which I interpret as broadly as possible, I'd prefer an open fight to all this sneaking around.)
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 22, 2005 10:55:46 GMT -5
Go get em Han!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 22, 2005 11:02:54 GMT -5
Justin, I'm more confused than ever. I can't tell what you're up to, which may be your point. Now it sounds like you're preparing a different experiment from the one you were describing before. I'm all about OLD SCHOOL D&D and would love to play it emphasizing the things the rules emphasize and living within its parameters while emphasizing the fantastical that Gygax emphasizes in his intro. The result would likely lead to a good deal of rather traditional FRPG action (in fact, it's where the tradition comes from). I like that sort of thing just great, but get the feeling that isn't what this campaign will be about based on yours and David's earlier posts. Are you willing to lend some clarity about your intentions?
Also, I was initially excited by the idea of getting numbers assigned to me, but then I felt like that was akin to playing video craps instead of standing at an honest to goodness crap table and, in the parlance of those places, rolling my own. I read the Basic and Expert Rules last night and they captured my imagination. There's something fun about rolling 3 d 6 and recording your first roll next to STRENGTH on a piece of paper from a Scooby Doo tablet while knowing that whatever comes up, you have to play it or get the DM's permission to declare it a "hopeless character." Anyway, I'd roll my own unless you objected. I remember my disappointment when I learned that around 1960 John Cage stopped throwing yarrow stalks to generate random numbers for his chance generated compositions. He used a computer program instead to develop the sheer volume of randomly generated numbers he needed. That still seems a little wrong to me. You aren't a computer program, but there's magic in rolling your own, that is if you're really going old school, and like Bill, I'm all about old school.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Apr 22, 2005 11:32:37 GMT -5
Mike, I don't think I've changed my mind that much. Although maybe I haven't explained myself very well. Here's my mindset in a nutshell:
I've never been very interested in surface attractors. I've always cultivated a minimalist vibe, and I like being as fair as I can.
That all extends to this campaign: Little if any DM-introduced combat scenarios, very few DM-introduced plot devices (I'd say both of these things are surface attractors), as few technical rules as possible, and everyone playing on more or less equal footing. With those initial parameters taken care of, I think we can run a fun character-driven campaign.
Now, admittedly, I hadn't originally intended this to be a 0th edition game, but rather a 3rd edition game. But that was simply because I didn't have any of Basic/Expert rules at the time I started on it, and had never DMed a 3rd game. Nonetheless, 0th has always appealed to me. So when we were discussing the possibility of other versions, I figured I'd just suggest it. I was happy with the response, and so now I've started looking back over it. I'm attracted by the rules-light approach, and the bare necessity of knowledge needed by folks to play. I think if you understand what all is on the character sheet, then you really know about 80-90% of what the game is about. And the character sheet is so clean, so blank, it's not hard to understand it in a matter of a few moments. I don't think you can say the same of other editions.
Now, as for the fairness. That's where the random characters come in. What I've always hated about rolling your ability scores is that you might have
8 12 6 13 7 10
and your neighbors might have
10 14 8 15 9 12.
That's just silly. In reality very few people are better in every way than those they would consider their peers. I really don't even like it when the numbers don't add up to the same amount. Well, this is one place where I differ from the 0th rules. I want everyone to have the same initial state, but uniquely distributed. That way, everyone is competing on an equal basis.
But here's my solution to that.
QUICK!!!
If you're planning on playing in my campaign, run and go grab 3 d6s. Roll them exactly once, and post your results here. You're on your freakin' honor, folks. The first six results WILL BE the results I'll use for every 1st level player and NPC we'll encounter. They'll be arranged differently for everyone, though. Jeff, how many possible combinations are there in that?
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Apr 22, 2005 12:22:42 GMT -5
First Roll: 2 Second Roll: 3 Third Roll: 3
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Apr 22, 2005 12:33:50 GMT -5
11 8 11 12 13 16 13 (in case of comeliness)
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Apr 22, 2005 12:35:03 GMT -5
Rick, that's an 8. Tyler, that's an 11.
No, no comliness here. Just SIWDCC. Just four more to go, gentlemen. Let's see if we can get a roll each from the two ladies, then maybe one from Mike and one from Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Apr 22, 2005 12:39:06 GMT -5
Justin, what the fuck is your icon? Is that a coat of arms with legs (as I've thought for a week now) or is it a really hunched over dude carrying a folder?
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Apr 22, 2005 12:57:36 GMT -5
It is in fact a hunched over dude carrying a folder. Good eye, good eye.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 22, 2005 13:00:50 GMT -5
Equality of stats leaves me cool, but I rolled a 13.
My friend and colleague Sanna Pederson is better than me in every way except maybe constitution. I think given her slight frame, I could take more damage. But she can easily keep up on a hike, so even there she may have the edge. On all other abilities she's got me by 1-7 easy.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Apr 22, 2005 13:04:54 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying, Mike, but I do still want all to have equal stats. So far: 8, 11, 13. Tyler, by the way, you can see the li'l dude in full glory here: www.geocities.com/cuppagism/strangemanicon.jpg I call him Ernst Haagstrom, Duke of Cool.
|
|
|
Post by katie on Apr 22, 2005 13:30:50 GMT -5
And a 9 from me.
Hi, everyone. Looking forward to playing in Justin's game with you.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Apr 22, 2005 13:47:00 GMT -5
8, 11, 13, 9
By the way, I am hoping that when all is said & done, the totals of scores will be in the 66-75 range, otherwise, I'm going to have to seriously rearrange the stats for the NPCs. I'd really like to see at least one of them being a 15 or higher.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 22, 2005 13:56:43 GMT -5
You could just roll your own, Justin.
As my numbers take shape, a name is coming clearly to mind for my character. He'll be Harrison Bergeron.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Apr 22, 2005 14:08:29 GMT -5
My math skills are rusty, Justin. But I do have a math textbook, and I know where to look for the answer!
What you are asking is how many distinct sets of ability scores one could create with six numbers. Right? Well, that is not a combination, where order doesn’t matter, but a permutation, where it does. The formula, then, is this:
Given n objects in which a of them are alike, the number of distinguishable permutations of the n objects is n!/a!. Test the three easily imaginable cases:
If all the numbers are alike, then there is only going to be 1 permutation. [6!/6!=1]
If five are alike, then there are 6.
Now, switch to the other extreme: If all the numbers are different, then you have 720 permutations. [6!/0!=720 (remember 0!=1)]
The other three cases are:
Two alike: 360.
Three alike: 120
And, four alike: 30
BTW: Dr. Merrill had an abiding admiration for Edwards as an American philosopher. He used to say, “If all you know of him is Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, then you don’t know the philosophical Edwards.” I was always surprised by this, because I wondered how such extreme religious conclusions could follow from Merrill's perferred brand of philosophical inquiry (broadly Whiteheadian).
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 22, 2005 14:48:27 GMT -5
I rolled an 8. I love these stats. Even if no one rolls higher than a 14, I would politely demand that we keep this set.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Apr 22, 2005 14:55:18 GMT -5
Isn't Johnathan Edwards that douchbag psychic from TV? : ) Guys, for one game, couldn't we just pick an edition of DND rules and just do what the book says?
Any time you make a rule change in a game, it does exactly what you guys profess to detest, which is an increase in the rules. Not only do we have the origional rules as they are written, but we also have a secondary nebulous set of rules. If you want to minimize the rules, the first thing you want to do is not mess with them.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 22, 2005 14:57:07 GMT -5
I think we're better than the people who wrote them to begin with, and I honestly cannot see how you of all people could disagree with that statement.
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Apr 22, 2005 15:57:07 GMT -5
As my numbers take shape, a name is coming clearly to mind for my character. He'll be Harrison Bergeron. I believe you mean Hazel Bergeron. To be Harrison would require at least a couple of 18s. Maybe a couple of 19's.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 22, 2005 16:18:56 GMT -5
Rick, Hazel definitely makes more sense but I just wanted to evoke the context.
David, I don't feel more clever than the game's designers.
|
|