How do most people determine attributes?

[Sambot]

If the number is below the minimum required, or just really low, we'd allow a reroll. If it's still too low then we'd assign the minimum required and then let them improve with skill choices if possible.

As I've said, re-rolling is what I'd like to either eliminate or reduce.

Take this crappy attribute group I just rolled up today:

(snip)

If I hadn't been able to eliminate the ME penalty, there's no chance I'd play this character using the current rules. The only thing to offset the low ME would be a 1d4+3 roll, which couldn't bring any of my other stats to 20. But now I've got two stats that have bonuses (under my revised rules). Much more palatable.

Sorry. I don't understand all your math but I don't think the first one was terrible. A 6 isn't great but it's better than a 3-5. And like I said, if needed we'd just bump the attribute to the minimum. 15-17 is exceedingly good. A 22? That's winning the genetic lottery. It can happen but it shouldn't be common.

A point buy setup can be fun. It needs to take into consideration a few factors: an assessment of power level, that certain stats are worth more than others, and that PS and Spd can run quite high.

The term IQ has some history, and I've replaced it in the past with something like Education. In lieu of a minor percentage increase I wouldn't mind it just granted an extra slot every 2 points above 10, or the like.

A point buy setup can be fun. It needs to take into consideration a few factors: an assessment of power level, that certain stats are worth more than others, and that PS and Spd can run quite high.

The term IQ has some history, and I've replaced it in the past with something like Education. In lieu of a minor percentage increase I wouldn't mind it just granted an extra slot every 2 points above 10, or the like.

I've never enjoyed point buy systems.

I don't know about replacing IQ with Education. One can be very intelligent but not well educated. It would also seem to eliminate the possibility of self teaching.

[Curbludgeon]

It needn't exclusively be in reference to a formal education. Any perceived inaccuracy of the term would still be better than the current one, whose usage in general has long been recognized as controversial.

A potential stopgap solution might be introducing a handful of meta skills. "Natural Aptitude" costs 2 OCC Related slots, but adds 1% to every skill's starting value and per level increases. "Auto-didact" changes available categories, lowering the percentile value for highly technical skills, but adds Secondary slots.

[Hotrod]

Just out of curiosity, I rolled up 100 sets of human stats with a spreadsheet calculator which included the bonus dice for rolls of 16-18 and another if the bonus roll gets a 6. Notably, I did not include bonus rolls for having one or more attributes under 7.

The highest attribute total was 105 (an average of just over 13 per attribute), which happened twice, and the results and implications show an interesting contrast in outcomes.

The first was a "generally good in most areas" character with mostly high rolls, but only one exceptional roll (M.E. was 20).
I.Q. 8
M.E. 20
M.A. 9
P.S. 13
P.P. 11
P.E. 15
P.B. 14
Spd 15

This "generally good in most areas" character is kind of remarkable for how close four of the stats get to being exceptional without conferring a statistical bonus. With some modest O.C.C. and skill bonuses or other sources, the character could pick up some modest bonuses to damage, save vs magic, and charm/impress, but it would take a lot to push this character much higher than the low end of exceptional. A character rolled up like this would be excellent as a psychic character class.


The second had two crazy-exceptional rolls (P.P. was 27 and M.A. was 20) and two low ones (P.E. was 7 and Spd was 5).
I.Q. 10
M.E. 11
M.A. 20
P.S. 14
P.P. 27
P.E. 7
P.B. 11
Spd 5*
*Per RUE, the player also gets to add 1D4+3 to any non-speed attribute per RUE thanks to the low Spd roll. I didn't roll or assign this bonus.

In munchkin terms, the second is definitely the most appealing, since P.P. is *the* dominant combat stat in Rifts (It's a bit of a toss up between P.S., P.P., and P.E. in Palladium Fantasy). The low speed roll could even be a net positive, since it confers attribute bonuses in other areas, as well as providing some bonuses to prowl, palm, track, and perception. Speed is also by far the easiest attribute to improve (one or two secondary physical skills can bump speed way up). Those same physical skills would bump up P.E. enough to negate the low-attribute penalty. I could even make an argument for keeping the low-speed bonuses after increasing speed (the character grew up having to be more perceptive due to being slow, and then trained and improved the speed attribute).

But yeah, the character could have a P.P. from 31-34, which is wild. What gets even loopier is that, for the second character, if the P.E. were 1 point lower, under RUE rules, the player adds 1D4+5 to any one of the other 6 attributes and +3 to another, *or* a +2 to perception. This makes the theoretical maximum of any human attribute equal to 39 (with two other very low attributes).

What a contrast in characters! Their summed-up attributes come out to the same, but the second extreme mix would dominate in combat and charisma, and possibly other areas thanks to the extra 1D4+3 bonus to any non-speed attribute. Going head-to-head, the first character would have to find other sources of strength (like mind powers) to offset the advantages of the second.

It's also interesting how some weaknesses in several physical attribute rolls might pay *huge* dividends in the overall power level of the character while being quite easy to negate in the character generation process.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

Sorry. I don't understand all your math but I don't think the first one was terrible. A 6 isn't great but it's better than a 3-5. And like I said, if needed we'd just bump the attribute to the minimum. 15-17 is exceedingly good. A 22? That's winning the genetic lottery. It can happen but it shouldn't be common.

That's the thing, 15-17 isn't exceedingly good at all. In terms of the bonuses it gives us, I mean.

15 gives us nothing. 16 and 17 give us a +1 on stats that grant dice bonuses instead of percentage points. The +2 doesn't start until 18.

And as I said, the 22 was just dumb luck. The rules allow us to roll a 1d4+5 if we get two attributes under 7. I just switched the threshold to under 8 instead. And I happened to roll a 4. And I had Acrobatics to bump up PP one more point.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

What a contrast in characters! Their summed-up attributes come out to the same, but the second extreme mix would dominate in combat and charisma, and possibly other areas thanks to the extra 1D4+3 bonus to any non-speed attribute. Going head-to-head, the first character would have to find other sources of strength (like mind powers) to offset the advantages of the second.

It's also interesting how some weaknesses in several physical attribute rolls might pay *huge* dividends in the overall power level of the character while being quite easy to negate in the character generation process.

I wish there were some skills that allowed us to bump up IQ, ME, and MA by one point each. Just like an emergency skill to get us out of a penalty zone, the same way Wardrobe and Grooming can get us an extra PB. I mean, it's still a detriment to our character because we're using up a skill choice to compensate for a weak attribute.

Take your first character--that 8 IQ is going to deprive it of half its OCC related skill options. That's going to be somewhat limiting.

The second character is definitely superior and easy to fix.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

It needn't exclusively be in reference to a formal education. Any perceived inaccuracy of the term would still be better than the current one, whose usage in general has long been recognized as controversial.

A potential stopgap solution might be introducing a handful of meta skills. "Natural Aptitude" costs 2 OCC Related slots, but adds 1% to every skill's starting value and per level increases. "Auto-didact" changes available categories, lowering the percentile value for highly technical skills, but adds Secondary slots.

I couldn't care less about IQ's real-world connotations in this context--we're in a game setting where complex concepts must be simplified and codified in game-terms. Calling intelligence, reasoning, and capacity for learning something other than IQ in Rifts, is akin to rebranding UFOs (unidentified flying objects) into UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena). It's saying the exact same thing, with different words.

But it does bother me that IQ confers a bonus to physical skills and other skills that have nothing to do with intelligence.

PP should, instead, give a bonus to most physical percentage skills. This would matter chiefly in Gymnastics and Acrobatics (sense of balance), along with Prowl, Climbing, etc.

Swimming should get a percentage boost from high PS, maybe.

Few of the Rogue skills have much to do with raw intelligence.

[Curbludgeon]

The Forums of the Megaverse Rules recommend consolidating multiple sequential responses into one post.

I can't really fathom why people would care enough to meet an interest in more usefully codifying what attributes represent with blithe dismissal. Demonstrably not caring is a type of caring. That there is often inertia found among gamers opposed to minor updates doesn't somehow mean early terminology is legitimized by dint of being previously tolerated.

Consider the use of THAC0 in AD&D and various retroclones. It adds an extra step to attack resolution, and the only real benefit is when a given table wants to play using it just because out of an interest in genre emulation. In the case of THAC0 there's a superfluous act of subtraction, and while that time can add up it's still a matter of wasting minutes on an aesthetic choice. This is OK, especially when everyone involved knows what's happening and why. A deliberate choice to use problematic and loaded terms in game is held to a stricter standard. This, too, can work, but necessarily invites scrutiny.

It isn't as if the attribute makes any sense: Someone with a "160 IQ" is 2% better on average at most tasks than an average person?

[Fenris2020]

It needn't exclusively be in reference to a formal education. Any perceived inaccuracy of the term would still be better than the current one, whose usage in general has long been recognized as controversial.

A potential stopgap solution might be introducing a handful of meta skills. "Natural Aptitude" costs 2 OCC Related slots, but adds 1% to every skill's starting value and per level increases. "Auto-didact" changes available categories, lowering the percentile value for highly technical skills, but adds Secondary slots.

I couldn't care less about IQ's real-world connotations in this context--we're in a game setting where complex concepts must be simplified and codified in game-terms. Calling intelligence, reasoning, and capacity for learning something other than IQ in Rifts, is akin to rebranding UFOs (unidentified flying objects) into UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena). It's saying the exact same thing, with different words.

But it does bother me that IQ confers a bonus to physical skills and other skills that have nothing to do with intelligence.

PP should, instead, give a bonus to most physical percentage skills. This would matter chiefly in Gymnastics and Acrobatics (sense of balance), along with Prowl, Climbing, etc.

Swimming should get a percentage boost from high PS, maybe.

Few of the Rogue skills have much to do with raw intelligence.

I just see it as the higher-IQ person is smarter about how to apply his or her physical skills. A swimmer uses less energy, a stealthy person considers each move a little more thoroughly, and so on.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

A deliberate choice to use problematic and loaded terms in game is held to a different standard. It isn't as if the attribute makes any sense: Someone with a "160 IQ" is 2% better on average at most tasks than an average person?

Would it make any more sense if it was called "Int" for intelligence, or Capacity for Intellectualized Problem Solving (CIPS), and still conferred the same 2% bonus?

No.

Incidentally, this is one reason I wanted the attribute bonus threshold reduced from 16 to 14. The average attribute dead zone (i.e, zero bonuses) needs to be reduced, because right now it's ridiculously wide for any attribute, not just IQ.

[Curbludgeon]

That counterexamples stink doesn't make a given term necessarily useful. I'd be into using something like "Brainitude" or "Smarts", the latter of which I've seen in some games. Brainitude could probably get claimed within the trademark declaration on PB's cover pages.

[Fenris2020]

The Forums of the Megaverse Rules recommend consolidating multiple sequential responses into one post.

I can't really fathom why people would care enough to meet an interest in more usefully codifying what attributes represent with blithe dismissal. Demonstrably not caring is a type of caring. That there is often inertia found among gamers opposed to minor updates doesn't somehow mean early terminology is legitimized by dint of being previously tolerated.

Consider the use of THAC0 in AD&D and various retroclones. It adds an extra step to attack resolution, and the only real benefit is when a given table wants to play using it just because out of an interest in genre emulation. In the case of THAC0 there's a superfluous act of subtraction, and while that time can add up it's still a matter of wasting minutes on an aesthetic choice. This is OK, especially when everyone involved knows what's happening and why. A deliberate choice to use problematic and loaded terms in game is held to a stricter standard. This, too, can work, but necessarily invites scrutiny.

It isn't as if the attribute makes any sense: Someone with a "160 IQ" is 2% better on average at most tasks than an average person?

The fact that IN GAME someone with an IQ of 160+ is able to perform tasks better than an "average person" (a term which is also some-what loaded, to members in a society that thinks math is racist... along with too many other things). Then again, not everyone has to weep over terms they might or might not agree with.
IQ is a valid term. Some people disagree; generally an overly vocal minority that expects the world to pander to them. Be that as it may, it is present in the game and is a sort of "reward" for rolling well during character creation; I suppose one could view it as winning the genetic lottery, in a way.
I'm somewhat familiar with TAHAC0, though mainly when I was a kid we played D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder. Still, THAC0 worked well enough for the people who used it, and there are some gaming groups who still play the older editions. I'd like to try them sometime, myself.

[Curbludgeon]

Please don't start talking again about Nazis.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

That counterexamples stink doesn't make a given term necessarily useful. I'd be into using something like "Brainitude" or "Smarts", the latter of which I've seen in some games. Brainitude could probably get claimed within the trademark declaration on PB's cover pages.

I prefer the World of Darkness system, wherein Intelligence is restricted to what it logically should be (problem solving, abstract thinking, even including rote memorization, etc), while Perception and Wits cover other mental aspects. Someone can have raw intellect but nothing else, which is realistic.

I see Wits and 'Smarts' as being similar. Somebody with Wits can be far more capable in a broader set of circumstances than somebody with high Intelligence.

[Fenris2020]

That counterexamples stink doesn't make a given term necessarily useful. I'd be into using something like "Brainitude" or "Smarts", the latter of which I've seen in some games. Brainitude could probably get claimed within the trademark declaration on PB's cover pages.

I prefer the World of Darkness system, wherein Intelligence is restricted to what it logically should be (problem solving, abstract thinking, even including rote memorization, etc), while Perception and Wits cover other mental aspects. Someone can have raw intellect but nothing else, which is realistic.

I see Wits and 'Smarts' as being similar. Somebody with Wits can be far more capable in a broader set of circumstances than somebody with high Intelligence.

I also prefer the WoD take on over-all intelligence, among other things. The system is straight-forward and fun.
However, IQ tests generally measure all of those aspects, and then you get your "average"; for instance, my "IQ average" over 5 tests was 173. Math was 145, Creative Problem Solving was 189, and so on.
Palladium is already kind of bulky, so I prefer them to just keep one IQ stat rather than 5+ different things. Sometimes I just like a bulkier system, so I play some Palladium. I'd never go the Rolemaster route though, that's... a touch much.

[Hotrod]

What a contrast in characters! Their summed-up attributes come out to the same, but the second extreme mix would dominate in combat and charisma, and possibly other areas thanks to the extra 1D4+3 bonus to any non-speed attribute. Going head-to-head, the first character would have to find other sources of strength (like mind powers) to offset the advantages of the second.

It's also interesting how some weaknesses in several physical attribute rolls might pay *huge* dividends in the overall power level of the character while being quite easy to negate in the character generation process.

I wish there were some skills that allowed us to bump up IQ, ME, and MA by one point each. Just like an emergency skill to get us out of a penalty zone, the same way Wardrobe and Grooming can get us an extra PB. I mean, it's still a detriment to our character because we're using up a skill choice to compensate for a weak attribute.

Take your first character--that 8 IQ is going to deprive it of half its OCC related skill options. That's going to be somewhat limiting.

The second character is definitely superior and easy to fix.

Wow, I had totally missed that IQ penalties kick in at 8. All the rest of attribute penalties kick in at 7 and below (which also seems a bit high to me). Depending on the O.C.C., That's pretty darn crippling, actually, and it seems a very odd spot for having penalties kick in. A roll of 8 or lower is as statistically likely as a roll of 13 or better, but an I.Q. of 13 gives no bonuses (and RUE describes 10-13 as average), while an I.Q. of 8 cuts all your O.C.C. Related skills in half.

Per rules-as-written, characters are far more likely to be penalized for low I.Q. attributes than they are to get bonuses for high I.Q. attributes, and the low I.Q. penalties are far more consequential than their corresponding high I.Q. bonuses. This is actually true of all attribute rolls (a roll of 7 or worse is as likely as a roll of 14 or better, but bonuses don't kick in until 16), but it's particularly troublesome for low I.Q., M.E., or M.A. results because there are very few ways to improve mental stats to a significant degree. And having low-attribute penalties kick higher than low-attribute bonus rolls means that, under rules as written you could have a character effectively disabled in multiple dimensions with an I.Q. of 8 and several stats at 7. While it could be interesting to play such a character, I wouldn't want to have an average of more than one enfeebling stat per character.

[Zer0 Kay]

-Re-roll 1s
-Roll an extra die eliminating lowest roll
-All rolls can produce extraordinary rolls not just 3d6
--with n for the number of dice rolled
--s for the number of sides of the dice rolled
--ignore any modifiers (+,-,x or /) and do that after the roll is done
--(s*n)-n = the number that must be rolled over for the first bonus die
--if the bonus die = s (as in a 6 on d6) then another bonus die may be rolled
--a total of n bonus die may be rolled
So for 3d6 (3*6=18, 18-3=15 so with 3d6 16+ gets the first bonus die and up to two more may be rolled IF each bonus die is a 6) you a possible roll of 3-36
If the character has a stat that is 1d4 (1*4=4, 4-1= 3 so if you roll a 3 or 4 you get to roll an extra d4, but you have a max of one bonus die) stats are between 1 and 8
but this makes it so that not just the species that have 3d6 rolls can have exceptional rolls.
-Stat switching is allowed but only if the dice rolled are the same number and kind and applied bonuses stay with the stat not with the die roll.

[Curbludgeon]

The thing I like the most about WoD systems is that it encourages people stuck in the 1990s to dress like vampires. The second thing arguably is the extent to which it roughly quantizes degrees of ability and success. If attributes go from 1-5, or 1-10 in limited cases, there's a cap on potential results. That extends to some degree even to the more handwavey social elements, where an influence of 5 might mean a character is a CEO or UN Ambassador. If the total potential range of outcomes for a given skill check goes from botch to 8 successes, that can prove more mechanically useful than two characters in a percentile system having an opposed roll with skill values 4% apart.

I'm not personally a big fan of dice pools, however, and don't pretend either they or Palladium's system are in any way realistic. I don't really understand why someone would desire that in a game about dog people fighting wizards.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

Per rules-as-written, characters are far more likely to be penalized for low I.Q. attributes than they are to get bonuses for high I.Q. attributes, and the low I.Q. penalties are far more consequential than their corresponding high I.Q. bonuses. This is actually true of all attribute rolls (a roll of 7 or worse is as likely as a roll of 14 or better, but bonuses don't kick in until 16), but it's particularly troublesome for low I.Q., M.E., or M.A. results because there are very few ways to improve mental stats to a significant degree.

Yes, this is exactly what I've been driving at.

We're much more likely to roll up penalty stats than bonus stats. The bonus ceiling is too high. While it'd be easy to get 'greedy' and want the ceiling lowered along with increasing bonus levels accordingly (i.e, 14-15 is +1, 16-17 is +2, etc), I'm okay with leaving it flat +1 from 14-17. I don't want to make high-attribute characters more powerful; I just want mid-high characters to get some statistical benefit from being higher than average.

The fact that penalties start at 7 (or 8), while we don't get an extra die roll until 6--this is puzzling to me. Because 6 and 7 confer the same penalty levels. So we're just as screwed if we roll a 7 as if we roll a 6, but we only get the extra die roll as compensation for a 6.

That's why I propose making house rules (at least) where we get the bonus at 7. This greatly expands our ability to compensate low attributes, thus potentially minimizing the need for re-rolling.

[Sambot]

It needn't exclusively be in reference to a formal education. Any perceived inaccuracy of the term would still be better than the current one, whose usage in general has long been recognized as controversial.

A potential stopgap solution might be introducing a handful of meta skills. "Natural Aptitude" costs 2 OCC Related slots, but adds 1% to every skill's starting value and per level increases. "Auto-didact" changes available categories, lowering the percentile value for highly technical skills, but adds Secondary slots.

I don't know if that would work. Natural Aptitude can be very selective. Someone can have a Natural Aptitude for Math but be terrible at sports or the other way around. Your stereotypical Nerd vs Jock. That can be reflected with the current attributes. High IQ and low Physical or high Physical and low IQ.

I can see the Auto-didact having lower percentile values or bonuses for all skills. Not having an instructor would include not having a coach or sensei. And I can see adding Secondary slots. But you still have to be intelligent enough to be able to teach yourself. Granted there's a lot of things people can learn on their own but a higher intelligence would allow that subject to be leaned faster than a lower one. So it still get's tied to IQ.

Sorry. I don't understand all your math but I don't think the first one was terrible. A 6 isn't great but it's better than a 3-5. And like I said, if needed we'd just bump the attribute to the minimum. 15-17 is exceedingly good. A 22? That's winning the genetic lottery. It can happen but it shouldn't be common.

That's the thing, 15-17 isn't exceedingly good at all. In terms of the bonuses it gives us, I mean.

15 gives us nothing. 16 and 17 give us a +1 on stats that grant dice bonuses instead of percentage points. The +2 doesn't start until 18.

And as I said, the 22 was just dumb luck. The rules allow us to roll a 1d4+5 if we get two attributes under 7. I just switched the threshold to under 8 instead. And I happened to roll a 4. And I had Acrobatics to bump up PP one more point.

If 8 or less is below average getting penalties, and 16 plus is above average gaining bonuses, wouldn't 9-15 be average with 12-13 being right in the middle? Average is good. Most people are middle of the road average. A 15 is very good. Not as good as a 16 but better than a 12 since skill choices can allow a 15 to become a 16 more easily than a 12. And the rules do give us the 1d4+5 to compensate. A character like Stephen Hawking would have had very low physical rolls but their IQ would be huge! So I don't have a problem with how the rolls are and I wouldn't want everyone to be super. Like Syndrome said in the Incredibles, "When everyone is super, no one will be." Would Max Sterling still be Max Sterling when everyone is Max Sterling?

Also isn't there a rule allowing players to still play a character if their roll is 1 or 2 below the minimum? I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Doing that would allow or more role playing. The character got tutoring or someone higher up passed them anyway for some reason. If there isn't a rule like that, just bump them to the minimum and play. Not everyone has to be Max Sterling.

What a contrast in characters! Their summed-up attributes come out to the same, but the second extreme mix would dominate in combat and charisma, and possibly other areas thanks to the extra 1D4+3 bonus to any non-speed attribute. Going head-to-head, the first character would have to find other sources of strength (like mind powers) to offset the advantages of the second.

It's also interesting how some weaknesses in several physical attribute rolls might pay *huge* dividends in the overall power level of the character while being quite easy to negate in the character generation process.

I wish there were some skills that allowed us to bump up IQ, ME, and MA by one point each. Just like an emergency skill to get us out of a penalty zone, the same way Wardrobe and Grooming can get us an extra PB. I mean, it's still a detriment to our character because we're using up a skill choice to compensate for a weak attribute.

Take your first character--that 8 IQ is going to deprive it of half its OCC related skill options. That's going to be somewhat limiting.

The second character is definitely superior and easy to fix.

Like mnemonic learning or something? That might be a good article for The Rifter.

It can be frustrating to roll low. That's why we'd allow a reroll or just bump to the minimum required. But I can understand the penalties. Not being able to learn as well or as fast would limit how many skills can be picked. And without low rolls we wouldn't get the 1d4+5 to compensate.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

If 8 or less is below average getting penalties, and 16 plus is above average gaining bonuses, wouldn't 9-15 be average with 12-13 being right in the middle? Average is good. Most people are middle of the road average. A 15 is very good. Not as good as a 16 but better than a 12 since skill choices can allow a 15 to become a 16 more easily than a 12. And the rules do give us the 1d4+5 to compensate.

You're missing the point.

First of all, mental attributes can't be improved with skills. So if you're stuck at a 15 ME, it's never going up without an OCC bonus (which are few and far between).

Secondly, 15 being 'very good' means absolutely nothing in game terms, because we don't get a bonus for being 'very good.' Why call an attribute number very good if it translates into nothing at all? The write up on attributes explicitly says that 14 and 15 are well above average. So why don't they get a bonus, then?

On the other end of the spectrum, the moment we slip below the 9-13 average zone, and hit 7 or 8, we get a penalty (IQ for the latter). Logically, if we fall 2-3 points under 'average' and get a penalty, then 2-3 points over 'average' should get a bonus. Instead we must get 5-6 points over average to get a bonus.

As for what's an average attribute number, statistically: that's somewhere between 10 and 11. That's what a 3d6 roll will generate on average. Thus, 14 and 15 are way above average.

Besides not making a lot of sense, it's also a probability issue. The system is hard wired to give us attribute rolls that are low enough to be penalized rather than confer a bonus.

And in order to get the 1d4+5, we need at least two attributes under 7. Otherwise for one low attribute, it's 1d4+3.

[Fenris2020]

If 8 or less is below average getting penalties, and 16 plus is above average gaining bonuses, wouldn't 9-15 be average with 12-13 being right in the middle? Average is good. Most people are middle of the road average. A 15 is very good. Not as good as a 16 but better than a 12 since skill choices can allow a 15 to become a 16 more easily than a 12. And the rules do give us the 1d4+5 to compensate.

You're missing the point.

First of all, mental attributes can't be improved with skills. So if you're stuck at a 15 ME, it's never going up without an OCC bonus (which are few and far between).

Secondly, 15 being 'very good' means absolutely nothing in game terms, because we don't get a bonus for being 'very good.' Why call an attribute number very good if it translates into nothing at all? The write up on attributes explicitly says that 14 and 15 are well above average. So why don't they get a bonus, then?

On the other end of the spectrum, the moment we slip below the 9-13 average zone, and hit 7 or 8, we get a penalty (IQ for the latter). Logically, if we fall 2-3 points under 'average' and get a penalty, then 2-3 points over 'average' should get a bonus. Instead we must get 5-6 points over average to get a bonus.

As for what's an average attribute number, statistically: that's somewhere between 10 and 11. That's what a 3d6 roll will generate on average. Thus, 14 and 15 are way above average.

Besides not making a lot of sense, it's also a probability issue. The system is hard wired to give us attribute rolls that are low enough to be penalized rather than confer a bonus.

And in order to get the 1d4+5, we need at least two attributes under 7. Otherwise for one low attribute, it's 1d4+3.

I think the problem here is that you've gotten used to the "YES YOU CAN!!" D20 system, where bonuses start at 12.
I don't think that's necessary.

[eliakon]

Point of order.
There *are* skills, martial art forms, and other things, both official and unofficial that can provide bonuses to mental stats.

[Hotrod]

Point of order.
There *are* skills, martial art forms, and other things, both official and unofficial that can provide bonuses to mental stats.

True, but it's a *lot* harder to raise those than it is to raise Speed, P.S., or P.E. It's even harder to raise mental stats than P.P. There are some modest bonuses for a few O.C.C.'s, and a few obscure references have some other means, but you have to really dig and give a character some non-standard stuff to raise mental stats to any significant degree.

[Curbludgeon]

Hey, Sambot, the terms Natural Aptitude and Auto-Didact were intended as placeholders, so if you have some suggestion please feel encouraged to share that. Their function is what's germane: options to add slots or increase overall percentages, each at a cost. An additional option might be something whose (tentative, and deliberately temporary due to being the same as a D&D feat, so have fun) name is Skill Focus: 1 OCC Related skill slot and one Secondary slot, which allows a single skill which normally can't have 2 slots expended on them to be treated as such, with the attendant percentile and perceived quality bump.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

I think the problem here is that you've gotten used to the "YES YOU CAN!!" D20 system, where bonuses start at 12.

Nope. 12 would be idiotic.

All I'm suggesting is probabilistically balancing out the penalty range of 3-7 (or 8), with a bonus range of 14-18.

Since a clear majority here doesn't abide by the straight 3d6 system, that same majority evidently isn't content to roll a gimped character at twice the rate of a talented character.

[Fenris2020]

I think the problem here is that you've gotten used to the "YES YOU CAN!!" D20 system, where bonuses start at 12.

Nope. 12 would be idiotic.

All I'm suggesting is probabilistically balancing out the penalty range of 3-7 (or , with a bonus range of 14-18.

Since a clear majority here doesn't abide by the straight 3d6 system, that same majority evidently isn't content to roll a gimped character at twice the rate of a talented character.

However, stats go up to 50... are you proposing to increase the bonus of someone with a PS of 50?

[eliakon]

I think the problem here is that you've gotten used to the "YES YOU CAN!!" D20 system, where bonuses start at 12.

Nope. 12 would be idiotic.

All I'm suggesting is probabilistically balancing out the penalty range of 3-7 (or , with a bonus range of 14-18.

Since a clear majority here doesn't abide by the straight 3d6 system, that same majority evidently isn't content to roll a gimped character at twice the rate of a talented character.

And the bonuses don't scale the same way the penalties do...which also provide bonuses where as a high stat doesn't penalize anything.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

However, stats go up to 50... are you proposing to increase the bonus of someone with a PS of 50?

No. As I've previously stated, I would leave the +1, +2, etc, and attributes over 30, progression the same as it is now.

Nothing would be different beyond allowing characters to get the lowest tier of bonuses at 14 instead of 16. The +1 bonuses would range from 14-17. The +2s would start at 18 as they currently do for most attributes.

As for percentage-based bonuses, I suppose they could easily be proportionally reduced. For instance, a PB of 14 would grant a 20% bonus to charm, 15 would be 25%, and 16 would remain the 30% it currently is. MA's bonus could be adjusted down to 30% at 14, and PE's coma bonus could drop to 2% at 14.

IQ is the only attribute that I think needs to be reworked. At 14 it should give +4%, then +1% for each number beyond that. End result is that at 30 IQ, the bonus would be 20% versus the 16% it is now. Hardly game breaking.

The writeup on attributes explicitly states that attributes from 14-16 are 'well above average'. But 14 and 15 are totally ignored, which is what I find illogical. Don't call something 'well above average' without rewarding it.

In terms of pure dice rolling probability, 14 is way above average. RUE considers 10-13 as average, but really 13 is already on the high side of average. After manually rolling 30 characters for testing purposes, my average is 11.21.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

And the bonuses don't scale the same way the penalties do...which also provide bonuses where as a high stat doesn't penalize anything.

Penalties don't provide bonuses anywhere near enough to compensate for what they take away.

IQ annihilates your OCC skills, and gives you secondaries in return. That's a net performance loss, since all those secondaries will be performed with no OCC bonus. Meaning the character will have very low success rates for a long time.

MA of 5-7 gives you a tiny bonus to a few skills, but lower than that is pure skill gutting.

ME, PS, PP, and PE penalties are all straight losses with nothing to compensate. PP's penalties are so destructive, it reduces your combat ability and a wide range of skill performance.

The Speed penalty gives perception in exchange for your character basically moving at sloth speeds.

The only attribute bonus-hidden-within-a-penalty that somebody might want, is PB's bonus to horror factor and intimidation.

[eliakon]

And the bonuses don't scale the same way the penalties do...which also provide bonuses where as a high stat doesn't penalize anything.

Penalties don't provide bonuses anywhere near enough to compensate for what they take away.

IQ annihilates your OCC skills, and gives you secondaries in return. That's a net performance loss, since all those secondaries will be performed with no OCC bonus. Meaning the character will have very low success rates for a long time.

MA of 5-7 gives you a tiny bonus to a few skills, but lower than that is pure skill gutting.

ME, PS, PP, and PE penalties are all straight losses with nothing to compensate. PP's penalties are so destructive, it reduces your combat ability and a wide range of skill performance.

The Speed penalty gives perception in exchange for your character basically moving at sloth speeds.

The only attribute bonus-hidden-within-a-penalty that somebody might want, is PB's bonus to horror factor and intimidation.

And a single attribute below 7 grants a bonus of 1d4+3 to the attribute of your choice... thats big enough that I have had players *try* to get a low stat to buff another stat.
So, as you mention getting a PB of 7 (a whopping -5% to a handful of skills) you can add 1d4+3 to IQ or PP...

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

And a single attribute below 7 grants a bonus of 1d4+3 to the attribute of your choice... thats big enough that I have had players *try* to get a low stat to buff another stat.
So, as you mention getting a PB of 7 (a whopping -5% to a handful of skills) you can add 1d4+3 to IQ or PP...

Except we can't really try to get low stats. If we could choose, then yeah, obviously stats like MA, PB, and SPD would be the dump stats.

If we get a PP of 6, say, then at best we could take Acrobatics and Gymnastics to reach 8 and no penalties. But there are two problems with this: first, many OCCs don't allow you to take both; and second, we're using up vital OCC-related (not secondary) skills in order to compensate for low attributes--thus we're always sacrificing something when we get a low attribute.

The only attributes that are easy to increase for most OCCs (i.e, the mainstream ones that ~90% of people will end up playing), are PS, PE, and SPD. Everything else requires you to be lucky enough to pass the minimum reqs. for a specific OCC that grants a mental bonus, as in the Ley Line Walker's case.

[eliakon]

And a single attribute below 7 grants a bonus of 1d4+3 to the attribute of your choice... thats big enough that I have had players *try* to get a low stat to buff another stat.
So, as you mention getting a PB of 7 (a whopping -5% to a handful of skills) you can add 1d4+3 to IQ or PP...

Except we can't really try to get low stats. If we could choose, then yeah, obviously stats like MA, PB, and SPD would be the dump stats.

True, the official stat generation system does not allow placing stats and has you roll in order.
that said I have very rarely seen that actually be done in practice by groups
HOWEVER lets assume that the table is, in fact using the exact rules as spelled out in the books (this is, after all about the RAW)
The other issue that is not being addressed here is that it highly depends on how the table works. I have rarely seen a game group where everyone rolls straight stats and regardless of what they get plays it. Instead even in groups where you roll stats in order, I have yet to see a group that does not allow you to "mulligan" a character who has unusable stats and try again.
I would point out as well that there is nothing in the rules that says you can not do this, to the contrary the rules tell us to have fun and that we should play things that we find to be fun.

If we get a PP of 6, say, then at best we could take Acrobatics and Gymnastics to reach 8 and no penalties. But there are two problems with this: first, many OCCs don't allow you to take both; and second, we're using up vital OCC-related (not secondary) skills in order to compensate for low attributes--thus we're always sacrificing something when we get a low attribute.

I would also point out though that you are always going to be spending something to build something. You don't have to compensate for the low stat though... I have run characters who had low stats and had a blast. I rolled a character with an off the scale PB and MA and absolutely horrid PS and Spd. I decided that she had "there are visible scars on her lower legs where you can see damage to her muscles from where shakles held her tightly" and it became a bit of lore and a motivation.
It also was interesting for the rest of the party because they knew that we had to be super careful because she could not run away from danger.

The only attributes that are easy to increase for most OCCs (i.e, the mainstream ones that ~90% of people will end up playing), are PS, PE, and SPD. Everything else requires you to be lucky enough to pass the minimum reqs. for a specific OCC that grants a mental bonus, as in the Ley Line Walker's case.

Sort of true.
If we don't use any of the material in the Rifter.
And we don't use MAFs

However, even if we don't it still ignores that you get a range of "normal" in this case 8-15 where you don't get a particular bonus or penalty for a stat. If you roll above that, you get a bonus, if you roll below that you get a penalty and for the first 2 times a compensating bonus.
given that the stats are designed around rolling 3d6 the end result is that it basically says "if you can roll all fives and sixes your get a small boost". It is also likely instructive that the stats give bonuses at the same rate as the system it was evolved from (ADnD 1e) did not allow bonuses to many stats until you got to nineteen! So the idea that you can get a bonus to intelligence on a rollable stat was novel...

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

The other issue that is not being addressed here is that it highly depends on how the table works. I have rarely seen a game group where everyone rolls straight stats and regardless of what they get plays it. Instead even in groups where you roll stats in order, I have yet to see a group that does not allow you to "mulligan" a character who has unusable stats and try again.

Well, this is my point entirely.

I find it a rather needlessly roundabout method of generating attributes. Everybody generally knows what type of character they intend to play (if they have any level of experience with the game system), and often a very specific OCC. But barring that, at least a vague notion of 'I want to play a magic character (or psionic, or tech, or support, etc).

Instead of rolling up a character and then attempting to plug that character into any compatible OCC, most people, I wager, would rather tailor their attributes to their preferred OCC. But the current system essentially forces them to manipulate their attribute rolls to match their OCC, either by rerolling or doing 4d6 or whatever. It's not an 'organic' way of matching attributes to OCC.

I don't mind that the original Palladium creation system works the way it does; it's just that, if most people don't follow it by the book, then maybe an alternative 'official' creation process should be offered.

What I'm trying to come up with, is an unofficial way of generating attributes without needing to reroll at all.

[Fenris2020]

And a single attribute below 7 grants a bonus of 1d4+3 to the attribute of your choice... thats big enough that I have had players *try* to get a low stat to buff another stat.
So, as you mention getting a PB of 7 (a whopping -5% to a handful of skills) you can add 1d4+3 to IQ or PP...

Except we can't really try to get low stats. If we could choose, then yeah, obviously stats like MA, PB, and SPD would be the dump stats.

If we get a PP of 6, say, then at best we could take Acrobatics and Gymnastics to reach 8 and no penalties. But there are two problems with this: first, many OCCs don't allow you to take both; and second, we're using up vital OCC-related (not secondary) skills in order to compensate for low attributes--thus we're always sacrificing something when we get a low attribute.

The only attributes that are easy to increase for most OCCs (i.e, the mainstream ones that ~90% of people will end up playing), are PS, PE, and SPD. Everything else requires you to be lucky enough to pass the minimum reqs. for a specific OCC that grants a mental bonus, as in the Ley Line Walker's case.

MA and PB might be "dump stats" for roll-players, but role-players tend to like them.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

MA and PB might be "dump stats" for roll-players, but role-players tend to like them.

You can also roleplay having very low MA and PB. Two sides of the same coin.

Can't really roleplay a low PE. You just die quickly. Reminding everyone of your frailty in conversation would get old soon. Maybe wheeze every time you go up a flight of stairs.

Roleplaying a low PP would entail saying 'oops, butterfingers!' while you're disarming a bomb at a -15% penalty.

Having extremes (high or low) in IQ, ME, MA, and PB, provide the most roleplay fodder.

Though if forced to play a character with a low IQ, I would just default to Simple Jack.

[eliakon]

The other issue that is not being addressed here is that it highly depends on how the table works. I have rarely seen a game group where everyone rolls straight stats and regardless of what they get plays it. Instead even in groups where you roll stats in order, I have yet to see a group that does not allow you to "mulligan" a character who has unusable stats and try again.

Well, this is my point entirely.

I find it a rather needlessly roundabout method of generating attributes. Everybody generally knows what type of character they intend to play (if they have any level of experience with the game system), and often a very specific OCC. But barring that, at least a vague notion of 'I want to play a magic character (or psionic, or tech, or support, etc).

Instead of rolling up a character and then attempting to plug that character into any compatible OCC, most people, I wager, would rather tailor their attributes to their preferred OCC. But the current system essentially forces them to manipulate their attribute rolls to match their OCC, either by rerolling or doing 4d6 or whatever. It's not an 'organic' way of matching attributes to OCC.

Literally every game system that is not a point buy one does this

I don't mind that the original Palladium creation system works the way it does; it's just that, if most people don't follow it by the book, then maybe an alternative 'official' creation process should be offered.

What I'm trying to come up with, is an unofficial way of generating attributes without needing to reroll at all.

You really have two choices
use rolling stats (you might want to look at the option for differental stat rolls in the Robotech 2e books)
or use a point buy system of some sort (which would require basically inventing a new game system)

[eliakon]

MA and PB might be "dump stats" for roll-players, but role-players tend to like them.

You can also roleplay having very low MA and PB. Two sides of the same coin.

Can't really roleplay a low PE. You just die quickly. Reminding everyone of your frailty in conversation would get old soon. Maybe wheeze every time you go up a flight of stairs.

Roleplaying a low PP would entail saying 'oops, butterfingers!' while you're disarming a bomb at a -15% penalty.

Having extremes (high or low) in IQ, ME, MA, and PB, provide the most roleplay fodder.

Though if forced to play a character with a low IQ, I would just default to Simple Jack.

I have roleplayed low PE and PP several times actually.
my low PE character was a worry wort who was always making sure that things were "safe" (mercenary group gave him the call sign "mom")
my low PP character simply avoided delicate tasks and we had a standing joke running that any critical failure that character generated would, if at all possible be something dexterity related... the laughter at the table as we tried to figure out how "old Klutz McCall messed this up how" was some of the best memories from that game for most of the players

[Hotrod]

It might be interesting to compare the stats of published un-augmented human N.P.C.s to the kinds of outcomes we get out of dice rolls in the rules as written.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

You really have two choices
use rolling stats (you might want to look at the option for differental stat rolls in the Robotech 2e books)
or use a point buy system of some sort (which would require basically inventing a new game system)

I'm currently in favor of adding a preset number to the rolls of two of our preferred attributes, while subtracting a preset number from 3 of our weakest attributes. The remaining 3 attributes could just be straight 3d6 rolls with no modifiers.

This leaves quite a lot of wiggle room for chance, while still allowing us to steer the end result in a direction we find suitable for our desired OCC.

[Killer Cyborg]

It might be interesting to compare the stats of published un-augmented human N.P.C.s to the kinds of outcomes we get out of dice rolls in the rules as written.

Yeah, I highly suspect that we'd find virtually no NPCs that conform to statistical expectations based on RAW.


But maybe look at it this way:
Under the RMB, there were no penalties for low attributes, only bonuses for unusually high attributes.
Attribute rolls mostly didn't matter (outside of picking character class, to the extent it mattered there) unless you rolled unusually well and got some minor bonuses, OR unless you got physical skills and such to boost your physical attributes up to a certain level.
So it mostly didn't matter much that the dice skew toward the Below Average level of human ability, since the difference between Average and Below Average was negligible.

But People Complained, and Palladium fixed things in RUE by slapping in more rules that were never really play-tested or thoroughly thought-out by Palladium, as per their tradition.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

It might be interesting to compare the stats of published un-augmented human N.P.C.s to the kinds of outcomes we get out of dice rolls in the rules as written.

First book I thought of for easy comparisons: Rifts Mercenaries.

Lightdancer, Elf Ley Line Walker: IQ 19; MA 9; ME 14; PS 14; PP 18; PE 15; PB 19; Spd 10. 38 HP, 21 SDC.

General Smith, Human Parapsychologist: IQ 17; MA 15; ME 19; PS 13; PP 17; PE 18; PB 10; Spd 15. 43 HP, 26 SDC.

Zippo, mutant Human from Heroes and Villains (converted into Rifts): IQ 11; MA 12; ME 15; PS 13; PP 9; PE 18; PB 11; Spd 12. 80-220 MDC.

Paul Konrad, Human Glitter Boy Pilot: IQ 12; MA 16; ME 15; PS 21; PP 23; PE 18; PB 10; Spd 18. HP 47, SDC 66.

Damian Crow, Human Special Forces Soldier: IQ 18; MA 20; ME 15; PS 17; PP 21; PE 15; PB 16; Spd 27. 52 HP, 56 SDC.

Wilhelm Kratz, Human Special Forces Soldier: IQ 13; MA 9; ME 17; PS 23; PP 22; PE 24; PB 7; Spd 26. HP 59, SDC 74.

Janet Braddock, Human Headhunter: IQ 17; MA 20; ME 18; PS 17; PP 19; PE 15; PB 19; Spd 17. HP 43; SDC 30.

Luigi Grimaldi, Human Safecracker/Demolitions expert: IQ 23; MA 10; ME 12; PS 9; PP 14; PE 13; PB 8; Spd 9. HP 35, SDC 13.

~~~~~~~~

This is a fairly small sample, but you can see an aversion to penalty attributes. They flirt with a few, but only one in this entire group has a PB of 7.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

I have roleplayed low PE and PP several times actually.
my low PE character was a worry wort who was always making sure that things were "safe" (mercenary group gave him the call sign "mom")
my low PP character simply avoided delicate tasks and we had a standing joke running that any critical failure that character generated would, if at all possible be something dexterity related... the laughter at the table as we tried to figure out how "old Klutz McCall messed this up how" was some of the best memories from that game for most of the players

For the record, I'm not against having cripplingly low physical stats. Rather, I want more--or any--control over when I get them.

For example, I just rolled up a Spetsnaz Mage OCC. It's a truly awful combat OCC, as it strips you of all OCC-related (in this case, an MOS with more skills) and secondary skills. You just get the very limited skills that come with the Spetsnaz parent OCC, then the mage spells that come with the sub-class selection. The regular Spetsnaz Martial Arts combat skill is reduced to Expert (which is ridiculous, since even a Mystic can use Assassin HtoH).

The only thing good about it is that it mixes elements of the Ley Line Walker with the Mystic. It can learn spells, but also automatically gets 3 spells every second level (2,4,etc), up to 3 levels above your current level. I intend to turn it into a pure support mage, after having it go AWOL and heading to the Federation of Magic.

Anyway. I used my patented 'weighted attribute rolls' to give it 17 ME and 19 PE, with no other bonuses, and a 6 PS. That PS can't go up, because of how brutally restrictive the OCC's skill selection is. I don't think I can ever pick another skill again, in fact.

If I hadn't used the weighted rolls (adding to some stats before I roll, subtracting from others), I would've had an utterly bland 8-13 average across the board, with no bonuses or penalties.

[Grazzik]

I see Rifts PCs as the exceptional standard, heroes usually at 11+ on average. So I go with (best 3 of 5)d6 for each attribute. This means a lot of 11-15 rolls. Not sure if it was mentioned, but attributes of 11-15 are not meaningless if you allow attribute checks in your game. Just using attributes to stack bonuses is boring, checks make them worth the space on your char sheet.

E.g. in my games, a PC has a puzzle they need to solve, say moving a lever a certain way, but doesn't have a relative skill, just a run-of-the-mill puzzle. If the puzzle is easy IQx5, so 50% chance at IQ 10 but 75% at IQ 15. If the puzzle is moderate, then IQx3. 30% at IQ 10, 45% at IQ 15, not as big a difference but still meaningful.

Similarly, low attributes have more impact than just the prescribed penalties... they really help define the char through the checks. A PC with IQ 10 can solve an easy puzzle 50%, but a zombie with IQ 7 chasing the PC would only succeed 35% on the same puzzle. A mummy with IQ 4 chasing the PC would only succeed 20% per try, probably giving the PC a chance at gaining a lead.

Nothing spices up a story like a mummy with a lucky first guess...

[Nekira Sudacne]

Per rules-as-written, characters are far more likely to be penalized for low I.Q. attributes than they are to get bonuses for high I.Q. attributes, and the low I.Q. penalties are far more consequential than their corresponding high I.Q. bonuses. This is actually true of all attribute rolls (a roll of 7 or worse is as likely as a roll of 14 or better, but bonuses don't kick in until 16), but it's particularly troublesome for low I.Q., M.E., or M.A. results because there are very few ways to improve mental stats to a significant degree.

Yes, this is exactly what I've been driving at.

We're much more likely to roll up penalty stats than bonus stats. The bonus ceiling is too high. While it'd be easy to get 'greedy' and want the ceiling lowered along with increasing bonus levels accordingly (i.e, 14-15 is +1, 16-17 is +2, etc), I'm okay with leaving it flat +1 from 14-17. I don't want to make high-attribute characters more powerful; I just want mid-high characters to get some statistical benefit from being higher than average.

The fact that penalties start at 7 (or , while we don't get an extra die roll until 6--this is puzzling to me. Because 6 and 7 confer the same penalty levels. So we're just as screwed if we roll a 7 as if we roll a 6, but we only get the extra die roll as compensation for a 6.

That's why I propose making house rules (at least) where we get the bonus at 7. This greatly expands our ability to compensate low attributes, thus potentially minimizing the need for re-rolling.

Honestly, the system worked better before penalties for negative attributes were introduced at all--they didn't exist prior to RUE.

Yes, this did mean there was no difference mechancially between an IQ of 3 and an IQ of 15 other than meeting O.C.C. minimum requirements.

Which is all they were really intended for. Most character's would have 1 or 0 extraordinary attributes unless they took enough physical skills to buff up PS (which had it's own cost), but this was fine because it wasn't intended to "Create a realistic spread of ability" and more "Extraordinary attributes are a reward for getting lucky, but your character doesn't strictly need any"

((And then people noticed what a hilarious benefit P.P. was to put the lie to that, and would whenever possible put the highest roll into P.P. if it was allowed. but lets elide that for now))

Putting in negative attributes, in my opinion, has been more of a net harm to the system than help. Yes, it's not realistic that a spread of 3-15 had no mechanical difference, but the alternative was crippling some characters through no fault of their own out of the gate. which seems to be what was ultimately adopted.

Personally, I think they had it half-right. Point-Buy is the best way to make a fair chargen system, but if you perfer to have a random system (which is perfectly fine, I like both systems myself), then the fairest way to have a random system is to have a minimum baseline of competence that starts at the lowest possible result, and then marginally increases as you get better.

E.G. there should never be a penalty for low scores, only bonuses for high scores. you can get lucky, but never unlucky*


*Things get tricky where O.C.C. requirements come into play. If you dont' care what you play starting out and are happy just going with whatever you qualify for, that's fine; but if there was ever a case where a player had their heart set on playing a particular class and they didn't qualify for it, i'd always let them bump up to minimum, because while I see the point of the mechanic, it should be used as a guideline more than a doorstop.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

Personally, I think they had it half-right. Point-Buy is the best way to make a fair chargen system, but if you perfer to have a random system (which is perfectly fine, I like both systems myself), then the fairest way to have a random system is to have a minimum baseline of competence that starts at the lowest possible result, and then marginally increases as you get better.

E.G. there should never be a penalty for low scores, only bonuses for high scores. you can get lucky, but never unlucky*


*Things get tricky where O.C.C. requirements come into play. If you dont' care what you play starting out and are happy just going with whatever you qualify for, that's fine; but if there was ever a case where a player had their heart set on playing a particular class and they didn't qualify for it, i'd always let them bump up to minimum, because while I see the point of the mechanic, it should be used as a guideline more than a doorstop.

All reasonable arguments. And yeah, I largely agree. My only problem with the point-buy system is it's a little too predictable, while pure 3d6 rolls are too unpredictable.

I like that the option to take a penalty stat exists, but we shouldn't be forced to roll them up at the rate that we do. Thus, going forward, I think I'm going to stick with my system of adding and subtracting fixed numbers from 3d6 rolls. Plenty of D-Bees already roll up stats with 2 or 3d6+X, but none subtract. That's what I think balances out the 'unfairness' of giving human characters a flat bonus to certain attribute rolls.

It's similar to the point-buy system in that we can choose which attributes get a bonus and which get a penalty, but there's still some variability of just how large of a penalty or bonus we'll be getting.

[Hotrod]

It might be interesting to compare the stats of published un-augmented human N.P.C.s to the kinds of outcomes we get out of dice rolls in the rules as written.

First book I thought of for easy comparisons: Rifts Mercenaries.

Lightdancer, Elf Ley Line Walker: IQ 19; MA 9; ME 14; PS 14; PP 18; PE 15; PB 19; Spd 10. 38 HP, 21 SDC. SUM TOTAL: 118

General Smith, Human Parapsychologist: IQ 17; MA 15; ME 19; PS 13; PP 17; PE 18; PB 10; Spd 15. 43 HP, 26 SDC. SUM TOTAL: 124

Zippo, mutant Human from Heroes and Villains (converted into Rifts): IQ 11; MA 12; ME 15; PS 13; PP 9; PE 18; PB 11; Spd 12. 80-220 MDC. SUM TOTAL: 101

Paul Konrad, Human Glitter Boy Pilot: IQ 12; MA 16; ME 15; PS 21; PP 23; PE 18; PB 10; Spd 18. HP 47, SDC 66. SUM TOTAL: 133

Damian Crow, Human Special Forces Soldier: IQ 18; MA 20; ME 15; PS 17; PP 21; PE 15; PB 16; Spd 27. 52 HP, 56 SDC. SUM TOTAL: 149

Wilhelm Kratz, Human Special Forces Soldier: IQ 13; MA 9; ME 17; PS 23; PP 22; PE 24; PB 7; Spd 26. HP 59, SDC 74. SUM TOTAL: 141

Janet Braddock, Human Headhunter: IQ 17; MA 20; ME 18; PS 17; PP 19; PE 15; PB 19; Spd 17. HP 43; SDC 30. SUM TOTAL: 142

Luigi Grimaldi, Human Safecracker/Demolitions expert: IQ 23; MA 10; ME 12; PS 9; PP 14; PE 13; PB 8; Spd 9. HP 35, SDC 13. SUM TOTAL: 98

~~~~~~~~

This is a fairly small sample, but you can see an aversion to penalty attributes. They flirt with a few, but only one in this entire group has a PB of 7.

So I revised my statroller spreadsheet to include bonus attributes for rolls below seven. Even throwing those in, the highest I had in 100 rolls was a sum total of 111. The median total was in the 80s (I didn't record every one). Even with physical stat boosts from skills, only two of these are reasonable attribute rolls, and only 3-4 are plausible. The statistical odds against rolling attribute totals of over 140 are very low.

I'm reminded of a YouTube short I saw a month or so back interviewing a young woman about what she wanted in a guy. Her criteria:
1. Minimum 6ft tall
2. Obesity excluded
3. Minimum of 200K income

Her target criteria combined for just under 0.05% of single men, or about 1 in 2,000 (if she specified that such dudes had to be no more than 5 years older than she is, this drops to 1 in 4,000). I'll have to find a way to script and iterate this stat-rolling algorithm to statistically measure it, but I'm pretty sure half of those attribute outcomes are an order of magnitude or more rarer than a dude who fits that young woman's standard.

Here's the thing, though, I get how that young woman got her unrealistic expectations; much of what she sees in ads, TV shows, and media is consistent with the standards she set, and she lives in DC, an area where there are lots of people making that kind of money. Similarly, when GMs and players read through the books and see un-augmented humans with these kinds of stats, they get an expectation that player characters, as the main characters in the game, should have a similar range of attributes. They see other people playing characters with similarly inflated stats, and this becomes the norm.

Rolled straight, a solid majority of characters should have no significant bonuses and at least one attribute area that confers debilitating penalties, making them inferior in some respects to an "all average" disposable N.P.C. and inferior in most respects to the named N.P.C.'s in the game. That's so unappealing that I have yet to meet a player or GM who rolls attributes straight and accepts the outcome.

[Fenris2020]

I suppose you could try "roll xD6+6" and roll again at a natural 16+ (or xD4+4 or whatever, due to certain races using different dice for some stats).
That would make player characters at least equal to the "standard" official NPC.

[MyDumpStatIsMA]

So I revised my statroller spreadsheet to include bonus attributes for rolls below seven. Even throwing those in, the highest I had in 100 rolls was a sum total of 111. The median total was in the 80s (I didn't record every one). Even with physical stat boosts from skills, only two of these are reasonable attribute rolls, and only 3-4 are plausible. The statistical odds against rolling attribute totals of over 140 are very low.

Rolled straight, a solid majority of characters should have no significant bonuses and at least one attribute area that confers debilitating penalties, making them inferior in some respects to an "all average" disposable N.P.C. and inferior in most respects to the named N.P.C.'s in the game. That's so unappealing that I have yet to meet a player or GM who rolls attributes straight and accepts the outcome.

In 30 characters' worth of manual rolls, my highest was 112. With physical skills added in, it might get into the low 120s. But yeah, anything approaching the 140s and you may as well roll up a cyborg or one of the more powerful D-Bees.

Later on I'm going to review my finished character sheets (i.e, with skills added) and see what my averages are, just for the hell of it.

[Hotrod]

It might be interesting to compare the stats of published un-augmented human N.P.C.s to the kinds of outcomes we get out of dice rolls in the rules as written.

First book I thought of for easy comparisons: Rifts Mercenaries.

Janet Braddock, Human Headhunter: IQ 17; MA 20; ME 18; PS 17; PP 19; PE 15; PB 19; Spd 17. HP 43; SDC 30. SUM TOTAL: 142

Incidentally, with 7 out of her 8 stats being exceptional (the lone exception being just one point shy), Janet Braddock would be a contender for Biggest Cheater in the Megaverse (TM), a Rules Lawyer contest I proposed a while back where the object would be to find the most egregious cases of a writer ignoring the rules of the game whilst creating an NPC.

[Fenris2020]

It might be interesting to compare the stats of published un-augmented human N.P.C.s to the kinds of outcomes we get out of dice rolls in the rules as written.

First book I thought of for easy comparisons: Rifts Mercenaries.

Janet Braddock, Human Headhunter: IQ 17; MA 20; ME 18; PS 17; PP 19; PE 15; PB 19; Spd 17. HP 43; SDC 30. SUM TOTAL: 142

Incidentally, with 7 out of her 8 stats being exceptional (the lone exception being just one point shy), Janet Braddock would be a contender for Biggest Cheater in the Megaverse (TM), a Rules Lawyer contest I proposed a while back where the object would be to find the most egregious cases of a writer ignoring the rules of the game whilst creating an NPC.

Her SDC seems a bit low, considering what she should have as Man-at-Arms OCC + Physical Skills.