Character generation for PCs vs NPCs

[JAFARR]

I looked to see if there was a forum character generation discussion and didn't see one. The basic idea was that people with less than average physical stats are not going to go adventuring due to survivability and would there not be player characters. However, how would you get a bell curve of stats between 7 and C? Also would the same logic apply to intelligence? Education and Social Status would be normal 2D6 rolls.

I have been playing around with this idea and came up with the following process. I did a spreadsheet chart listing the stats across the top in Traveller order and numbered 1 to 26 down the side. Then I roll 2D6 plus a different color D6 for the stats. The stat was generated as 6 + 1/2 2D6 with the D6 determining rounding for when the 2D6 roll was an odd number. If the row number was odd then and the D6 was also odd I rounded up. For even-numbered rows, I rounded up if the D6 was even. In this test, I included intelligence in the modified rolls. Of the 26 sets of stats, I got zero results of 7 for STR or DEX, and I got 8 C results (all but 2 in Dex). I got 1 result of 7 and 16 of A, B, or C for the END. For INT I got 17 results of 7, 8, or 9, and 4 of the other 9 results were C. For the unmodified rolls under EDU, I got 10 less than 7 with 4 As being the top roll. SS rolls 14 less than 7 with 2 As and 2Bs being the highest rolls.

What would this do with respect to keeping the game in balance?

 

[whulorigan]

. . . how would you get a bell curve of stats between 7 and C?

You could do [D6 - D6], subtracting the smaller D6 result from the larger D6 result, and then add 7.

{ [Higher D6] - [Lower D6] } + 7.

That will give a bell curve range from 7-12, with the bell curve "peak" skewed toward ~8.0.


(NOTE: In T5, the "{ [Higher D6] - [Lower D6] }" roll is called "Good Flux", and gives a range of 0-5 with a bell curve averaging ~1.0).

 

[aramis]

I looked to see if there was a forum character generation discussion and didn't see one. The basic idea was that people with less than average physical stats are not going to go adventuring due to survivability and would there not be player characters. However, how would you get a bell curve of stats between 7 and C? Also would the same logic apply to intelligence? Education and Social Status would be normal 2D6 rolls.

I have been playing around with this idea and came up with the following process. I did a spreadsheet chart listing the stats across the top in Traveller order and numbered 1 to 26 down the side. Then I roll 2D6 plus a different color D6 for the stats. The stat was generated as 6 + 1/2 2D6 with the D6 determining rounding for when the 2D6 roll was an odd number. If the row number was odd then and the D6 was also odd I rounded up. For even-numbered rows, I rounded up if the D6 was even. In this test, I included intelligence in the modified rolls. Of the 26 sets of stats, I got zero results of 7 for STR or DEX, and I got 8 C results (all but 2 in Dex). I got 1 result of 7 and 16 of A, B, or C for the END. For INT I got 17 results of 7, 8, or 9, and 4 of the other 9 results were C. For the unmodified rolls under EDU, I got 10 less than 7 with 4 As being the top roll. SS rolls 14 less than 7 with 2 As and 2Bs being the highest rolls.

What would this do with respect to keeping the game in balance?

The only things I change for general NPCs are enlistment, Soc gen and no rerolls. (I grant players 2 1d rerolls, allowing them to be used 1d of 2d on a 2d throw, or the whole of a 1d throw, and have done so since fall 1984...)

While I've used (4d6 keep 2 low)-1 for general pop, that's still 1/1296 nobles
next run, I'm thinking of one of these...
(5d6 keep low 2) - 1 would make that 1/7776 nobles
(6d6 keep low 2) -1 would shove that out to 1/46656 as nobles
(7d6 keep low 2) -1 would shove that out to 1/279936 as nobles

The UK has about 1 knight of the OBE per 670 thousand British, but... not all members of the OBE are in the UK...

For random encounters in ports, (4d6 drop high & low)-1, with 11 open ending (1d6 for +1 and roll again on 5 or 6)

 

[HanleyTucks]

The basic idea was that people with less than average physical stats are not going to go adventuring due to survivability and would there not be player characters.

What has given you this idea?

If you are less able physically, you use your wits (mental stats) to make up for it. For example, is it better to win a fight, or get what you want without fighting at all?

And if you have neither good physical nor good mental attributes, you'll still have skills.

And above all attributes and character skills stands player wits. Think of the most cunning player you've ever known, and give them a character who's 777777 with no skills; now think of the dullest player you've ever know, give them CCCCCC and every skill listed in that version of the game. See who does best.

 

[Condottiere]

I always thought that playing a character with with mostly subpar skills and characteristics tended to be the most interesting, inbetween phases of demigodhood.

 

[mike wightman]

CT no dice fudges for NPC. I let players roll in order and if they have a particular career in mind they can arrange their characteristics as they want.
Oddly enough over the years most players take the rolls as they come and then base their career choice on what they roll.

I also get players to generate at least three characters and pick the one they want to play, the others are used as NPCs and often crop up during encounters. If a player then needs to replace a character they can pick from one of the PC generated NPCs or generate a new character.

 

[whulorigan]

If I wanted to give PCs a bit of an edge on their stats, I would simply have stats below 5 adjusted up to 5.

Depending on how much of a "boost" one wanted to give, you could say :

1. If you want to be more liberal, a rolled stat lower than 5 is adjusted up to 5 before going thru career resolution, or
2. If you want to be more conservative, create the character as normal, and after CharGen is done adjust any stat still below 5 up to 5.

 

[Condottiere]

One difference in a point based system is, that if you have a subpar character, it was a deliberate choice.

Randomization would be Hobson's choice.

 

[mike wightman]

For points buy 777777 - 42 points, spend them as you wish or take 667788 arranged to suit your tastes.

 

[whulorigan]

For points buy 777777 - 42 points, spend them as you wish . . .

Based on the OP's intent and the actual amount of edge you want to give, I would say go with a base of either:

1. 878787 = Total 45 points (and spend them as you choose).
2. 888888 = Total 48 points (and spend them as you choose).

That way you start with above average stats prior to career resolution, but not excessively so.

 

[Condottiere]

If five is minus one, and nine is plus one, there's your minimum maximizing.

 

[aramis]

And above all attributes and character skills stands player wits. Think of the most cunning player you've ever known, and give them a character who's 777777 with no skills; now think of the dullest player you've ever know, give them CCCCCC and every skill listed in that version of the game. See who does best.

that's very GM dependent. It's also strongly edition depended in "uses the rules" GMing... the way I run, using MT, it's likely the all C's guy.