Topic: Alternative RMU stat generation method

[EvilWilliam]

I am less than keen at the idea of rolling D100 30 times to generate stats, so below is a formulaic method that achieves roughly the same results:

Roll D100 for each stat, and read the results as two numbers, a HIGH ROLL & LOW ROLL by reversing the tens and units on the roll.  Then find the mid-point between the two numbers with the following formula ((HIGH ROLL-LOW ROLL)/2)+LOW ROLL round up.  This new number is the Temp, and the HIGH ROLL is the Pot.

/For example a roll of 7 & 4 becomes LOW ROLL: 47 and HIGH ROLL: 74.  This produces a Temp of 61 and a Potential of 74.

A small complication is doubles.  My first instinct is to ignore them.  There are plenty of other ways to get rid of them, though, if you want (simplest: re-roll, more complicated, swap one number for a 0 so treat 88 as 08 & 80).

There is a chance of rolling 01, so again, re-roll is an option, or ignore and rely on swaps to get rid of the aberrant stat.

[Thot]

This is a fine random method that should work for most purposes.

But isn't point-buy worth a consideration?

[EvilWilliam]

Well, the rule as written for point purchasing: "Roll the potentials as normal, including any swaps but none of the adjustments, and discard the rolled temporaries and purchase temporaries instead." seems to still commit to rolling 30 d100, I suppose you could give a pool to buy potentials as well as temporaries, and avoid randomness altogether.

[rdanhenry]

Do you not own three differently-colored d100? With that, it's only ten rolls. You're not decreasing the number of rolls for anyone with a dice collection reflecting a past with Rolemaster (or other percentile-based games). And I think even those who don't already have multiple sets will generally prefer buying a few more math rocks that having to do computations instead of simple comparisons.

[jdale]

Swapping the digits has a very different distribution than best of three. You can plot them in AnyDice.com with these functions:

Best of Three:

Code: [Select]

output [highest 1 of 3d100]
Swap Digits:

Code: [Select]

function: high value first of A:n and B:n {
 if A > B { C: A * 10 + B } else { C: B * 10 + A }
 if C = 0 { C: 100}
 result: C
}
output [high value first of 1d10-1 and 1d10-1]

Best of Three gives a mean result of 75.50, whereas Swap Digits gives a mean result of 65.35. That's quite a big difference in the outcomes, I don't consider them comparable.

On the plus side it was a good challenge figuring out how to do that in Anydice.

[Thot]

[...] I suppose you could give a pool to buy potentials as well as temporaries, and avoid randomness altogether.

That's what I do. Seems more in line with the idea behind point-buy to me.

[katastrophe]

Why even bother with randomization at all. Why not just use a point buy system. That way all characters will end up with the same stat points for generating characters.

There’s a whole other discussion on this very same subject that I started when RMU was released. I’ve just always found that randomization in stat generation ultimately leads to people scrapping characters with bad stat rolls and only wanting to play characters with above average rolls. This is easily eliminated.

[jdale]

On that note, the potentials are really only there because there was a desire to keep rolled and point-buy potentials balanced against each other. My personal feeling is that, given how slowly you advance towards your potentials in RMU, they aren't really necessary at all if you are only using point-buy. You can just declare the potential is whatever stats you reach by around level 20 and stop stat gains at that point. It works out about right and you don't have to decide the potentials at all. I do have the players pick one stat for stat gains and the other is randomly selected, which keeps it from being completely deterministic. (I've also considered giving them a choice between picking two, or picking one and getting two random stat gains.)

[PiXeL01]

I actually think, based on jdale’s comment that I will set all potentials to 100 and let the players choose two stats gain rolls. I would probably houserule that in the 90s you roll a d2 rather than d3-1

[Thot]

Hm, but isn't it a fun dimension of a character to define their actual potential beforehand?

[PiXeL01]

I was thinking to stop Stat gains at perhaps lvl 20. That way potentials would still be based on luck.
From that point on you could limit gains to being granted by godlike beings, powerful magics etc.

My reasoning is the gaming in general letting the players set the limits to their characters. Also, for the most part characters are heroic so why set harder limits on their growth?

[EvilWilliam]

Best of Three gives a mean result of 75.50, whereas Swap Digits gives a mean result of 65.35. That's quite a big difference in the outcomes, I don't consider them comparable.

On the plus side it was a good challenge figuring out how to do that in Anydice.

Thanks for that, I could tell there would be a rough deviation, but it was nice to see scientifically how much: the main driver behind coming up with this was I'm bulk creating PCs for a wee con in London.  I like the idea of sticking with randomness (and this method was easy to mix with a spreadsheet).  The numbers 'looked' right on the page, and were certainly playable.

I suppose another alternative would be a set 'normal/typical' spread of stats that players can just opt to assign as a sort of faustian bargain of guaranteed numbers versus potential random improvement.

Sorry, just thinking outloud, thanks for looking at this, though.

[Thot]

I was thinking to stop Stat gains at perhaps lvl 20. That way potentials would still be based on luck.

But if one uses point-buy, is "based on luck" not something very much NOT desired?

From that point on you could limit gains to being granted by godlike beings, powerful magics etc.

My reasoning is the gaming in general letting the players set the limits to their characters. Also, for the most part characters are heroic so why set harder limits on their growth?

In that case, I'd rather go for the "go as high as you like"-approach, with all potentials basically being 100. Just stopping at some arbitrary level and locking in people into their past bad luck doesn't seem so satisfying, I think.

[jdale]

Hm, but isn't it a fun dimension of a character to define their actual potential beforehand?

My personal feeling is that character growth is more fun if there is room for it to happen organically, based on how the story is going, rather than needing to plan all of it from day one.

I think this edition of RM is better about that than previous editions, e.g., due to how we set up the Expertise skills.