What is the character stats generation algorithm?
eric...@my-dejanews.com
been 3d6 for each category: it took me about 50-100 rerolls to get stats
summing to 96.
I wonder, though, what the algorithm actually is? Is it 4d6, discarding the
smallest roll? (Method I in AD&D DMG?) If anyone knows what the algorithm
is, then I could easily generate a table listing the odds that a particular
set of attributes could be generated naturally...
Obviously, stats like 18/00 18 18 18 18 18 were hacked. But you always wonder
about those guys with 18/96 18 18 16 16 16.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rich C. Velay
eric...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> The scores I rolled as cleric/mage were too high for the algorithm to have
> been 3d6 for each category: it took me about 50-100 rerolls to get stats
> summing to 96.
>
RCV: Why does this seem out of line? How many of those 50-100 rolls didn't
result in totals of 96+? You have minimums in Int and Wis, that artificially
"inflate" the die rolls, plus the racial miniums for the Half-Elf in Dex and Con.
So you are not even getting truly random rolls in four of the six stats areas.
How any of those rolls might have been, really, 3's or 4's, inflated up to 9 or
better?
> I wonder, though, what the algorithm actually is? Is it 4d6, discarding the
> smallest roll? (Method I in AD&D DMG?) If anyone knows what the algorithm
> is, then I could easily generate a table listing the odds that a particular
> set of attributes could be generated naturally...
>
> Obviously, stats like 18/00 18 18 18 18 18 were hacked. But you always wonder
> about those guys with 18/96 18 18 16 16 16.
RCV: This is quite possible with a Ranger character, since they have four
minimum stats to roll. Just wait until you get high Int and Chr scores and move
them to prime requisites, which will already be fairly high. Getting four 18s
with a Ranger isn't all that time consuming, since before you roll they have Str
13, Dex 13, Con 14 and Wis 14...
Rich
Arthur Hagen
> RCV: This is quite possible with a Ranger character, since they have four
> minimum stats to roll. Just wait until you get high Int and Chr scores and move
> them to prime requisites, which will already be fairly high. Getting four 18s
> with a Ranger isn't all that time consuming, since before you roll they have Str
> 13, Dex 13, Con 14 and Wis 14...
Obviously you haven't had statistics.
It's *just* as difficult getting 4 times 18 no matter whether low dice
are rounded up to any non-18 value or not.
But, and here's the big but: The rolling method in BG is obviously
skewed. Normally, you should only get *one* 18 every 36 rerolls.
The chances of getting *four* 18's out of six without cheating, with one
try, with no racial modifiers (note, minimums have no effect on these odds)
are approx. 1:6046618
That's right. One out of six million or so. Even for a ranger.
I think it really ruins the game how easy it is to get high stats.
Rerolling shouldn't even have been an option! The whole role playing
aspect is ruined, and BG becomes a quake-from-above clone.
Regards,
--
*Art
eric...@my-dejanews.com
a...@broomstick.com wrote:
>
> In article <370785EA...@sprint.ca>, "Rich C. Velay" <vel...@sprint.ca>
writes:
>
> > RCV: This is quite possible with a Ranger character, since they have
four
> > minimum stats to roll. Just wait until you get high Int and Chr scores and
move
> > them to prime requisites, which will already be fairly high. Getting four
18s
> > with a Ranger isn't all that time consuming, since before you roll they have
Str
> > 13, Dex 13, Con 14 and Wis 14...
>
> Obviously you haven't had statistics.
>
> It's *just* as difficult getting 4 times 18 no matter whether low dice
> are rounded up to any non-18 value or not.
Well, now: it's quite possible he hasn't taken stats. But in all fairness,
he may have been making the assumption I was making: if you don't get the
stats you need you *reroll*. Now, if you are assuming you just boost the
particular stats up to the minimum, then yes--18s are still just 1/216 (6^3)
if you're using 3d6. But if you reroll until you get the minimum, discarding
inadequate rolls, you are more likely to get an 18 eventually. To wit: with
a 3d6 approach, an 18 is three times as likely as a 17. But if your
character is a Paladin (minimum Charisma 18), then you'll see an 18 about 25%
of the time (assuming the computer rolls and *rerolls* until it gets
something that works).
On the other hand, even assuming rerolls, and even admitting that my
mage/cleric was a half-elf (thus my minimums were 3 6 6 9 9 3), I calculate
that I'd still have 60000:1 odds against a base roll of 96 (which I got)
using a 3d6 method, and 3000:1 odds against a base roll of 96 using a
4d6-and-discard-one method.
I suppose it's possible I got lucky. And I did roll an awful lot. But I just
don't think I rolled thousands of times. So something is still not adding up
quite right.
>
> But, and here's the big but: The rolling method in BG is obviously
> skewed. Normally, you should only get *one* 18 every 36 rerolls.
> The chances of getting *four* 18's out of six without cheating, with one
> try, with no racial modifiers (note, minimums have no effect on these odds)
> are approx. 1:6046618
lower, since using 3d6 you only get an 18 every 216 rerolls.
>
> That's right. One out of six million or so. Even for a ranger.
>
> I think it really ruins the game how easy it is to get high stats.
> Rerolling shouldn't even have been an option! The whole role playing
> aspect is ruined, and BG becomes a quake-from-above clone.
Exactly the problem. Dungeon masters are pretty strict that if a character
rerolls, it's because they have a really good reason. Not whimsy.
Anyway, even if a person rerolls at will over and over, it would be nigh
impossible to get straight 18s without using GateKeeper. Rerolling inflates
stats, but only logarithmically.
Kane Greylock
with a fighter with a 4 or 5 intelligence, and could barely communicate
with the other members of the party. I didn't like it, but I role-played
him and started grunting to the people.. (pointing helps a lot too!!)
What I think they should do to balance this a little better is do one
of two things:
1) Make it so that the class depends on the rolls, not vice versa.
Traditionally, Paladins were rather rare because of the high stats
that you needed to be one in the first place. It wouldn't be much
fun to run around with 4 or 5 paladins in a group. Then, if you get
a roll that wouldn't let you be a Paladin, you could reroll
OR
2) Make the 1 roll rule in effect. You can choose your class first,
then the minimum attributes you need would be there, but if you
happen to get a 7 in a non-requisite character, so be it.
I think putting both of those into effect kind of ruins the game a little,
because I admit that I tried to get the highest total of scores for
a Paladin I was creating, and I gave up a 96 with Str 18/18 for
a 93 with 18/97. It probably took me 20-30 minutes to do this,
and I would have liked to not have had that option in the first place.
On the other hand, this game doesn't allow for the 'role playing' that
I mentioned before. If you get an INT score of 3, (and keep it!)
you're screwed. There's no fun in getting waxxed every time, because
there's no fun in the grunting and pointing that I mentioned above
either. The game has trade offs, and I love it, but to be honest, I
would rather play the original paper version with my 7 friends...
The role playing was worth much more than the cool graphics... =)
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> In article <7e8sq5$er0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, eric...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> > Well, now: it's quite possible he hasn't taken stats. But in all fairness,
> > he may have been making the assumption I was making: if you don't get the
> > stats you need you *reroll*. Now, if you are assuming you just boost the
> > particular stats up to the minimum, then yes--18s are still just 1/216 (6^3)
> > if you're using 3d6. But if you reroll until you get the minimum, discarding
> > inadequate rolls, you are more likely to get an 18 eventually.
>
> No, the odds doesn't increase for each roll. This is what many people
> believe, and why they lose so much money on casinos. The odds are the
> exact same for each and every throw of the dice, no matter what the
> previous 200 throws were.
>
> > To wit: with a 3d6 approach, an 18 is three times as likely as a 17.
>
> Uhm, excuse me?
> With 3d6 there's only *one* out of 216 combinations that gives 18.
> There's *three* combinations giving 17.
>
> > But if your
> > character is a Paladin (minimum Charisma 18), then you'll see an 18 about 25%
> > of the time (assuming the computer rolls and *rerolls* until it gets
> > something that works).
>
> Uhm, if the minimum charisma is 18, you'll see 18 for charisma 100% of
> the time if the DM (or games engine) lets you choose something with
> that minimum. I believe the "rules" here are "if the roll is lower
> than the allowed minimum, set the allowed minimum instead of the roll".
> Not "roll again until you get the minimum". That would be incredibly
> stupid, as it would take on average 53 rerolls to get a 17 or 18.
> Often quite a bit more.
>
> So if the minimum is 16, the correct would be to get 16 in 98.15% of
> all rolls, 17 in 1.39%, and 18 in only 0.46% of the rolls.
> And the exact same odds if you (or the computer) reroll.
> And the exact same odds if you (or the computer) reroll again.
>
> If the minimum is 17, there's still only a 0.46% chance to get 18.
>
> > I suppose it's possible I got lucky. And I did roll an awful lot. But I just
> > don't think I rolled thousands of times. So something is still not adding up
> > quite right.
>
> That's true. The rolling *sucks* really bad in Baldur's Gate. You get
> *way* too high rolls, way too easily.
>
> > > The chances of getting *four* 18's out of six without cheating, with one
> > > try, with no racial modifiers (note, minimums have no effect on these odds)
> > > are approx. 1:6046618
> >
> > lower, since using 3d6 you only get an 18 every 216 rerolls.
>
> Uhm, nope. The first six you get is one out of 6 stats. The next
> is one out of the 5 remaining. Etcetera.
>
> 6*(1/216) * 5*(1/216) * 4*(1/216) * 3*(1/216)
>
> or 360/(216^4)
>
> or approximately 1:6046618
>
> I think :-)
>
> --
> *Art
Arthur Hagen
Raikain
they gave my Paladin. (17,10,10,10,14,17) and those are pretty low. I still
beat the game of course, but now I'm playing with a Ranger and I took the 7th
roll (18/73,17,18,10,16,16). All in all, I believe that its mathematically
possible to roll (18/00,18,18,18,18,18) but logically its impossible.
-Paladin in Training
-Practicioner of Martial Arts
-Seeker of Knowledge
-And All Around Nice Guy
Raikain aka Kai
Rich C. Velay
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> In article <370785EA...@sprint.ca>, "Rich C. Velay" <vel...@sprint.ca> writes:
>
> > RCV: This is quite possible with a Ranger character, since they have four
> > minimum stats to roll. Just wait until you get high Int and Chr scores and move
> > them to prime requisites, which will already be fairly high. Getting four 18s
> > with a Ranger isn't all that time consuming, since before you roll they have Str
> > 13, Dex 13, Con 14 and Wis 14...
>
> Obviously you haven't had statistics.
>
RCV: Quite true.
> It's *just* as difficult getting 4 times 18 no matter whether low dice
> are rounded up to any non-18 value or not.
>
> But, and here's the big but: The rolling method in BG is obviously
> skewed. Normally, you should only get *one* 18 every 36 rerolls.
> The chances of getting *four* 18's out of six without cheating, with one
> try, with no racial modifiers (note, minimums have no effect on these odds)
> are approx. 1:6046618
>
> That's right. One out of six million or so. Even for a ranger.
>
RCV: Well then, obviously they ARE using an alternate system for stats generation.
I stand corrected.
> I think it really ruins the game how easy it is to get high stats.
> Rerolling shouldn't even have been an option! The whole role playing
> aspect is ruined, and BG becomes a quake-from-above clone.
RCV: I disagree completely. The point of heroic, fantasy role playing IS to play a
hero, not someone with mediocre stats who is lost in a crowd. PCs SHOULD be bigger than
life. Sheesh, who wants to play a 2nd lvl Accountant or a 4th lvl Secretary? :) The
point is to be a HERO, and hero's need impressive stats [especially in a computer game,
where opportunities for role-playing are so limited.]
I accept that your analysis of the generation is superior to mine, but I still
wouldn't want them to change
it....
Rich