Expanded Occupations and Ability-Based Tables

[Colin]

Colin,

When all the charts are out, I'll add the stat based logic of your new charts as an option in the Zero Level Party Generator.

(I love the wonderful absurdity of 4 agility hunters and 5 strength blacksmiths, but this is a logical alternative.)

I think this may be the best idea to come out of the forums beyond the index. Fantastic!

Thanks to you both.

Colin

[Pesky]

This is a neat idea; I like it a lot. Kudos to the OP for sorting out the occupations by ability score! These tables can be useful as a base for other house-schemes. Here is an example.

If one still wants a random element to the occupations ("Hey, I got that blacksmithing job because I'm so charming") but would like to make it more likely that a character has an ability-based occupation (Most blacksmiths are strong), then here is a scheme that would do the trick of combining ability-based and random occupations.

Let me preface this by saying that this is admittedly not for everybody, and is somewhat cumbersome to do by hand, but a calculator/computer would make it very quick. Perhaps someone else will come up with a simpler method. I'm also not suggesting this as an "improvement." Nonetheless, here it is:


1. Square each ability score for which there is an occupation table (We'll leave out luck to match the OP).
2. Sum the squares of these to get a total
3. Divide each squared ability score by this total and multiply by 100 to get a percentage.
4. Arrange the percentages in order of ability (STR,AGI,etc.) from 1 to 100.
5. Roll a 1d100 to determine what ability-based occupation table to use.


Example: STR 7, AGI 18, STA 14, PERS 15, INT 8
steps 1 and 2: 7^2+18^2+14^2+15^2+8^2= 49+324+196+225+64=858
step 3: STR 49/858 = 6%, AGI 324/858=38%, STA 196/858=23%, PERS 225/858 = 26%, 8/62 = 7%
step 4: STR 1-6%, AGI 7-44%, STA 45-67%, PERS 68-93%, INT 94-100%
step 5: Player rolls a d100, gets 42, then rolls a d100 on the OP's Agility-based occupations

Note that this character is most likely to roll on the agility table, but there are also good chances to roll on the stamina and personality tables. It is unlikely (but still possible) to assign a strength or intelligence-based occupation


Example: STR 18, AGI 3, STA 3, PERS 3, INT 3

steps 1-4: STR 1-90%, AGI 91-92%, STA 93-95%, PERS 96-97%, INT 98-100%. (note that the non-STR percentages are actually each 2.5%, so I played with round-off here).

This character is 90% likely to roll on the strength based occupation table.


Example: All ability scores the same
ranges: STR 1-20%, AGI 21-40%, STA 41-60%, PERS 61-80%, INT 81-100%.

This character, having no dominant ability is equally likely to roll on any of the tables.

[Colin]

Welcome to the forums, Pesky. Great first post. I love the concept, but I can't help but wonder if there's a less math-intensive approach to reach the same result.

Colin

[Pesky]

Welcome to the forums, Pesky. Great first post. I love the concept, but I can't help but wonder if there's a less math-intensive approach to reach the same result.

Colin

Thanks and thanks, Colin. Yeah, I realize that the scheme lacks the virtue of simplicity. There must be simpler way to do it; that was just the first thing that occured to me. Perhaps someone else will come up with a way to dilute the math. I'll continue to think about it.

[tovokas]

Welcome to the forums, Pesky. Great first post. I love the concept, but I can't help but wonder if there's a less math-intensive approach to reach the same result.

Colin

Thanks and thanks, Colin. Yeah, I realize that the scheme lacks the virtue of simplicity. There must be simpler way to do it; that was just the first thing that occured to me. Perhaps someone else will come up with a way to dilute the math. I'll continue to think about it.

This is exactly the sort of figuring I'd be doing behind the scenes in the script... So I think I'll steal it.

[Pesky]

This is exactly the sort of figuring I'd be doing behind the scenes in the script... So I think I'll steal it.

Oh, please do! I use your character generator a lot and would love to see that integrated. Thanks!

[sheriffharry]

That reminds me of an AD&D game ran by a mathematician major back in the 80s. He add fairly complex integral table for falling damage (and the best assortment of traps depth and shape in town!)

[Devil Swine]

I dislike this idea because it min/max's.

My plummer is a very hot woman. Her highest stat has to be personality

My Doctor is so buff he looks like a action movie star and my mailman is a walking encyclopedia.

I like the idea that people don't necessarily do what they are best suited to do.

[Colin]

I dislike this idea because it min/max's.

My plummer is a very hot woman. Her highest stat has to be personality

My Doctor is so buff he looks like a action movie star and my mailman is a walking encyclopedia.

I like the idea that people don't necessarily do what they are best suited to do.

How does it min-max? Abilities are still 3d6 down-the-line with no guarantees of good results, and Players still choose their class as in the core rules (and can just as easily choose against type as before). All my article does is give more logical results for a 0-level Occupation. The few folks who don't like the idea seem to assume it's about "choosing an Occupation you're best suited too, and we can't/don't always do that/I know a few exceptions." which is fair enough, except that it a) misses the point that even if you enter a career you aren't best-suited to, it will mold you to it to a degree (so if you labour at the forge all day, day-in day-out, you will get stronger, for example), b) exceptions are just that, exceptions, and c) the article is not an either/or piece; it allows for totally random AND "by ability". Both sets of folks will find it useful. Those wanting a more logical/less totally random result will be happy, and those just wanting a good selection of totally random and new Occupations will be too. I designed it to allow both approaches.

Colin

[TheNobleDrake]

How does it min-max?

I think I know what Devil Swine was meaning... though it isn't exactly min/max.

With the ability based occupation tables, all Intelligence based occupations will be held by characters who are smart before and beyond any of their other capabilities (their Intelligence will be the highest score in all cases except ties). There is no room for someone, like his doctor, that is obviously stronger than he is smart despite being smart enough to still be a good doctor.

...of course, the "fix" is actually quite easy - instead of dictating that the character must roll on the appropriate table for their highest Ability, allow the player a choice (or random roll of 1d3 to decide) to roll on the appropriate chart for one of the character's 3 highest Abilities... meaning the character is still guaranteed a level of aptitude in his occupation, but also has the in-character ability to have an occupation based on some in-character choice... like the natural athlete deciding he'd rather run a bar, or the genius that insists on a pursuit of some "low-minded" career.

Note: I did not take a very close look at the systems you devised, so am completely oblivious to whether this solution existed their prior to Devil Swine's comments.

[Pesky]

Both sets of folks will find it useful. Those wanting a more logical/less totally random result will be happy, and those just wanting a good selection of totally random and new Occupations will be too. I designed it to allow both approaches.
Colin

Agreed. Let me add that those that want to come up with a mathematically cumbersome adaptation will be happy too.

I can't help but wonder if there's a less math-intensive approach to reach the same result.

Ok, after thinking about it a little, here is a less math-intensive alternative.

Start with your highest ability. Roll a d10. If you roll less than or equal to 5 + ability modifier, then use that ability-based occupation table. If you roll over 5+ability modifier, then try again with your next-highest ability. If rolls for all abilities fail, then choose randomly.

Example: STR 7, AGI 18, STA 14, PERS 15, INT 8
Roll a 1d10, a result of 8 (5+3 AGI mod) or less means that you roll a 1d100 (or whatever) on Colin's Agility-based occupation table. A roll of 9 or 10 means that you roll again, and a result of 6 or less (5+1 PERS mod) means that you roll on Colin's Personality-based occupation table.

The probabilities aren't the same as the previous method (which I prefer), but it is more practical if one wants to cut down on the math. Alternatively one could subtract the ability mods and roll equal to or over the target in order to maintain consistency with DCC's core mechanic.

[Colin]

Note: I did not take a very close look at the systems you devised, so am completely oblivious to whether this solution existed their prior to Devil Swine's comments.

The finished article explains how some folks don't want to use totally random chargen, and explains how it set up expanded results based on the highest ability score, but also states (as I've said several times in this thread) that the results can also be determined completely randomly too, finishing with this paragraph:

If rolling for Occupation completely randomly, simply roll 1d10 first to determine which table to roll on (1-2: Strength, 3-4: Agility, 5-6: Stamina, 7-8: Personality, 9-10: Intelligence), then roll d% for the Occupation on that table.

Basically, I just highlighted the two most obvious routes to take using the article: one (new) by associating with highest ability, and one (in-keeping with the core rulebook) totally random. I figured DCC fans would houserule any possible hybrid/intermediate approaches themselves (of which there could be many). That said, it wouldn't hurt to have an intermediate choice, so I'll include your suggestion as a third option if that's cool.

[TheNobleDrake]

That said, it wouldn't hurt to have an intermediate choice, so I'll include your suggestion as a third option if that's cool.

Of course it is cool, you don't actually have to ask for permission so thanks for being extra polite.

However, I am even less confident now then I was earlier about what Devil Swine was getting at with the min/max comment.

[Colin]

Of course it is cool, you don't actually have to ask for permission so thanks for being extra polite.

Thanks, mate.

However, I am even less confident now then I was earlier about what Devil Swine was getting at with the min/max comment.

I'm not sure either, especially as the article only helps determine the 0-level Occupation, and that has little mechanical impact beyond proficiency with a single weapon (which can change depending on what your 0-level character picks up and wields in the course of the adventure), a weapon and item of equipment, and the potential to make "skilled rolls" based on Occupation. It's not like 0-level characters gain bonuses to attack or anything beyond what their Strength would naturally grant anyway. In many cases, the class choice would even supersede such elements. If you rolled a Soldier as your Strength-based Occupation for example, and chose to become a Warrior, you're likely going to be skilled at most of the things a soldier is by virtue of being a Warrior. Heck, even if you were proficient with a spear thanks to being a Soldier, well, Warriors are proficient with spears anyway, making the proficiency redundant. The randomness of the elements that still exist, coupled with the minimal system influence of Occupation (and the fact that choice of class is not being forced), makes the idea that it's min-maxing baffling to me.

It's not even as if every character in DCC *has* to have their Occupation randomly rolled by the rules as they stand:

Note that a character’s occupation need not be determined randomly. If a player has a strong sense of the character’s background, he should feel free to use it. Starting trained weapon and trade goods can be determined thematically with the judge’s approval.

I've just given folks an extra slightly-less-random option for determining Occupation really, supported the completely random approach as well, and included a bunch of new Occupations.

Colin

[TheNobleDrake]

It's not even as if every character in DCC *has* to have their Occupation randomly rolled by the rules as they stand:

Note that a character’s occupation need not be determined randomly. If a player has a strong sense of the character’s background, he should feel free to use it. Starting trained weapon and trade goods can be determined thematically with the judge’s approval.

I'd almost forgotten that was in there!

My group and I actually made an agreement on that one: You can choose your occupation, but never your race, and if you aren't rolling randomly for occupation you have to choose before rolling your Ability scores.

We like the 4 Strength blacksmiths that are trying to find anything else to do with their lives so much that we don't even want to prevent someone that is sure they want to play a blacksmith from ending up with one.

[Rostranor]

Colin,
Any idea in which CRAWL! your occupation tables will appear? I like the stat based occupation idea a lot.

[reverenddak]

Colin,
Any idea in which CRAWL! your occupation tables will appear? I like the stat based occupation idea a lot.

I'm probably the best to answer this. If I can fit it in the New Classess issue, it'll be in there. Otherwise it'll be in a different Player orientated zine. They'll likely be come out back to back, I'm aiming for September & October.