Not quite. D&D invented 1970 or so, first printed 1974, Runequest 1978. Rune quest still uses stat blocks and advancement.
Although the original version (which despite your assertion that it does not derive from wargaming rules was subtitled Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures, and the text explicitly references CHAINMAIL® Fantasy Rules ) was first published in 1974 (allowing players to play “Fighting-Men”, “Magic Users”, or “Clerics”), the game that modern players would recognize as D&D, e.g. the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set and the first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was first published in 1977, which is close enough to be considered contemporaneous with the first publication Runequest in 1978, and the broader recognition of roleplaying games outside of the wargaming community.
Although Runequest does have characteristic stats rolled with (mostly) 3D6 which are somewhat comparable and hit points, it uses a very different system for combat sequencing, attack & defense, and applying the effects of damage. As it is a classless skill-based system, advancement consists of improving skills, acquiring social capital, associations (and obligations), and magical abilities (“mastering runes” or acquiring skills in “battle magic”) and artifacts rather than by the abstraction of “experience points” acquired by killing monsters and bagging treasure. It is almost intrinsically a campaign-type play system, albeit one in which individual adventures are seasonal and often across generations, and the dungeon-crawling and loot-acquiring aspects are more incidental to the broader goals developing influence and renown within the society of the characters with a values-based narrative arc.
The point isn’t that one is better than the other in any particular way, but that they evolved with very different focuses, and it is unusual to find someone who actively plays both. D&D, of course, became highly influential even on other genres of RPGs, and is what most pre-“indie” RPGs are largely modeled upon with a few notable exceptions like Traveller or World of Darkness games.
Stranger
[Moderating]
While this is an attack on the posts, and not the poster, and hence not a rule violation, it’s also probably getting too heated. Dial it back, please.
True, Gygax wanted to sell copies of Chainmail. But Arenesons game was not based on Chainmail.
I played both, I liked Runequest when it was from its own world, but when Avalon Hill bought it, they took all the uniqueness out of it.
I found a cite that disagrees:
He did, later, after he met up with Gygax.
WotC takes a stab at making their D&D Beyond character generator not back compatible with 5E, and “reversed course” after user backlash:
Stranger
Maybe (definitely) I’m old, and possibly (absolutely) waiting for onions to ne fashionable on belts again, but “character generator” isn’t supposed to be more than a pencil, a sheet of paper, and 3d6.
3d6? I’ve been using point buy since 2000.
Point Buy is fine. Rolling is fine too except I’ve noticed that people often only want to roll if they have sufficient guardrails to assure they’ll do no worse than if they point buy. “No scores under 10, total has to be 64 or more, can re-roll X many stats…” etc. So the real result is inflated stats since each stat has a definite floor but can also be all 18s. I’ve always said that, if you want to roll you’re welcome to but you get the six sets of 4d6/drop lowest to assign and that’s that.
That, incidentally, is the recommended method in the 1e DMG. It says you CAN do 3d6 in order but likely players won’t have much fun in the long run and then lays out several alternate methods it recommends instead with the first being:
All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded
I like how Gygax gives me the option to drop the 2 if I roll 1, 2, 4, 6 
Maybe the old red book said 3d6 in order, I dunno and don’t have a copy at hand to find out.
My rule is that everybody rolls (4d6 drop the lowest, do it seven times and drop the lowest of those), and if a player doesn’t like what they get they’re free to use one of the predetermined arrays. 5e’s scaling and bounded accuracy mean that somewhat inflated stats really aren’t all that big a deal, especially relative to the arrays.
Everybody loves rolling for stats! Few enjoy being stuck with shitty scores. I’m happy to cater to both types.
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about with stat inflation. So there’s a safety net where no one has poor stats but a chance for someone to have amazing stats which means the average of the stats just goes upwards. Which is cool for whoever’s table, I just don’t care for it. If you want to take a statistical risk, take a statistical risk. If you want to play it safe, take point buy or standard array. Don’t take “risk” that’s no risk at all and just inflates the game.
The 2nd edition PHB said to roll 3d6 in order six times and that was that, and I don’t remember it having any alternatives listed (though of course most of us came up with alternatives). Followed by an essay about how much fun it is to randomly get stuck with a character who sucks at everything.
The 3rd edition made “4d6 drop lowest and arrange to taste” the default (along with officially listing arrays and point buy as options), with the explanation that PCs tend to be above average. But they never actually said that 3d6 in order was the baseline that PCs tended to be above: They just assumed that we were all familiar with that from 2nd edition.
@Jophiel, to your point, I’ve seen a lot of discussions online about what to do with great stats, prefaced by “If you’re rolling for stats…”. It seems like everyone jumps from “If you’re rolling, you can get 18s” to “If you’re rolling, you will get 18s”. Nobody ever says “If you’re rolling, then this is a good build, because it’s reasonably usable even with low stats”.
I never bought the 2e main sourcebooks but I find it kind of hilarious, given how much Gygax gets dunked on, that they went from “3d6 in order is gonna get old real fast so…” to “3d6 in order is how we do things in AD&D”
While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy which tends to discourage now players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can’t or won’t identify with.
For whatever his flaws, at least Gygax recognized that telling a new player “You thought it’d be cool to play an elf wizard? Not with those stats, bud. Enjoy your half-orc fighter” is a poor way to retain a full table.
As long as I’m typing anyway, I should make clear that my preferences are just mine and, if someone else wants to roll with a safety net, etc then more power to them. If I was invited to a table, I wouldn’t huff about stat generation breaking the game or anything. Tell me that everyone starts with six 18s and I’ll just pick some weird MAD multiclass you normally couldn’t effectively play.
I just checked my copy. It listed six methods.
- 3d6 in order.
- 3d6 twice for each stat, pick the highest result, assigned in order.
- 3d6 once for each stat but assigned in any order.
- 3d6 12 times, use the six best in any order.
- 4d6, dropping the lowest, assigned in any order
- Assign each ability a score of 8, then roll 7d6. Assign the results of each die to any score you want, but you can’t split the values of individual dice and you can only get an 18 if you can get there exactly (such as with a 6 on one die and a 4 on another).
It does call methods 2-6 “optional” methods and suggests asking your DM if any of them are available to use. Method 1 is meant to be the default.
I don’t really view rolling’s primary characteristic being about statistical risk/reward. It’s about making character creation a fun group minigame with the potential for statlines that are impossible with standardized methods.
But if you’re at my table and you roll a shitty character and that makes you frustrated, why on earth would I force you to play it?
Now if it’s a one-off? That’s a “suck it up and play it for humor” situation.
Also, all that being said, in our current game 5e every single one of us rolled 3d6 in order as a lark. We’ve been playing that campaign for about a year now. So yeah, whatever works for your table.
If that was my fear (and, as a player, I wouldn’t think the DM was “forcing” me to play it after I made the informed decision to roll) then I would just have everyone use point buy or standard array.
To me, as a player, the whole point of rolling for stats isn’t to get high stats. It’s to see WHAT I get and then work around that to develop an interesting character where some bad rolls are part of the challenge rather than reason to bail. If that’s not how someone is approaching it, they probably shouldn’t be rolling given the other official options. And, if I somehow rolled all 3’s, there’s always Moon Druid.
Right. To you. Your playstyle, like everybody’s playstyle, is super valid so long as it isn’t happening at the expense of everybody else’s fun.
Off the top of my head, I can think of players who like to roll because:
They’re into the challenge of working around bad stats.
They’re just love clickity clacking the dice.
They have a fundamental belief that character creation should be random.
They enjoy the power fantasy of having a powerful character.
They’re generally into going along with whatever the rest of the group is doing.
Not every type of “I enjoy rolling” player is also an “I enjoy working around bad stats” player. I mean it really just comes down to this.
Player: looks kind of bummed
DM choice one: “You look kind of bummed, but I need to remind you that you knew what you were getting into when you picked up those dice.”
DM choice two: “You look kind of bummed. If you don’t think playing those stats will be fun, go ahead and use the standard array.”
Just like with high stats, the math in 5e means a character with all 3s wouldn’t be completely unsalvageable. In earlier editions I probably wouldn’t have allowed it unless the whole table was cool with a character who was going to screw up every encounter he rolled dice in (at least until he died, which would be quickly). In 5e I’d be less inclined to outright force the array but I’d still want to have that conversation, and I’d also consider whether I would have fun balancing encounters around those challenges.
Yes. I said it was just my opinion. I’m not especially concerned with how you run your table.
Then what on earth are we doing? Is this a “I want to tell you my opinions but I’m not interested in yours” sort of conversation? 
Rule 0 in D&D is “do what’s fun.” If we begin and end at that there’s no point at all in talking about these kinds of things.