D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

Maxperson · Oct 22, 2017

Caliburn101 said:
This argument that the character you get is fair because you all had equal use of a method that produces variable results, sometimes widely variable in numbers you will be forced to feel the consequences of in every game you play is a patently ridiculous one.

It meets the definition of fair and fails to meet the definition of unfair, so it's not only not ridiculous, but it's the way it is.

Just try pulling that stuff on MMO players when they log on and forcing them to play the character. You'd lose money so fast your company would collapse in a week.

I played in a text bases one for decades. It took them about 20-25 years to finally change the stat rolling program to one where everyone had the same number of points to put into their stats. It wasn't giant like WoW, but it kept thousands of people hooked and made the owner very wealthy.

Unequal results are an issue that many people don't like, and many people do. Dislike doesn't mean that it's not fair. Unfair and unequal are two totally different issues. You should learn about them.

It's like saying that as everyone has an equal chance to be born into a rich family, and as everyone is born to a human mother, that social inequality is 'fair'. It is like saying that as everyone has (on a population scale) a statistically equal chance of being born with a disability, so it is 'fair' that some have one.

What utter tosh.

Probably because it's a False Equivalence and rolling is not like that at all. If you create tosh, you get tosh.

It's the numbers you end up with that matter - not the method of determining who will be disadvantaged and who advantaged by RNG.

Keep your one true way to yourself. The numbers you end up with don't matter to a great many of people.

The fact is a lot of DMs faced with the above scenario fudge the issue out of pity and allow re-rolls, and are equally forced to accept multiple 18's when they come up - even on a re-roll, also meaning that the average roller who didn't quite qualify for the pity-re-roll had half the statistical chance to get a high stat character. Once again, a commonly enough encountered unfair consequence of rolling stats.

Bzzzt! Incorrect by definition. So long as every player has the same access to pitty and re-rolls, and acceptance of high stats, the method and therefore the results are fair, even if unequal. Unequal and unfair are two different things. They only overlap if the inequality is caused by unfairness, which is not the case in D&D.

The fact is, point buy or the standard array always allow you to play an effective member of a class - always. Random rolling doesn't, and can force you to play a class you didn't want to so as not to be useless. Or, as I have also seen many times, encourage players to suicide their character to get a re-roll.

That's a bonus for point buy and array. A bonus for rolling is that all concepts within the bounds of the game are available to rolling and not point buys or arrays, even if every roll doesn't allow for every concept. At least rolling can get you to concepts that require a higher starting stat than 16 and/or a lower starting stat than 8.

Random stat generation is unfair, and people can be quite creative in getting around it, because they feel they have to. It should not be necessary, and everyone should have an equal start.

This is not only false, but is provably false and has been proven several times in this thread. The definitions of fair and unfair don't back up your assertion, but they do back up mine.

Oofta · Oct 22, 2017

Caliburn101 said:
This argument that the character you get is fair because you all had equal use of a method that produces variable results, sometimes widely variable in numbers you will be forced to feel the consequences of in every game you play is a patently ridiculous one.

Just try pulling that stuff on MMO players when they log on and forcing them to play the character. You'd lose money so fast your company would collapse in a week.

It's like saying that as everyone has an equal chance to be born into a rich family, and as everyone is born to a human mother, that social inequality is 'fair'. It is like saying that as everyone has (on a population scale) a statistically equal chance of being born with a disability, so it is 'fair' that some have one.

What utter tosh.

It's the numbers you end up with that matter - not the method of determining who will be disadvantaged and who advantaged by RNG.

"Sorry bud, but as you all had an equal chance of very high or low numbers, the other player gets to have a more powerful character than you at the start of the game, and you cannot play that MAD character class you wanted to as they will be far too weak and a liability on party survival. You can instead play this character class which will at least be something other than useless. Tough luck by the way..."

The fact is a lot of DMs faced with the above scenario fudge the issue out of pity and allow re-rolls, and are equally forced to accept multiple 18's when they come up - even on a re-roll, also meaning that the average roller who didn't quite qualify for the pity-re-roll had half the statistical chance to get a high stat character. Once again, a commonly enough encountered unfair consequence of rolling stats.

The fact is, point buy or the standard array always allow you to play an effective member of a class - always. Random rolling doesn't, and can force you to play a class you didn't want to so as not to be useless. Or, as I have also seen many times, encourage players to suicide their character to get a re-roll.

Random stat generation is unfair, and people can be quite creative in getting around it, because they feel they have to. It should not be necessary, and everyone should have an equal start.

As for the comment about 3rd edition you made. I encourage you to revisit the numbers and rethink - the issue should be self-evident, so I am not going to get into it further.

They are using a very narrow definition of "fair". Saying that any system, any set of rules is automatically fair no matter how inequitable the results are and ignoring the common usage of the word fair and what fairness means.

I assume they understand what you (and I) mean, that if the results of any set of rules gives a set of numbers that can be dramatically different without regard to skill or effort is not "fair".

In other words
1) I define fair as having equitable results, that rewarding or penalizing people for something they have no control over is not fair.
2) The dictionary says it's fair as long as it follows a set of rules.
3) Go to step 1

Maxperson · Oct 22, 2017

Oofta said:
They are using a very narrow definition of "fair". Saying that any system, any set of rules is automatically fair no matter how inequitable the results are and ignoring the common usage of the word fair and what fairness means.

It's the definition of fair, not a narrow one. We are also using the definition of unfair. Both definitions fail to back up the claims that you and [MENTION=6802178]Caliburn101[/MENTION] are making. You two have to invent new definitions in order to declare rolling unfair.

I assume they understand what you (and I) mean, that if the results of any set of rules gives a set of numbers that can be dramatically different without regard to skill or effort is not "fair".

Then you two should be using the correct terms. Just call it unequal and not unfair. The difference between the two is literally the difference between right and wrong. Unequal is right, and unfair is wrong.

1) I define fair as having equitable results, that rewarding or penalizing people for something they have no control over is not fair.

Yes, but personal definitions don't apply in any discussion about things really work. It would be unhelpful if I started defining fair as a round, orange, juicy fruit that tastes the best when it has a navel. That's what you are doing, and you lose any debate as soon as you do it.

It's no different than if I argue that weapons in D&D do too much damage and are unfair, because I've house ruled that they all do 10,000d6 damage.

2) The dictionary says it's fair as long as it follows a set of rules.

Correct. And since the dictionary definition is the definition, we are correct and you are not.

Arial Black · Oct 22, 2017

Caliburn101 said:
It's like saying that as everyone has an equal chance to be born into a rich family, and as everyone is born to a human mother, that social inequality is 'fair'. It is like saying that as everyone has (on a population scale) a statistically equal chance of being born with a disability, so it is 'fair' that some have one.

What utter tosh.

Thanks for providing this analogy.

This is what I mean by "real life isn't fair". When the DM creates a campaign world, is he really saying that in his world there are no nobles or peasants; that everyone is identical in social class?

Is he saying that every person/family has exactly the same amount of money and/or provides their families with exactly the same benefits?

That would be 'utter tosh'! Even if a world is artificially created to start this way, then the actions of the creatures would soon change that.

Every single society is 'unequal'; only the extent of the inequality varies. In our current western cultures there is probably more equality than there has been since the invention of agriculture, and even so we are (rightly, IMHO) pushing for even greater equality.

But the cod-middle ages type worlds of sword & sorcery are chock full of much more inequality than we have now. There are kings with the absolute power of life and death, and slaves with no power at all. There are rich creatures that can afford to build golden statues, and the poor who must build them for a half-bowl of gruel a week.

In these unequal worlds, there are a myriad of possible characters to play: rich/poor, powerful/weak, blessed/cursed.

So the idea that the only characters the players are allowed to play are a tiny fraction of this idea space: where every PC has stats that add up to 27 points, or alternatively where every person has one 15, one 14, one 13, one 12, one 10 and one 8.

What an absurd world! What....tosh!

Satyrn · Oct 22, 2017

Arial Black said:
Thanks for providing this analogy.

This is what I mean by "real life isn't fair". When the DM creates a campaign world, is he really saying that in his world there are no nobles or peasants; that everyone is identical in social class?

Aye, I don't think you're the one this "definition of fair" argument is directed at you, as you are readily saying your preference isn't swayed by what's fair.

You want your version of realistic.

And I only say "your version" because you view the character creation rules differently than I do. You have the rules apply to model all the creatures in the game world, and I want them to model just the player characters. So you're bound to want something with a wide range of results, while I'm cool with one single set of stats.

So, to answer your question I quoted: No matter what system I use to create PCs, I'm am saying absolutely nothing about the the existence of nobles and peasants, social classes or anything else about society and tge larger world. The only thing I'm saying when I tell my players to use the Standard Array is "these four characters have these six stats."

Xaelvaen · Oct 22, 2017

I've been hesitant to post on this thread since I've seen it up; with so many pages forming daily, I imagined it was a considerable amount of bickering.

Avoiding all that, however, I suppose my answer to the original content is Flexibility. Depending on the campaign, the method we use for stats changes. I use rolling when I want the players to start as heroes, or I'll roll an array and let all players use it, using some ad hoc to get a number range I like.

Alternatively, when my players start as nobodies or typical adventurers, we use point buy or the default array.

As long as it helps tell the story better, and allows my players' characters to feel 'real' to the campaign world, that's what I use.

Caliburn101 · Oct 22, 2017

Oofta said:
They are using a very narrow definition of "fair". Saying that any system, any set of rules is automatically fair no matter how inequitable the results are and ignoring the common usage of the word fair and what fairness means.

I assume they understand what you (and I) mean, that if the results of any set of rules gives a set of numbers that can be dramatically different without regard to skill or effort is not "fair".

In other words
1) I define fair as having equitable results, that rewarding or penalizing people for something they have no control over is not fair.
2) The dictionary says it's fair as long as it follows a set of rules.
3) Go to step 1

Actually I am using the word fair in the same way it is used in the legal system - where 'fair and equitable' is a well known term.

It is also the common understanding of the word.

If someone is standing in the lunch queue at school and you randomly determine how many sausages one gets over another - the person with the least will claim it's 'unfair', not unequal.

Some of the answers here are breathtakingly presumptuous - such as trying to make out some of us don't understand what 'fair' means.

Please - keep such woefully off-target observations to yourself.

The rules allow random rolling for stats. Some people prefer this, and use it above point allocation. None of this is in doubt.

However - random stat rolling is unfair.

The litmus test here is obvious.

Nobody can credibly claim point allocation is unfair, and in fact nobody does... I've been gaming a very long time and never heard anyone claim such a ridiculous thing. But many people think random rolling is unfair, and I have heard that compliant far more times than I can easily recollect.

One of these methods is not like the other...

Anyway - it is pointless debating a point in the face of an entrenched special interest group (the rollers) without some useful rules to the debate - such as having a logical and non-interested third party judging the relative merits of each position. As a side note, this does not include those who would predictably claim to be unbias and offer a judgement on this forum the moment they read the last sentence... although hopefully someone won't read this far and try to pull that obvious scam so I have a good laugh.

Anyway, my position is clearly stated, and a contrary position has been exhaustively expanded upon, so there is no more to type. The maths is the maths, the results of randomness are not fair or equitable, even if the method is equally unfair, or as some would have you believe, 'fair and yet unequal'.

It even sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? :heh:

Maxperson · Oct 22, 2017

Caliburn101 said:
Actually I am using the word fair in the same way it is used in the legal system - where 'fair and equitable' is a well known term.

It is also the common understanding of the word.

If someone is standing in the lunch queue at school and you randomly determine how many sausages one gets over another - the person with the least will claim it's 'unfair', not unequal.

The answers here are pedantic in their unwarranted and misplaced precision, and it's all to defend the indefensible.

The legal system uses it like I am using it, or it wouldn't be fair AND equitable, meaning two DIFFERENT things, it would be stated as if it were the same thing. For example, rolling is fair, but not equitable, so it wouldn't mean that fair AND equitable standard. That doesn't mean that in the legal system rolling wouldn't be fair.

The rules allow random rolling for stats. Some people prefer this, and use it above point allocation. None of this is in doubt.

Hey. We agree on something.

However - random stat rolling is unfair.

Factually untrue. The dictionary definition of fair says you are wrong.

Nobody can credibly claim point allocation is unfair, but many people think random rolling is unfair.

Sure you can. It can easily be argued that system mastery means that it is not fair that people who have more mastery will do better. It's a failed argument like rolling being unfair, since the system is a fair one, but you can argue that just as easily as you can argue that rolling is unfair.

So with no people whatsoever thinking point allocation is unfair, and some (whatever the proportion) thinking rolling is unfair, the only method with the word 'unfair' associated with it is rolling.

I'm absolutely certain that someone out there thinks that point buy is unfair for the reason I stated above. There are undoubtedly fewer of them than incorrectly think rolling is unfair, but they exist. You really shouldn't attempt to speak for everyone.

My position is stated, as is the contrary one. The maths is the maths, the results of randomness are not equitable, and it's all axiomatic.

Once again, by literal definition, it doesn't have to be equitable to be fair.

Caliburn101 · Oct 22, 2017

Arial Black said:
Thanks for providing this analogy.

This is what I mean by "real life isn't fair". When the DM creates a campaign world, is he really saying that in his world there are no nobles or peasants; that everyone is identical in social class?

Is he saying that every person/family has exactly the same amount of money and/or provides their families with exactly the same benefits?

That would be 'utter tosh'! Even if a world is artificially created to start this way, then the actions of the creatures would soon change that.

Every single society is 'unequal'; only the extent of the inequality varies. In our current western cultures there is probably more equality than there has been since the invention of agriculture, and even so we are (rightly, IMHO) pushing for even greater equality.

But the cod-middle ages type worlds of sword & sorcery are chock full of much more inequality than we have now. There are kings with the absolute power of life and death, and slaves with no power at all. There are rich creatures that can afford to build golden statues, and the poor who must build them for a half-bowl of gruel a week.

In these unequal worlds, there are a myriad of possible characters to play: rich/poor, powerful/weak, blessed/cursed.

So the idea that the only characters the players are allowed to play are a tiny fraction of this idea space: where every PC has stats that add up to 27 points, or alternatively where every person has one 15, one 14, one 13, one 12, one 10 and one 8.

What an absurd world! What....tosh!

It was indeed an analogy, relevant only to the issue of playing a game.

If you want your games to have randomly generated advantage and disadvantage for players, then great - do that. Knock over a few of your own pieces when you start a game of chess, or lose a couple of players from your football team before the starting whistle sounds, or perhaps start playing a game of snooker with a pool cue.

Games are in the overwhelming majority, fair - by rules and tradition. Where someone must 'start first' such as in snooker or football, or indeed chess, a random choice is made because these games cannot be played with one side starting first.

But roleplay isn't like that - everyone has their time in the spotlight and everyone can contribute to the team. There is no requirement for random advantage at the start - there is plenty of randomness along the way, all modified by the bonuses your character's stats give you.

You might as well say that the person rolling the highest d6 at the start of the game can roll with advantage on their primary stat, or that they get an extra feat, for no better reason than they rolled a 6 that one time. That is the kind of mathematical advantage random stat rolling can deliver, consistently, throughout the life of that character.

Why should one or two have that advantage, and not others?

The answer is obvious.

Maxperson · Oct 22, 2017

Caliburn101 said:
Games are in the overwhelming majority, fair - by rules and tradition. Where someone must 'start first' such as in snooker or football, or indeed chess, a random choice is made because these games cannot be played with one side starting first.

Um, one side always starts first in snooker, chess, football, etc. Random choice doesn't change that The random choice simply provides a fair way for the inequitable result that follows.

But roleplay isn't like that - everyone has their time in the spotlight and everyone can contribute to the team. There is no requirement for random advantage at the start - there is plenty of randomness along the way, all modified by the bonuses your character's stats give you.

Correct. There is no requirement for random.

You might as well say that the person rolling the highest d6 at the start of the game can roll with advantage on their primary stat, or that they get an extra feat, for no better reason than they rolled a 6 that one time. That is the kind of mathematical advantage random stat rolling can deliver, consistently, throughout the life of that character.

And that would be a fair method for determining those things.

Why should one or two have that advantage, and not others?

Because you made it a house rule.

The answer is obvious.

Yes, the fair, but inequitable result could unbalance things. You have to be careful with fair, but inequitable rules.

D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Oofta

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Arial Black

Adventurer

Satyrn

First Post

Xaelvaen

Stuck in the 90s

Caliburn101

Explorer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Caliburn101

Explorer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads