D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[Piratecat]

EDIT: Admin hat on:

Folks, please ratchet down the animosity and accusations. It's cool if you don't agree with one another, and feel free to discuss the topic, but insults and rudeness just make the thread less fun to read.

Overgeeked, here's a stupid question. In your opinion, would your opinion change if you felt you consistently rolled well for stats instead?

Because let's face it, superstition aside, any given person's stat rolls are by definition random. Sometimes they're high, sometimes they're low, and observer bias + a low sample size make them seem like they trend when they really don't. You've got just as good a chance to roll well as anyone else at the table.* If you had a couple of runs of really good stats, would you feel the same way?

* Emotionally, I don't really believe this. It really feels to me like dice karma is a thing. But logically, I buy it completely -- because I usually roll high.

 

[TheCalEll]

One of the most interesting stat generation ideas I've ever seen I heard about here on this board. Get everyone together at the table. Then everyone rolls six ability scores using 4d6 drop 1, and all of those scores go up on a whiteboard in numerical order (not as sets). Then - and this is the cool part for me - the players decide between themselves who gets what scores. They can take turns picking numbers, which are then crossed off the list of available options. They can agree to give one character higher scores and one character lower scores, but they'd need to decide that as a group. The DM just hangs out, eats a burger, and makes sure everyone thinks it's fair.

If you do this, I strongly suggest rolling two extra times, adding those to the mix, and removing the highest and lowest roll. You'll probably remove an 18, but no one wants to get saddled with the one accidentally rolled "3."

I like it because it allows for high rolls and low rolls, but everyone can decide for themselves who gets what.

This is a cool way to generate stats. What we do at my table is similar to this, except that we put the stats in a set (so if Bob rolled a 9, 11, 14, 13, 17, 10, that's one set, Alice has hers with a 12, 12, 15, 9, 11, 10), and anyone can pick whatever set they want. John can pick his set, Bob's set, Alice's set, or Jane's set, and everyone else can pick whatever one they want.


My thing with rolling is imbalance. I don't like playing a numerically superior or inferior character, so point-buy is what we're using in 5E and it's working out well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One of the most interesting stat generation ideas I've ever seen I heard about here on this board. Get everyone together at the table. Then everyone rolls six ability scores using 4d6 drop 1, and all of those scores go up on a whiteboard in numerical order (not as sets). Then - and this is the cool part for me - the players decide between themselves who gets what scores. They can take turns picking numbers, which are then crossed off the list of available options. They can agree to give one character higher scores and one character lower scores, but they'd need to decide that as a group. The DM just hangs out, eats a burger, and makes sure everyone thinks it's fair.

If you do this, I strongly suggest rolling two extra times, adding those to the mix, and removing the highest and lowest roll. You'll probably remove an 18, but no one wants to get saddled with the one accidentally rolled "3."

I like it because it allows for high rolls and low rolls, but everyone can decide for themselves who gets what.

As someone who prefers rolling over array, I like this solution as a compromise to a table where there are mixed preferences.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In terms of rolling versus generated, I am perfectly happy to play almost anything for a short 1-3 session adventure, as long as the PC is memorable. Bad stats, good stats, weird stats, whatever. Whether rolling or buy or fiat gets us there is unimportant.

For long running campaigns, I strongly prefer point buy or similar.

The basic question is not one of punishment, but whether the player has a legitimate right to gamble at a meta level in a manner that may create a burden on others.

Firt of all, the player has no a priori fundamental "right" to gamble stat points. They are a metagame concept, not a bag of gold written on the character sheet.

If you roll really badly, is it really true that you are going to be perfectly happy playing that PC for 10, 20, 40 sessions? Or are you going to decide that the weakling PC is "not so fun" and generate a new character sooner rather than later? The player cannot claim that a gamble is "fair" if there is no certainty about paying the "debt". I am not suggesting anything about the OP, but it is conveniently easy to say "this is a fair gamble" when you know can weasel out of the negatives.

If you roll really well, is it really true that there are not costs on other players? I am not even thinking about the players playing the PCs (yet), but the player behind the DM screen. A good DM tries to shape adventures that will be fun for all the players. I do not think you can make any believable claim that really high stats for one PC, relative to all the others, does not cause some degree of added work for the DM. What right do you have to add work to the DM's pile?

As for the non-DM players, I have definitely seen that outstanding stats in one PC can hurt the fun of other players. Not always, but it does happen. Sometimes perfectly reasonable players get frustrated when they notice over and over again that they are second or third fiddle at their own specialty, getting overshadowed by another PC whose forte actually lies elsewhere.

 

[Boarstorm]

* Emotionally, I don't really believe this. It really feels to me like dice karma is a thing. But logically, I buy it completely -- because I usually roll high.

My head knows that what I'm about to type is superstitious drivel, but...

The dice respond to your expectations. I've "seen" it in wargames and I've seen in in RPGs. A friend of mine believes he's cursed by the dice gods. And he consistently rolls crap. Another believes he's naturally lucky. And he consistently rolls well.

I know it's stupid and wrong, but it feels right.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm going to skip everything else you said above this because it again falls under either a player issue (don't game with dicks or be a dick yourself), or "sorry, but I don't believe you've frequently rolled 4d6 drop lowest and ended up with every stat at a penalty. Especially since you've shown that you're more than willing to resort to exaggerated hyperbole and false equivalencies. And yes, it's a HUGE false equivalency to equate the power difference between a level 1 and level 2 PC with a PC that has an extra +1 to an ability somewhere.

But this part here, that I left in your quote? Again, you keep using words that don't mean what you think they mean. It's totally fair, because everyone is offered the same opportunity. That's what fairness is. Just because everyone doesn't get the exact same result doesn't mean it's not fair or that it's punishment. Just like it's not punishment or unfairness if you put your money in an IRA and your neighbor happened to get a bigger return on his put options. Everyone has the same choices.

And you get extra irony points for accusing me of making a strawman when that's exactly what you just did in this quoted part above.

Cute. So you've just proven you don't actually know what those fallacies mean. Thanks for playing.

Last attempt. Yes, the actual power difference between some levels is less than having a big stat bonus in a primary attack stat or rolling big numbers on hit points. But, whatever, we'll let that low-hanging fruit slide.

No, it's neither equal nor fair to force random rolls. Here's why, using your absurd IRA investment analogy. With investing you have the option not to invest. You have the option to not risk your money. You can opt to just keep what you have in a vanilla savings account and not take the risk. You're also glossing over the bit where not everyone starts with the same amount of money to invest, which in gaming terms would be some players getting 5d6 drop two others getting 3d6 iron man, or acknowledging that not everyone rolls amazingly all the time. Transferring your analogy back to gaming terms, opting to not risk your money is equivalent to taking the array. Choosing to roll for stats, rolling badly, then complaining about being hit hard is childish. But not having a choice in the first place, being forced to risk/roll, is a dick move on the DMs part. If you want to risk, you get to roll. If I don't want to risk, I shouldn't be forced to roll. However, games are generally run as either/or. Either everyone uses an array, or no one does; either everyone rolls, or no one does. So giving some players the chance to roll forces rolls on everyone, the equivalent to forcing everyone do invest their money in an IRA despite some people not wanting to. Yet, due to your mental gymnastics, you utterly ignore how that's wildly unfair and shrug saying, "Well, kiddo, realife ain't fair." Well, games are supposed to be fair, because, dontcha know, they're not real life.

 

[billd91]

And when you're playing encounters and 1 character has a 20 and hits 20% more often(0.5 -> 0.6) for almost 40% more damage(7.5 -> 9.5), is more than 50% more effective (3.75 dpr v 5.7 dpr) and drops 4 of the enemy compared to your 0 and you realize you contributed nothing and should have just surfed the web instead, guess who is having less fun? 5E gives you pretty much NO ability to customize your character, someone with an ability score advantage has a HUGE advantage, especially at low levels. We've had some pretty frustrated new players here who did feel like they were being punished. And some pretty confused returning players wondering where flanking went, but that would be a different thread.

I think this depends on whether you're the type of player who enjoys the story the game is developing whether or not you're the top damage dealer or whether you're the type who competes with your fellow players.

 

[Piratecat]

Admin here. I'll say it again, more bluntly. Overgeeked, Sacrosanct, please let it go. I don't want this thread derailed because you're arguing and insulting each other. It's fine to disagree, but I'm not going to have any patience with insults or snideness from anyone. Time to take a deep breath, decide the other person was wrong, and move on.

Thanks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think this depends on whether you're the type of player who enjoys the story the game is developing whether or not you're the top damage dealer or whether you're the type who competes with your fellow players.

That argument cuts both ways.

If you are the type of player who rises above these issues, then your stats are not so important, and it should be trivial to go along with what others are doing.

If you are an imperfect human being who cares about the numbers, you care about the numbers. Perhaps weird skews in the PC stats distract you in a bad way, a way that can easily be mitigated by not rolling.

 

[overgeeked]

EDIT: Admin hat on:

Folks, please ratchet down the animosity and accusations. It's cool if you don't agree with one another, and feel free to discuss the topic, but insults and rudeness just make the thread less fun to read.

Overgeeked, here's a stupid question. In your opinion, would your opinion change if you felt you consistently rolled well for stats instead?

Because let's face it, superstition aside, any given person's stat rolls are by definition random. Sometimes they're high, sometimes they're low, and observer bias + a low sample size make them seem like they trend when they really don't. You've got just as good a chance to roll well as anyone else at the table.* If you had a couple of runs of really good stats, would you feel the same way?

* Emotionally, I don't really believe this. It really feels to me like dice karma is a thing. But logically, I buy it completely -- because I usually roll high.

No, my opinion wouldn't change. Because someone else would then be the low roller. I notice it's lame and unfair because it lands on my face most of the time. If it didn't land on my face, I would notice it less, granted, but it would still be unfair.

To that first bolded bit. That's not true in my experience. There's one guy in my current D&D group who generally rolls something like one standard deviation above what 'pure randomness' would suggest over time. We have an over-educated group. Two PhDs and seven master's degrees between the six adult players. Computers and math among the master's degrees (neither of those me). We've all noticed this player's luck so sat down with him (one of the PhDs) and analyzed it. He rolled 100d20 and 99d6. We watched him do it, and repeat it at least twice that I was present for, and recorded all the results. You know how a properly made d20 should roll natural 20s about 5% of the time? He rolls 20s about 20% of the time, give or take. Any d20 you put in his hand, not just 'his' dice. Roughly the same with stats. He is just lucky. I am just not. The more random chance is involved, the better he does, and conversely the worse I do.

To that second bolded bit. I know you at least partially said that as a joke, but I think that's the trouble the conversation is running into. Sac is a probably a lucky roller and simply cannot understand that other people are not.