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

[pemerton]

everyone is offered the same opportunity. That's what fairness is.

This is a hugely contentious account of what fairness is, both in general and in the context of a game. If one of the principle features of the gameplay, for instance, is determining the outcome of player "moves" by reference to player resources (taking the form of modifiers written on a piece of paper) I'm not at all persuaded that giving everyone the same opportunity to have big or small modifiers is fair.

Imagine a light-hearted poker variant in which everyone draws their starting wallet from a lucky dip - so some players start with deep pockets and others start virtually broke - with the winner being the last player standing. Would that be fair (or fun), when such a significant determiner of the outcome is not the quality of play but the luck of the initial draw?

 

[Lerysh]

In the poker analogy, only one player wins. In D&D as long as one player is winning everyone is winning. Some just win more than others.

Player jealousy of the lucky roller is a huge problem, that needs to be dealt with if you plan to use random stat generation. But it works as a character creation method for those who have faith in the gods of RNG. Some people can handle the risk/reward aspect and play the character they end up with, some can't. That's why it's a choice.

I would advocate all characters use the same method of generation tho. Decide as a party if you want rolled or array stats.

Also, there is no challenge like playing a Con 3 wizard from the ground up. Just ask Rastalin Majere. 20th level, 20 HP. Things like these roleplaying opportunities rarely exist in current editions, everyone is protected from stats less than 8.

 

[dd.stevenson]

This is why I don't think rolling for starting level (say, 1d2) is wildly different from rolling for stats. It doesn't put any greater stress on the game's tolerances.

Not sold on this at all.

In a game that uses XP, how many points from your max stat would you be willing to pay to start at level 2 while the other players start at level 1? Or, in a game that uses XP, how many levels would you be willing to give up in order to get at +2 bonus to your highest stat?

At first blush, it's not obvious to me that either of these questions have definitive answers. Though if someone has some analysis to offer on the subject I'd be interested to see it.

In fact, in a game that equates +2 to a stat to +1 feat, it would make as much sense to roll for starting feats as it does to roll for starting stats.

OTOH I agree this is a fairly defensible ID; but then again I don't think such a house rule would be any problem to a group that's already OK rolling stats. "Hey guys, in this game we roll on this chart to see what bonus feats you get at first level. Some of you will get more feats than others on this chart."

 

[pemerton]

Not sold on this at all.

In a game that uses XP, how many points from your max stat would you be willing to pay to start at level 2 while the other players start at level 1? Or, in a game that uses XP, how many levels would you be willing to give up in order to get at +2 bonus to your highest stat?

At first blush, it's not obvious to me that either of these questions have definitive answers.

I agree that the maths involves a degree of approximation, but I don't think it's hopeless.

For instance, a 2nd level fighter compared to a 1st level fighter has +1d10 hp and Action Surge. The latter is (say) +1 attack in 8, or a x1.125 damage buff. A +1 to damage from STR is comparable to that (and also gives +1 to hit). The hit points are harder to make up at low levels, but even +2 to CON is at least as good as +1 HD by 6th level.

I don't think such a house rule would be any problem to a group that's already OK rolling stats. "Hey guys, in this game we roll on this chart to see what bonus feats you get at first level. Some of you will get more feats than others on this chart."

Agreed. I wasn't meaning to present it as a problem, though from the tone of my post plus my post upthread you can probably guess it's not how I personally would prefer to approach PC generation. I was just denying the claim of false equivalency.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, because, again, it's the DM's job to enforce how the players should enjoy the game, rather than making the game fun for the players. :/

Everyone is there for everyone's fun. The DM is the one stepping up and putting in the extra work to run the game. He or she shouldn't have to keep changing their style and/or prep work to cater to every player at the table (largely because not every player always agrees with each others' styles and thus it would be an impossible task). The DM doesn't owe you anything. They are providing a service to you. If you don't like that service, either step up and DM your own game, or find a group that better suits you.

See, the thing is, the first player absolutely is being punished, ....

This is a hugely contentious account of what fairness is,

Sorry folks. "Punishment" and "Fairness" are two clearly defined words with specific meanings. You can't keep changing the meaning of those to suit your personal bias, and the meaning doesn't change based on the maturity or lack thereof of a person at the table. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you're being punished or being treated unfairly. Christ, I've had this same discussion when my kids were little.

 

[pemerton]

"Punishment" and "Fairness" are two clearly defined words with specific meanings.

I guess all those articles and monographs on the nature of punishment, justice etc are a waste of everyone's time!

More seriously, it's trivial to come up with problem cases for the notion of punishment: is a $100 fine for parking in the wrong spot a punishment, or a fee for a service?

And with a tentative answer to this question, I can raise a problem case for fairness: if you're relatively poor, a $100 parking fine is, functionally, a punishment; if you're relatively rich, a $100 parking fine is a fee for a service. This is why, in some European countries, fines that are intended to serve as penalties are defined as a percentage of wealth and/or income, rather than as flat values. Whereas in Anglo-American legal systems the tradition is to set fines in absolute terms.

Even if we define "fair" as something along the lines of "equal treatment", it's pretty obvious that there is a serious question to be discussed about which approach to the levying of fines counts as treating people equally, and hence counts as fair.

In the context of a game where the basic premise is that a number of players will contribute more-or-less equally to the shaping of the ingame fiction by way of the play of their characters, and the stat modifiers for those characters will have a major impact on how those contributions are made, it is highly arguable that widely differing modifiers are unfair (and that this unfairness isn't cured by letting everyone play a modifier lottery); and it is highly arguable that being stuck with bad modifiers is a form of unwarranted punishment (punishment because harsh treatment; unwarranted because inflicted on an arbitrary basis).

Obviously not everyone accepts the characterisation of RPGing that I have just put forward. But some people do, and I am guessing that many of those who dislike rolling stats would be among those people.

And obviously to say that something is highly arguable isn't to say that it is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But when we are talking about approaches to hobby gaming, proof beyond reasonable doubt isn't required. If someone thinks its unfair, and has an alternative solution that is acceptable to their fellow players that obviously is fair - namely, arrays/points buy - then I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sorry, but your analogy only works if one player was only allowed to use the Basic rules while everyone else had the full rules. I.e., creating an inequity from the entry point of the scenario, like your parking example. At the game table, everyone is afforded exactly the same material, opportunity, and choices. That's the very definition of fair. I've said this several times now and it keeps getting ignored. If you and your neighbor are given $1000, and you invest yours in an IRA with a 10% return, and your neighbor invests in a much riskier put option and ends up doubling his money in a year, that is not unfair to you, and you are not being punished.

 

[Hussar]

In the poker analogy, only one player wins. In D&D as long as one player is winning everyone is winning. Some just win more than others.

Player jealousy of the lucky roller is a huge problem, that needs to be dealt with if you plan to use random stat generation. But it works as a character creation method for those who have faith in the gods of RNG. Some people can handle the risk/reward aspect and play the character they end up with, some can't. That's why it's a choice.

I would advocate all characters use the same method of generation tho. Decide as a party if you want rolled or array stats.

Also, there is no challenge like playing a Con 3 wizard from the ground up. Just ask Rastalin Majere. 20th level, 20 HP. Things like these roleplaying opportunities rarely exist in current editions, everyone is protected from stats less than 8.

Just a point of fact, Raistlin Majere, in the modules, did not have a Con penalty. The whole "I'm sick" thing was pure role-play. He was a standard wizard with and average Con. According to DL 5 Dragons of Mystery, Raistlin's character sheet has a 10 Con and 10 Charisma. Actually, the entire Heroes of the Lance is a pretty stock example of a "die rolled" party with the lowest stat on any character being a 9 and most characters have no stat below 11. Two of the fighter types (Caramon and Riverwind) have percentile strength. Not a single character doesn't have a 16 or better in one or more stats. Heck, Raistlin has a 16 dex.

Somehow I don't think 4d6 drop 1 was being used to make those characters.

I look at it this way. If you did d8+8 six times for stat generation, you would get something that was almost dead on the stat buy value for D&D. You might get that 16, but, by and large, it's going to be within two or three points of 25 Point buy. Try to get your die rolling players to use this method and see the reaction. Better yet, tell them it's 7+d8. Now you are averaging slightly lower than point buy for 5e, although you still have a chance of getting higher. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that not one of your players will take you up on this.

Or, tell the players they can do 4d6 drop one, arrange to taste, or take a 35 point buy. Again, dollars to donuts they'll suddenly forget the whole "Oh, I like the random generation of character, it helps me develop the character" and nearly every player will take the 35 point buy.

Die rolling has very little to do with "fairness" and everything to do with powergaming.

 

[Umbran]

Die rolling has very little to do with "fairness" and everything to do with powergaming.

Quite an excellent use of the Broad Brush. If your intent was to lump a whole bunch of fellow players together and sneer at them in assumed superiority, you've succeeded.

Of course, that's rather equivalent to an intent to be rude and get moderator attention.

If this wasn't your intention, you should reconsider your phrasing. Statements equivalent to, "All players who like X are really of player type Y," ought to be seriously reviewed for questionable accuracy, merit, and usefulness before posting. The world does not rotate around your worldview, so leave some room for folks who don't fit your picture of the universe, please.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you did d8+8 six times for stat generation, you would get something that was almost dead on the stat buy value for D&D. You might get that 16, but, by and large, it's going to be within two or three points of 25 Point buy.

I don't use point buy, so I can only trust the online calculators, but I rolled stuff out, and this is what I got:

Example 1:
1d8+8, in order: Str 16, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 13. (36 point buy?)
25 Point Buy: Str 15, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 9, Cha 12. (This one was hard to adjust.)

Example 2:
1d8+8, in order: Str 13, Dex 9, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 12. (24 point buy?)
25 Point Buy: Str 14, Dex 9, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 12. (Super easy to adjust.)

Example 3:
1d8+8, in order: Str 9, Dex 11, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 9. (27 point buy?)
25 Point Buy: Str 8, Dex 11, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8. (Also easy to adjust.)

Example 4:
1d8+8, in order: Str 14, Dex 12, Con 10, Int 15, Wis 16, Cha 9. (31 point buy?)
25 Point Buy: Str 14, Dex 11, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8. (Not easy to adjust.)

Example 5:
1d8+8, in order: Str 16, Dex 9, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 9, Cha 11. (23 point buy?)
25 Point Buy: Str 16, Dex 9, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 9, Cha 11. (Pretty easy to adjust.)

That's kinda fun.