D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

So...

1) The results of rolling are inherently uneven and unfair, therefore rolling is unfair

Uneven is not inherently unfair. That's just your personal view of the results. The results of of the fair rolling method are inherently uneven and that's where it stops.

un·fair
ˌənˈfer/Submit
adjective

1. not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice.

2. unkind, inconsiderate, or unreasonable.

3. not following the rules of a game or sport.

1. Since rolling is an equal method, the results being based on the principles of equality(justice doesn't apply) means that the results are fair.

2. Nothing unkind, inconsiderate or unreasonable about rolling. It's a fair method. If you don't like it, don't use it.

3. It follows the rules of the game, so number 3 doesn't apply, either.

 

[neobolts]

Here is my longstanding rule for rolling vs point buy: I strongly encourage point buy, as well as taking the average HP at level up. Should a player choose to roll, they must do so at the table witnessed by the DM, with the full understanding that there is a risk that they will underperform the average.

This way, there are no hard feelings, as the player has no one to blame but themselves if things don't go their way. Additionally, this nonsense where players roll -- unwitnessed -- exceptional stats is absurd. It is flat-out cheating IMO and would not happen at my table.

 

[Oofta]

Uneven is not inherently unfair. That's just your personal view of the results. The results of of the fair rolling method are inherently uneven and that's where it stops.



1. Since rolling is an equal method, the results being based on the principles of equality(justice doesn't apply) means that the results are fair.

2. Nothing unkind, inconsiderate or unreasonable about rolling. It's a fair method. If you don't like it, don't use it.

3. It follows the rules of the game, so number 3 doesn't apply, either.

This reminds me of an old joke.

A guy is at a resort hotel, one that regularly holds conferences. He has some time on his hands and hears uproarious laughter coming from one of the rooms. Curious, he walks in.

What he sees is quite confusing because it's just a guy on the stage that loudly exclaims a "Number 86" to the glee of the crowd.

Asking a stranger in the back what's going on the stranger responds "This is a comedian's convention. Since everyone knows all of the jokes that have ever been told, they just have to repeat the number. It's great fun for everyone and a real time saver."

Feeling bold the guy makes his way up to the stage and loudly exclaims "Number 42". The response is dead silence, followed by catcalls and a cascade of boos.

On his way out he asks the stranger what was wrong. The stranger looks down and slowly shakes his head then responds "It's all in the delivery man, all in the delivery."​

So to simplify things

Endless Argument #1
1) rolling is fun
2) no it's not
3) go to step 1

Endless Argument #2
1) rolling is more realistic
2) no it's not, and even if it was why does it matter
3) go to step 1

Endless Argument #3
1) The results of rolling are inherently not balanced and unfair, therefore rolling is unfair
2) It is too fair.
3) go to step 1
​

Endless Argument #3.

 

[Maxperson]

Endless Argument #3
1) The results of rolling are inherently not balanced and unfair, therefore rolling is unfair
2) It is too fair.
3) go to step 1
[/INDENT]

Endless Argument #3.

Sure, but I can rest easy in the fact that I am endlessly right on this one. The definitions of both fair and unfair back me up on this. You on the other hand have to redefine both in order to be right on the internetz. So go ahead and continue to deflect by posting the "endless argument" stuff.

 

[Arial Black]

I'm old school. Law and Chaos are the only two alignments, and Chaos is effectively the same as evil.

Thankfully, I started with AD&D 1E, with its grid of nine alignments. This was around the same time I discovered Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion works, where he makes clear that Law and Chaos are not Good and Evil; it is instead a Blue and Orange morality.

Being Chaotic Good myself, I always despised the idea that Chaos = Evil. I read a few fantasy books which latched on to this lazy stereotype, so it was a refreshing change to read the two War of Powers trilogies where the gods of Chaos were 'good' and cared for people, and the Ultimate Evil In The Universe was the single god of Law, who saw life itself as an anathema he intended to destroy because it marred the homogenous perfection of his creation.

 

[Maxperson]

Thankfully, I started with AD&D 1E, with its grid of nine alignments. This was around the same time I discovered Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion works, where he makes clear that Law and Chaos are not Good and Evil; it is instead a Blue and Orange morality.

Being Chaotic Good myself, I always despised the idea that Chaos = Evil. I read a few fantasy books which latched on to this lazy stereotype, so it was a refreshing change to read the two War of Powers trilogies where the gods of Chaos were 'good' and cared for people, and the Ultimate Evil In The Universe was the single god of Law, who saw life itself as an anathema he intended to destroy because it marred the homogenous perfection of his creation.

Law and Chaos weren't always good and evil in basic, either. It was rare, but in products you could find a chaotic individual here and there that wasn't evil. I'm not sure if I ever saw an evil lawful NPC or not, but it might have happened.

 

[Oofta]

Thankfully, I started with AD&D 1E, with its grid of nine alignments. This was around the same time I discovered Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion works, where he makes clear that Law and Chaos are not Good and Evil; it is instead a Blue and Orange morality.

Being Chaotic Good myself, I always despised the idea that Chaos = Evil. I read a few fantasy books which latched on to this lazy stereotype, so it was a refreshing change to read the two War of Powers trilogies where the gods of Chaos were 'good' and cared for people, and the Ultimate Evil In The Universe was the single god of Law, who saw life itself as an anathema he intended to destroy because it marred the homogenous perfection of his creation.

Bah. Young whippersnappers. You and your new-fangled overly complex alignment systems. When I learned D&D it was law and chaos. And dwarves were fighting men and hobbits were thieves. Yes, that's right. Hobbits. And they were thieves, non of this politically correct "rogue" stuff.

Why am I insisting on this? Because it's tradition. It's the slimy pointless rotting roots of the game. Just like rolling for ability scores.

Now get of my lawn!

EDIT: typo

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but I can rest easy in the fact that I am endlessly right on this one. The definitions of both fair and unfair back me up on this. You on the other hand have to redefine both in order to be right on the internetz. So go ahead and continue to deflect by posting the "endless argument" stuff.

OK. Argument #3. No deflection, just two different opinions. I'm mature enough to admit my preference is just a preference and an opinion.

Or should I just sum up with Argument #0?

1) You're wrong
2) No, you are
3) go to step 1

 

[Maxperson]

OK. Argument #3. No deflection, just two different opinions. I'm mature enough to admit my preference is just a preference and an opinion.

Or should I just sum up with Argument #0?

1) You're wrong
2) No, you are
3) go to step 1

You have nothing to back you up on your opinion, though. I have both the definition of fair and the definition of unfair backing me up. Trying to reduce things to "Argument #3", etc. is a deflection, because you have no real argument to support you other than, "Yeah, huh!" and "Nuh, uh!". If you have some solid support like I do, show it. Otherwise you're deflecting, because you have no real argument.

 

[Oofta]

You have nothing to back you up on your opinion, though. I have both the definition of fair and the definition of unfair backing me up. Trying to reduce things to "Argument #3", etc. is a deflection, because you have no real argument to support you other than, "Yeah, huh!" and "Nuh, uh!". If you have some solid support like I do, show it. Otherwise you're deflecting, because you have no real argument.

LOL. I've done nothing to support my opinion? What solid support do you have? That in your opinion rolling is fair? That's not "support", that's just repeating your opinion endlessly.

I wrote an application to simulate thousands of character being generated then grouped them into "parties" of 6 followed by an application that did a realistic simulation of combat. My simulations show that if you use standard roll 4d6 drop lowest there is a consistent 25% difference in win rates based on the "best" average person in any group and the "worst" .

That's what I did to support my argument. I took the time and effort to quantify how much random results matter for the average group. In my opinion a 25% difference in how much a PC can contribute to the team based on a 1 time roll of the die is a bad thing, and not fair. But I freely admit it's just my opinion.

You? All you've done is huff, puff and thump your chest that you're right and I'm wrong.

Or in other words, Argument #0.