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

[Joe Liker]

I've been in several games with different groups of people where we used "socialist" rolling.

Each player rolls the normal 4d6 method, but then players who rolled extremely well must swap a score with someone who rolled poorly. Not their best score -- just an average one for a poor one, so that the overall average is more level.

When that's all done, everyone has a playable character, and no one's jealous or upset, because they all knew about the swapping requirement beforehand.

It's not all that painful to hand over a decent score when you know how easily it could have been you that the dice gods had cursed.

 

[Lerysh]

A game I am joining is taking this to an extreme, with everyone rolling stats and then assigning them among the entire party.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

That is a very strong argument against rolling. Because the variance within the party adds to the DMs work, if the DM cares to help all the players at the table have fun.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

The very point of rules and a living breathing referee/DM who plots out a campaign and tweaks the rules is to constrain the scope of "fair" that are in play to the players sitting in front of the screen. Your definition of "fair" is simply so broad as to not have any meaning. And even if it meant anything at all, it would be simply unimportant. You do not have any a priori "right" to gamble with stat points, even if it is fair. It is for the DM (and/or the Group as a whole) to decide if such things will make the game more fun for them.

I would further note you have simply ignored arguments about why gambling with stat points (rolling) sometimes leads to less fun. So it is a bit odd for you to complain about being ignored. You were not ignored. Posters raised counterarguments and nuances that you failed to address.

Very narrowly speaking, I agree with you that the word "punish" is inapt or misleading. "Gee, X leads to less fun." "Gee, X leads to me feeling punished." Does it really matter? Are you just arguing over a word? Frankly, it sounds like you are looking for an excuse to insinuate immaturity on the part of players who happen to disagree with your tastes. That some of those players became emotional enough to choose a word poorly does not seem so important or profound to me.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, the neighbour isn't investing in a "much riskier" option. He's investing in an option that is, based on the math you provided, twice as likely to provide a superior result as not. That's not much riskier IMO.

Like I said, next time you create characters, change the offer. Provide a 35 point buy for those who want or 4d6 drop the lowest for those who want to roll. Watch the results. Dollars to donuts, not a single player will die roll.

 

[Lerysh]

Stat array has 0 risk. By comparison everything is much riskier than point buy.

Even with 35 point buy, the restriction of "no 16s" means someone will want to roll. The gambling addicts among us who think the risk is worth the payoff of starting with a 20 in a stat at level 1.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is a very strong argument against rolling. Because the variance within the party adds to the DMs work, if the DM cares to help all the players at the table have fun.

This doesn't make any sense at all. I've been DMing almost 35 years, and not once did I have extra work because PCs had random stat rolls.

The very point of rules and a living breathing referee/DM who plots out a campaign and tweaks the rules is to constrain the scope of "fair" that are in play to the players sitting in front of the screen. Your definition of "fair" is simply so broad as to not have any meaning. And even if it meant anything at all, it would be simply unimportant. You do not have any a priori "right" to gamble with stat points, even if it is fair. It is for the DM (and/or the Group as a whole) to decide if such things will make the game more fun for them.

This isn't rocket science. If every player is given the same opportunity and choices, that is fair, but the very definition of it. It's not "too broad to have meaning". That doesn't make any sense at all. Fun =/= fair. Fun is subjective. Fair is largely objective because we can measure it in clear terms.

I would further note you have simply ignored arguments about why gambling with stat points (rolling) sometimes leads to less fun. So it is a bit odd for you to complain about being ignored. You were not ignored. Posters raised counterarguments and nuances that you failed to address.

I didn't ignore it; it's not relevant. Again, "fun" is separate from "fair". Whether or not someone has more or less fun at one option in no way impacts the fairness of it. You seem to be making this argument that it's not fair to you unless you're having fun. Bullocks. That's a maturity problem with you, not the fairness of the game or the DM.

But, the neighbour isn't investing in a "much riskier" option. He's investing in an option that is, based on the math you provided, twice as likely to provide a superior result as not. That's not much riskier IMO.

.

You are wrong. We've already done the math that choosing a random option for rolling is not "twice as likely to provide a superior result." That's just flat out wrong. You're likely to get a higher result just like you're likely to get a lower result.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I'd be a lot more willing to buy the argument that people just want randomness if the results weren't skewed so high. People don't just want randomness, they want to be able to play that character with very high stats without having to ask the DM, "Hey, can I play a 40 point buy character?" They know the DM will never allow that. So, for minimal risk, we die roll the characters, safe in the knowledge that there is a far better chance of "winning" than losing.

I would also bet that many of those players who are so enthusiastic about the "fairness" argument are the very ones who will ditch a PC will bad stats at the first opportunity, in order to get another bite at the apple when the dice go badly. So the fairness argument is just a scam, where the player is angling to win in the metagame, and planning to cheat the metagame with a metametagame gambit on the downside.

There are legit reasons some people prefer randomness, but "fairness" does not show up on their radar.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would also bet that many of those players who are so enthusiastic about the "fairness" argument are the very ones who will ditch a PC will bad stats at the first opportunity, in order to get another bite at the apple when the dice go badly. So the fairness argument is just a scam, where the player is angling to win in the metagame, and planning to cheat the metagame with a metametagame gambit on the downside.

There are legit reasons some people prefer randomness, but "fairness" does not show up on their radar.

Ah, so we're at the point where instead of actually being able to build a solid argument for your case, you're resorted to personal attacks on those who do things differently than you in order for your position to have any merit.

Well, that tells me all I need to know. Shine on.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Ah, so we're at the point where instead of actually being able to build a solid argument for your case, you're resorted to personal attacks on those who do things differently than you in order for your position to have any merit.

Sacrosanct, please meet Sacrosanct.

You seem to be making this argument that it's not fair to you unless you're having fun. Bullocks. That's a maturity problem with you, not the fairness of the game or the DM.

I never said that fun made it not fair, only unimportant. In response, you put words into my mouth, then made a direct personal attack.

Game. Set. Match.