Ranes
Adventurer
...wrongity-wrong...
ROLF. ROLF, I tell you!
(This was going to be an XP comment but your XP button's rubber band appears to have snapped.)
...wrongity-wrong...
Because "similar" does not mean "identical".
Think of it this way - when we roll stats, we typically use 3d6, or 4d6 drop lowest, right?
Why don't we roll a random number of dice? Why don't we pick a random number from 1 to 1000? Or a random number from 3 to 18, with a *flat* distribution? Why do we use this bell-curve producing system with tight limits on the ends?
Because we don't just want, "random". We want, "random, with some fixed parameters and characteristics to the distribution".
So, this GM has some desires about the fixed parameters and distribution that are a little more stringent than "4d6 drop lowest". Given that one probably doesn't roll characters all that often, it may be easier to enforce them by way of an editing step than by trying to systematize them. Now, perhaps he didn't set the expectations properly, but there's nothing outright illogical or wrongity-wrong to what he's doing, in principle.
"Now, with my mighty control over the nature of fate and circumstance, I shall intentionally pull together above average scores. View, puny DM, as I imbalance your game."
ROLF. ROLF, I tell you!
Think of it this way - will he stop the game at some point and require some change be made because Player #3 has rolled an excessive number of critical hits, or his hit points reflect above average results, or perhaps he rolled max damage 3 times in a row, so he is not allowed to roll max damage again?
I find it outright illogical to roll dice for stats and then complain that the use of a random chance methodology generates results which are random...
Not setting the parameters up front is, to me, "wrongity-wrong".
I admit that it's partly my OCD kicking in, something about that minus sign just drives me nuts lol, I'd rather a +0 if possible...
Aside from how those are apples and oranges, you mean?
If he finds that a character build is too powerful for his game, or is otherwise out-performing everyone else at the table, then yes, I expect him to eventually speak with the player about it. Not in the middle of a combat, but I expect adjustments to be made, in general. Adjustments before the character sees even a moment of play would be, in my mind, even better than having to rebuild the character after several levels of advancement.
As I said, we don't *JUST* want random. It is random, with parameters. As I have also said, it is not illogical to desire parameters that differ from what the basic "4d6, drop lowest" produces.
And not everyone is a game designer or statistician that can easily make up the hard rules that will mechanistically produce the desired effect. Basically, "random, with DM oversight" seems as reasonable as "point buy, with GM oversight". The base desire to not have what dice will produce more than a couple standard deviations out is no stranger than not wanting to have a super-optimized point-buy build. His execution seems to have left something to be desired, but the general idea isn't problematic.
Have you never made a mistake? Done everything perfectly the first time out? Never been surprised by an unexpected result? Maybe you should cut some slack - at leastin the name of givign *constructive* criticism. Maybe he hasn't seen this sort of thing happen often enough for him to have to have thought ahead. At least he recognized that it would be an issue before play began, rather than after 5 levels had passed and the player was really attached to the character.
Was he perfect? No. When I use random generation, I generally also tell the players that, should a character come up too weak or too powerful (either compared to the other characters, or my expectations for the particular campaign, depending on the situation) that we may have to discuss some edits. He should have used some similar disclaimer, so expectations were set properly.
I've been surprised by how common that is. That, coupled with system mastery, is one reason that point-buy isn't actually as balanced as is commonly thought - some players will optimise their stats to the Nth degree while others cannot; and some are determined to avoid a penalty at all costs, even if that means weakening their characters in areas that are actually far more important.
(All of which is of course fine, if that's what they want, but it does impact on the gameplay, since the optimised PC is ahead of the curve in exactly the same way as the rolled-well PC in a random system - the underlying maths don't care why a character has a +3 instead of a +4, only that he does.)
Random roll incorporates an element of chance. The more chance is removed, the more system mastery comes to the forefront. However, there is always a strong element of chance in d20 due to the d20 itself.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Yes, the main alternative, rolling, can produce a bunch of high stats, as it did here, but it can also produce mediocre and craptacular stats, cause randomness. Really, the best stat allocation system for a MAD class is point buy, but high point buy. At a certain level of stats granted, the SAD tier one classes stop particularly caring about increases to point buy, while the MAD classes really never stop doing so, and it all adds up to a marginal increase in balance. Alternatively, you could always run a tier biased point buy, as suggested in the tier system, granting tier 1's something like 24, or even 15, and tier 5's maybe 40. It doesn't do all that much to hit overall balance, but it's definitely the most balanced allocation system.Plus, of course, in 3e the point-buy systems really hurt MAD classes.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Yes, the main alternative, rolling, can produce a bunch of high stats, as it did here, but it can also produce mediocre and craptacular stats, cause randomness.
Really, the best stat allocation system for a MAD class is point buy, but high point buy.