D&D 5E How do you handle randomly rolling for stats

[Lanefan]

It's a game of luck, and that starts at roll-up.

And even if your character is somewhat sub-par*, run it out and see how long it lasts. If it dies early, just bang out another one and carry on. If it lasts despite its shortcomings - and sometimes they do - well, that's the best the game can get....says he, whose best and most-fun character ever started with awful stats compared to her peers.

* - most DMs have a floor of sub-par-ness beneath which they'll let you re-roll from scratch; mine is that you can choose to reroll if the average of your six rolls is below 10.0 or if no roll is higher than 13...which would, amazingly, catch @Yaarel 's proposed array

 

[ichabod]

Hiding and/or not compensating for cost is an unfortunate design decision in a role-playing game.

And all I am saying is that's your opinion, and I don't necessarily agree. If you are choosing to take the risk, that's your choice. I see no reason why you should get a benefit for making that choice.

 

[CapnZapp]

I see no reason why you should get a benefit for making that choice.

I have explained the reason enough times. I don't think there's more to say.

 

[TwoSix]

And all I am saying is that's your opinion, and I don't necessarily agree. If you are choosing to take the risk, that's your choice. I see no reason why you should get a benefit for making that choice.

Because in a neutral case, the obvious choice is to make a choice yourself rather than leaving things up to chance.

If I gave the choice between picking a class yourself, or rolling 1d12 for it, most people are going to pick the class. But if you incentivize the roll (maybe bonus XP or a starting magic item), many more people will take the chance on the roll.

You're also going to have some people who will do random no matter what simply for the thrill, and you'll always have some people who will never do random because they hate the thought of giving up control.

But good game design can make the choice intriguing for those in the middle of the spectrum. WHFRP 4e, for example, will give you bonus starting XP if you leave your starting race and career up to the dice. In Worlds without Number, you can either start with 2 skills of your choice, or roll 3 times on a random table instead (and that table will occasionally give you a stat boost instead of a skill).

 

[Meech17]

When I was a teen playing we used to do the standard 4d6, drop lowest. Then for stronger characters we changed it to 4d6, re-roll 1's and 2's and drop lowest.

With my current group I gave them the option to take the standard array or roll, and they all chose to roll. A couple of them had some just awful stats.. So I made a call on the fly to have them add up all the scores (I think the lowest array was like 59 or 60 and the highest was just under 90..) and if they rolled 75 or above they were fine, if they rolled less, they could add a number of points equal to the difference. I think this is a little stronger than the standard array, but that's fine by me. I mostly just didn't want one player being freaking superman in a group with a bunch of normies. I feel like that could have been a feel bad experience for the normies.

When we did rolled, everyone at the table rolled one set, including DM. Out of 5 sets, we take best one and all players used it. It keeps power level even and everyone has same nubers to work with.

I think I'm going to adopt this method moving forward however.

 

[TheGlen]

3D6 straight down like the dice gods intended. Failing that 4d6 drop the lowest. I never do point buy or array those lead to cookie cutter characters.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I normally don't allow rolling, but when we do, it has been 4d6, drop lowest, in order. After everyone has generated a stat array you can use anyone's stat array OR the standard array. Last time we did this there was an array with an 18 strength and a 17 charisma, so people had fun making truly epic paladins, warlocks and bards.

 

[ichabod]

I have explained the reason enough times. I don't think there's more to say.

Fair enough. I did not respond to your points.

Risk is a cost.

In the short term, risk can be a cost, or it can be a benefit. That's the nature of probabilities. In the long term risk may be a cost or it may be a benefit, depending on the alternative. In D&D 5E, rolling for stats is a benefit in the long term (because the expected value is higher than the standard array), and rolling for hit points is a cost in the long term (because the expected value is less than taking the average rounded up).

Many people aren't good at realizing this.

That's not my problem. Understanding the risks you are taking is part of playing a game. Understanding that a 4 is probably going to come up less often than a 5 in Settlers of Catan is part of playing the game. Understanding that rolling for hit points is probably going to leave you with less hit points at high levels is part of the game.

Presenting risk as the fun choice, where the fun is the reward, is equivalent to hiding that risk. (Cue every lottery and casino ever)

This is false. Nothing is being hidden. While the rules are not totally clear about the probabilities, they are clear about the mechanics. Most of the probabilities are very simple, and for the more complicated one like rolling for abilities, there are plenty of resources online. No lottery I've ever played in has hidden the risk. The probabilities are freely and publicly available. Everyone knows about the casino's edge. In games like roulette, it is easy to know exactly what that edge is. Lotteries and casinos take advantage of people, certainly, but not because they are hiding anything.

Hiding and/or not compensating for cost is an unfortunate design decision in a role-playing game.

Again, nothing is hidden. So the question is, should you compensate someone for taking a risk. Specifically, in a role-playing game, should you compensate someone for rolling dice instead of taking a set value. That is, should the expected value of the roll be higher, equal to, or lower than the set value. You are saying it should be higher than the set value, and I don't think that you have given a good reason for that to be the case.

Let's take rolling abilities scores. Some people want to roll ability scores because they want to be better. Better than what? Well, it ends up being better than the other players. I don't see that rewarding that desire is a good game design choice. Now, not everyone who wants to roll ability scores wants to roll them for that reason. Some people want the dice to lead them to a character to make. I don't see a need to penalize those people for that choice, but I don't see a reason to reward them for it either. I am not aware of a desire for rolling abilities that justifies making rolling more beneficial in the long term.

Hit points is more problematic. Since the expected value is always fractional, while the allowed values are always integers, the set value has to be higher or lower than the rolled value. I am fine with the set value being higher. I would prefer a mechanic where the set value could be equal. For example, if you could reroll all ones for hit points, the set value and the expected value would be the same. And I think that would be the good design choice, where one choice is not better than the other in the long term.

 

[Horwath]

3D6 straight down like the dice gods intended. Failing that 4d6 drop the lowest. I never do point buy or array those lead to cookie cutter characters.

and low array rolled leads sometimes to suicided characters.

I have seen it, but no one can prove it was 100% intentional

 

[Oofta]

and low array rolled leads sometimes to suicided characters.

I have seen it, but no one can prove it was 100% intentional

I've actually seen the opposite. Gal had incredible luck rolling (multiple 18s, nothing below a 14), better than anyone else at the table, far, far better than another person. She felt guilty about having such an OP PC and committed suicide by goblin.