D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

Yet several people have stated they have a problem playing in such a game (and I wouldn't want to DM one either). Is that so hard to accept? It's not a matter of "competition", it's about one PC being significantly "blessed" for no reason other than a one time roll of the dice.

Saying "it's a personal problem" is quite insulting.

So first, no I don't have a problem accepting that people have a personal problem with a game that involves rolling. The answer is not to play in such a game. You then go on to say how insulting it is to call it a personal problem, but the entire bolded portion is about people that have personal problems. I don't have a problem with stat variance and guess what, the game works just fine, which means that it's not a game problem at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, that's what I missed. The snide superiority. It's not really a problem, it's just that those who don't like die rolling are just incompetent. Hrm, I've now been called immature AND incompetent in the past page or two.

Who said anything about it not being a problem? Not me. I said it was a problem......a personal problem. So fix it. And by the way, saying it's a personal problem says nothing about maturity or competence. Don't read into things.

But, if I don't like die rolling, I'm an incompetent, immature player who just can't handle the system.

If you say so. ::shrug::

 

[Caliban]

Saying "it's a personal problem" is quite insulting.

Did you forget who you were talking too?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the "maturity" thing is from a previous post by [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION]. Sorry if that confused you.

To be clear, one poster [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] has posited that a person is immature if that cannot "handle" die rolled characters, and you have posited that because you, personally don't have a problem, then obviously the problem cannot be mechanical.

Do you really not see any problem with that? Basically, you're using an Oberoni Fallacy to defend your position; that any problem can be fixed by a good DM (with the corollary to that being if you cannot fix the problem, then obviously you are a bad DM). It is really quite insulting, whether that's what you intend or not.

There's an additional point here too. I most certainly can and have played using die rolled characters. I most certainly can adjust the game accordingly. You are right in saying that it can be resolved by the DM. That's true.

But, it ignores the actual issue. The fact that you have to resolve the issue as the DM means that there is SOMETHING that needs to be adjusted for. Whereas, with point buy or array, there is nothing to resolve and no requirement for the DM to do anything whatsoever.

Just because you can fix a broken system doesn't, in any way, mean that it isn't broken. Just that you can adjust for it.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the "maturity" thing is from a previous post by [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION]. Sorry if that confused you.

To be clear, one poster [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] has posited that a person is immature if that cannot "handle" die rolled characters, and you have posited that because you, personally don't have a problem, then obviously the problem cannot be mechanical.

Do you really not see any problem with that? Basically, you're using an Oberoni Fallacy to defend your position; that any problem can be fixed by a good DM (with the corollary to that being if you cannot fix the problem, then obviously you are a bad DM). It is really quite insulting, whether that's what you intend or not.

It's not the Oberoni at all. I'm not saying that it's not a problem if you can fix it. I'm saying that it's not a mechanical problem, which it isn't. If it were a mechanical problem, it would affect everyone. Since it doesn't show up in my games mechanically, it isn't a mechanical issue. It's a personal one. A personal problem is not one that the game needs to fix. So while yes I said you should fix it, since I'm acknowledging that it's a problem for you personally, it's not Oberoni.

There's an additional point here too. I most certainly can and have played using die rolled characters. I most certainly can adjust the game accordingly. You are right in saying that it can be resolved by the DM. That's true.

But, it ignores the actual issue. The fact that you have to resolve the issue as the DM means that there is SOMETHING that needs to be adjusted for. Whereas, with point buy or array, there is nothing to resolve and no requirement for the DM to do anything whatsoever.

The game has to be adjusted for all kinds of personal reasons. If you have a timid player who doesn't engage as much as the others, you have to adjust the game for that issue. If you have one who attacks everything, you have to make another adjustment. If you have a player who will just leave a dungeon if he hits a puzzle, more adjustment. The game is flexible and is designed to be adjusted for personal issues.

I don't bother to adjust for stats. I didn't in 1e. I didn't in 2e. I didn't in 3e. I never ran 4e. I'm not going to adjust in this edition. It's unnecessary as there is no problem mechanically with stats, high or low. What I do adjust for are PC abilities and magic items. It's far more important to know what PCs can do, than what their stats are.

 

[smbakeresq]

That's not the issue. Remember, that while sure one player only rolls one character, you have X number of players at the table, meaning that if I have 6 players (which I do), I get the following (using your site):



And what's going to happen, IME, is all those low rolls are going to get rerolled until everyone has above average stats. But, even if they are kept, you wind up with that one guy (guy 5 in this case) who has significantly better stats than everyone else. He's not just a bit better than everyone, he's a LOT better. At everything. Just through pure luck. I mean, Guy 2 is likely just going to either reroll or commit suicide by orc and get a reroll anyway. But, at no point will you have actual parity among the group. Simply shifting points of disparity with Bob being better today and Dave being better tomorrow. To me that's not fun.

The fact that you choose to frame this in terms of "maturity" just really smacks of "onetruewayism". As if anyone who doesn't play your preferred way is immature. Now, you may not have meant that, but, that's what it reads like.

I didn't frame it as maturity, that's another poster. I said that rolling doesn't make a PC OP. You proved it, PC 5 is the best out of those 6 and isn't any different than point buy. Your example is if you roll 6 times you might get a good PC. I wouldn't have any problem playing 1 or 3 either. If a player rolled 2,4,6 at the PC building session I would tell them to reroll it.

None of your 6 contain one 18, 17 or 16 for a score, that's a little unusual. If a player was rolling like you said I would just tell them to stop at 5, make it work. In the opening PC Building session they would be rolling right in front of everyone so there you go.

 

[smbakeresq]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the "maturity" thing is from a previous post by [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION]. Sorry if that confused you.

To be clear, one poster [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] has posited that a person is immature if that cannot "handle" die rolled characters, and you have posited that because you, personally don't have a problem, then obviously the problem cannot be mechanical.

Do you really not see any problem with that? Basically, you're using an Oberoni Fallacy to defend your position; that any problem can be fixed by a good DM (with the corollary to that being if you cannot fix the problem, then obviously you are a bad DM). It is really quite insulting, whether that's what you intend or not.

There's an additional point here too. I most certainly can and have played using die rolled characters. I most certainly can adjust the game accordingly. You are right in saying that it can be resolved by the DM. That's true.

But, it ignores the actual issue. The fact that you have to resolve the issue as the DM means that there is SOMETHING that needs to be adjusted for. Whereas, with point buy or array, there is nothing to resolve and no requirement for the DM to do anything whatsoever.

Just because you can fix a broken system doesn't, in any way, mean that it isn't broken. Just that you can adjust for it.

I NEVER SAID THAT, it was Caliban who said that. I have told you this twice, get it right next time.


As far as the rest of the argument, rolling for stats is broken at all. Its just DIFFERENT, and what I did say is true, people are afraid that someone else will get better stats then they get due to RNG or they will have to play something with a "fault." That its "unfair" to that person. That the system "screwed" them over. I have never thought those things, its just not an issue.

I did also say many times most problems can be avoided by not designing a PC in secret or whiteboarding one, have the first session be about building your PC right in front of everyone, and rolling right there, or on a group email chain. All of these problems with rolling go away. It adds VARIETY to the game, and PROMOTES group action. Those are good things.

 

[Oofta]

I NEVER SAID THAT, it was Caliban who said that. I have told you this twice, get it right next time.


As far as the rest of the argument, rolling for stats is broken at all. Its just DIFFERENT, and what I did say is true, people are afraid that someone else will get better stats then they get due to RNG or they will have to play something with a "fault." That its "unfair" to that person. That the system "screwed" them over. I have never thought those things, its just not an issue.

I did also say many times most problems can be avoided by not designing a PC in secret or whiteboarding one, have the first session be about building your PC right in front of everyone, and rolling right there, or on a group email chain. All of these problems with rolling go away. It adds VARIETY to the game, and PROMOTES group action. Those are good things.

Really? All the problems go away? Maybe I'm the only one in the history of D&D where we all rolled in front of each other and one person had a couple of 18s and nothing lower than a 14 while another person had a single 14, a 12 and the rest of the numbers of 10 or below. It is statistically unlikely.

Maybe I'm the only one in the history of D&D where both the person who rolled super high (who eventually committed suicide by goblin) and the person (not me) who rolled low weren't happy with the result.

Maybe I'm the only one in the history of D&D where the person who rolled low had asked to use point buy before and after the roll only to have the DM laugh and say "Nah, you rolled it you play it".

Maybe I'm the only one in the history of D&D who wrote a program that shows that there's roughly a 25% difference in effectiveness of a character built with the average high ability scores and the average low ability scores.

I know I'm not the only person in the history of D&D who prefers point buy for a variety of reasons and doesn't think "all the problems go away" if you roll together.

If you like rolling and everyone in your group agrees, that's fine. But assuming that what works for you is "better" or "solves all problems" smacks of one-true-way-ism and is condescending.

EDIT: should I capitalize some things to show that my opinion is somehow more valid because I know how to use cap locks?

 

[Tony Vargas]

It takes a certain degree of maturity to handle rolling for stats. (Or maybe fatalism.) Some players are happy to roll once and keep whatever the dice give them. Others are like gambling addicts and it doesn't feel "right" until they give a very high array of stats.

I think it may be worth noting that both of your examples are of folks wanting to roll for stats...

On the notion of character clones.

I'm rather baffled by this actually. Ok, Standard Array means that every character has the same 6 stats, arranged differently. And, to be fair, similar classes will have pretty similar stats. Not exact, mind you, but probably close.

But, so what? Two fighters, for example, are identical in all other ways and that doesn't seem to cause any issues. Same HP, same saving throws, and all characters with the same stats have identical skill bonuses. Why doesn't that blow your mind?

Immersions are very personal things. Immersion can survive the most profound abstractions, inconsistencies, and disconnects, but be 'shattered' by one little thing being slightly off. What's different? The personal suspension of disbelief being shattered, nothing else.

It may seem like a strong reason for a preference to the person experiencing it, but it can't always be catered to in detail - some compromise is generally necessary, though groups can winnow their way to some sort of consensus through attrition over the years...

I guess I just have a real problem with the level of cherry picking people seem to do when justifying their preference.

Personal preferences are just that, personal, that's all the justification they should need.

So here's the thing. Even high stats are not a problem. The game is very flexible and can easily handle 6 PCs with straight 18s if you wanted to run a game like that.

To be fair, it gives the DM a lot of latitude to be flexible...

High stats can't break the game.

But, that's not really the issue. The issue is 1 PC with straight 18's and 4 PC's with average stats, and 1 PC with toilet stats. And no, the game does not particularly handle that very well.

IMX, a high-stat PC or two can tend to 'fix' the game at very low level. Early on in AL (I think it was technically still Encounters, even), with array characters and preliminary encounter design in HotDQ, 5e skewed weirdly lethal at 1st level, but when I used random generation and some post-racial 18's and 20s slipped in, it got significantly easier on the party. Even the PCs that got comparatively poor stats (not a lot worse than array) would tend to survive, thanks to the party being more consistent in combat.

Of course, at higher level, the game has to expect high primary stats, because of ASIs. So it should even out, then, too.

I'm afraid low stats break the game worse than high.

Thing is, and let's be honest, 2 of those characters (numbers 2 and 4) will almost never hit the table. They just won't in my experience. Or, if they do, they quickly commit suicide by orc.

The inherent fairness of random generation absolutely requires that if you roll crap, you play it in good faith for the whole campaign. Undermining that does the method a severe disservice. (I mean, if you make very high stats re-roll as well as relatively poor, maybe... but I've never heard of such a thing.)

It's not the Oberoni at all. I'm not saying that it's not a problem if you can fix it. I'm saying that it's not a mechanical problem, which it isn't. If it were a mechanical problem, it would affect everyone.

It is, and it does, it just doesn't manifest in the same way for everyone, and most of us have been dealing with the same or similar problems for so long that it's not really a matter of 'compensating' anymore, it's business-as-usual, and trying to cope with an effective mechanical solution would feel like more of an adjustment than continuing to do so....

...yeah, that's 'Oberoni,' in a way, but mainly it's just D&D.

The game has to be adjusted for all kinds of personal reasons.

It's part of the brilliance of not just asserting DM Empowerment (technically 3.x 'Rule 0' was totally empowering), that it also laid the groundwork for it by inserting the DM's judgement into the mechanics at the most basic level, writing in natural language to, again, require frequent rulings, and assuming so little (no magic items, no system mastery, no feats or MCing, etc) that customizing the game to even fairly typical preferences necessarily means re-balancing it to suit.

 

[Caliban]

I think it may be worth noting that both of your examples are of folks wanting to roll for stats....

Well yes, since if you didn't want to roll for stats...you wouldn't?