D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Caliburn101]

The legal system uses it like I am using it, or it wouldn't be fair AND equitable, meaning two DIFFERENT things, it would be stated as if it were the same thing. For example, rolling is fair, but not equitable, so it wouldn't mean that fair AND equitable standard. That doesn't mean that in the legal system rolling wouldn't be fair.



Hey. We agree on something.



Factually untrue. The dictionary definition of fair says you are wrong.



Sure you can. It can easily be argued that system mastery means that it is not fair that people who have more mastery will do better. It's a failed argument like rolling being unfair, since the system is a fair one, but you can argue that just as easily as you can argue that rolling is unfair.



I'm absolutely certain that someone out there thinks that point buy is unfair for the reason I stated above. There are undoubtedly fewer of them than incorrectly think rolling is unfair, but they exist. You really shouldn't attempt to speak for everyone.



Once again, by literal definition, it doesn't have to be equitable to be fair.

I suggest you review the entire thread and understand what I clearly said at the start and made clear during, that I have been making my point entirely upon the unfairness of the RESULTS of the dice, not the action of rolling them.

If you want to argue that the results of a poor set of dice rolls and a very good one, consequently impacting every associated roll from then on for good or bad is 'fair', then I suggest you revisit that dictionary you are so keen to refer to and also refer to any number of websites that discuss what a fair game is - that being a game where all players have the same probability of a successful outcome not associated with the choices made during the game. Unfortunately, once the different stat bonuses are baked in, the players do not have the same probability of a successful outcome from the dice - there will always be someone rolling with lower bonuses, and always someone with higher ones that have nothing to do with the choices they made in the game (class, feats, stat allocation, circumstantial actions, etc.).

Rolling the same number of dice is fair - the results rarely are, and only then by an extreme coincidence of chance. It is not fair that the permanent disadvantage or advantage they produce be suffered or enjoyed by players who are each wanting to have their characters survive and succeed in actions they take.

To be clear - you have misunderstood the point of this discussion and you can review that mistake at your leisure (the thread is all here). You can post whatever you like afterwards, I will not be here to read it, as I would probably be tempted to cynically think you are being deliberate in your miscomprehension, and deploying a strawman argument... but that would be, dare I say it, unfair?

Your other point is, frankly, a crass guess.

'Undoubtedly fewer' people who think stat allocation is unfair? You are hilarious - you have never known one, and neither have I, and you should admit to that. If you had encountered even one, you would have claimed that already...

I've been playing D&D for 39 years and never, ever encountered anyone who claimed point allocation (in any rpg system) was unfair. Your statement is baseless, and you know it.

 

[Maxperson]

I suggest you review the entire thread and understand what I clearly said at the start and made clear during, that I have been making my point entirely upon the unfairness of the RESULTS of the dice, not the action of rolling them.

The results of a fair method cannot be unfair. They can only be inequitable, which is desirable or not desirable, depending on personal preference.

If you want to argue that the results of a poor set of dice rolls and a very good one, consequently impacting every associated roll from then on for good or bad is 'fair', then I suggest you revisit that dictionary you are so keen to refer to and also refer to any number of websites that discuss what a fair game is - that being a game where all players have the same probability of a successful outcome not associated with the choices made during the game. Unfortunately, once the different stat bonuses are baked in, the players do not have the same probability of a successful outcome from the dice - there will always be someone rolling with lower bonuses, and always someone with higher ones that have nothing to do with the choices they made in the game (class, feats, stat allocation, circumstantial actions, etc.).

The dictionary does say that they are fair.

fair1
fer/Submit
adjective
1. in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

adverb
1. without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.

The results are in accordance with the rules or standards, and nobody is cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage, so the results are fair.

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.

The results are based on the equality of everyone rolling the same dice, they are not unreasonable, unkind or inconsiderate, and they follow the rules of a game, so they are no unfair.

Rolling the same number of dice is fair - the results rarely are, and only then by an extreme coincidence of chance. It is not fair that the permanent disadvantage or advantage they produce be suffered or enjoyed by players who are each wanting to have their characters survive and succeed in actions they take.

The results are always fair. They just aren't equitable or balanced, which is a different issue.

Your other point is, frankly, a crass guess.

If you think not one person out there thinks that it's unfair for someone with a high degree of mastery to be making PCs that are more effective than they can manage, I have a Brooklyn and Golden Gate Bridge to sell you.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, so, it's not unfair, but it IS inequitable. And inequitable results are a bad thing in a game. Sometimes it's unavoidable, such as who starts first in a game, so, we deal with it as it comes, but, this isn't one of those cases. There's no advantage to inequitable results.

 

[Oofta]

Actually I am using the word fair in the same way it is used in the legal system - where 'fair and equitable' is a well known term.

It is also the common understanding of the word.

The problem is that it doesn't matter if we are using the common understanding of the word. A particular dictionary entry backs up the claim that it only means in accordance to rules.

I think that's a stretch if not just flat out disavowal of the way the word is commonly used.

I could point to here where it's defined as reasonable and acceptable (which is in the eye of the beholder) here where they talk about sameness/deservedness/need, here which mentions treating people equally or even here where they talk about how even monkeys have the same concept of fairness as we are discussing.

But that doesn't matter because there is only one true definition and only the keepers of the truth get to define what it is by pointing to an abbreviated definition of the word that ignores how it is commonly used. Or we have to use clumsy phraseology and say that the results are inequitable - which while technically is more correct is clumsy at best.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, so, it's not unfair, but it IS inequitable. And inequitable results are a bad thing in a game.

Incorrect. Inequitable results can be bad, but are not inherently so. Stats can't break the game, even if you have all 18's, so it's purely a point of preference on whether or not the inequitable results of stat rolling are bad for any given game.

There's no advantage to inequitable results.

Incorrect. Greater realism is in fact an advantage in games where that is important. Just because YOU don't value rolling, doesn't mean that rolling does not have value. Fortunately, there are two other less inequitable stat generation methods to pick from. Point buy and arrays.

 

[Yardiff]

This was from a little over a decade ago on D20 Source RPG Blog.

Benjamin (October 17th, 2006)

The system I like to use for starting off a long running campaign is as follows:
-All players gather around to roll ability scores together.
-Split between everyone assembled (including the DM if the numbers don’t work out), 24d6 are rolled, and their 24 results are recorded on a white board.
-The six lowest d6 results are crossed off.
-Each player than uses the same list of the remaining 18 numbers and assigns three to each ability score, using each number only once.
-These 18 numbers are recorded to be used by any characters who might join the game in the future.

I like this method because it is cooperative, balances the characters, maintains the excitement of rolling, and still allows for the customization of point buy.

Benjamin (October 17th, 2006)

P.S. One disadvantage is that the luck of the dice decide whether the party will be high- or low-powered to a certain extent. Really the players and DM should just decide on this beforehand. As is, the system should create PCs a little tougher than usual, however. At everyone’s discretion, how many dice are rolled and discarded can easily be modified to stack the odds in favor of a tougher or weaker party.

 

[Yardiff]

So has anyone asked Mike Mearls or Chris Perkins or any of the other developers what their ability score generation method they use for their 'home' games?

 

[Eric Olson]

Point buy systems are fair, but don't make the assumption that a point-buy system is equitable for the players. You can look at the character build forums and find point buy character recipes that are far more "powerful" than others. This gives a playing advantage to players that are either very experienced or players that copy recipes. You could carry this further and say: the only way to make point-buy systems equitable, is to only follow set recipes. If you have done that, then why not just give players 3-4 choices of stats for each character class. For beginning players, this may be the way to go.

It is arguable if point-buy recipe characters help or hurt role-play. For long-time gamers, I do not think it helps. Experienced players should probably have a handycap when making characters though.

 

[Maxperson]

Point buy systems are fair, but don't make the assumption that a point-buy system is equitable for the players. You can look at the character build forums and find point buy character recipes that are far more "powerful" than others. This gives a playing advantage to players that are either very experienced or players that copy recipes. You could carry this further and say: the only way to make point-buy systems equitable, is to only follow set recipes. If you have done that, then why not just give players 3-4 choices of stats for each character class. For beginning players, this may be the way to go.

It is arguable if point-buy recipe characters help or hurt role-play. For long-time gamers, I do not think it helps. Experienced players should probably have a handycap when making characters though.

Arrays are not equitable, either. The charisma based PC is going to be worse off than the dexterity based PC, because stats are not equal. Array is more equitable than point buy, and point buy is more equitable than rolling, though.

 

[Hussar]

Incorrect. Inequitable results can be bad, but are not inherently so. Stats can't break the game, even if you have all 18's, so it's purely a point of preference on whether or not the inequitable results of stat rolling are bad for any given game.

Incorrect. Greater realism is in fact an advantage in games where that is important. Just because YOU don't value rolling, doesn't mean that rolling does not have value. Fortunately, there are two other less inequitable stat generation methods to pick from. Point buy and arrays.

Realism is NOT created by random stat buy generation. It simply isn't. Randomly determining stats in no way affects realism. Particularly since random generation is not tied to anything in the game world.

I roll an 18 strength. Why is my character strong? Note, you cannot reference the background of my character since that's simply post hoc justification. You would be saying that my character is strong because I did lots of exercise, but, my character didn't. I randomly rolled that Strength score. My character has that strength score for no actual reason, other than that's what I rolled.

Post hoc justification is not realism. It's changing reality to fit the die roll, and, I've been told, that's incredibly bad. All those dissociative mechanics arguments are predicated on the idea that justifying rolls after the die has been rolled is immersion breaking and bad for realism.

So, how can it be more realistic to randomly determine stats when random generation of stats cannot be justified through any callback to the in game fiction except as an after the fact justification?