D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Lanefan]

I agree it's a crap method, but the resulting character fits just fine on the 3d6 "bell curve", so if you think 3d6 is realistic enough, then how come that character seems unrealistic to you?

Taken in isolation, a character whose 6 stats were all either 3, 10 or 18 would be - though highly unlikely - just as plausible as any other.

However, once two or three or seventeen characters all show up with each of their stats all being either 3, 10 or 18 the BS detector starts chiming...

How so? Both 15 and 8 appear on the 3d6 curve. Are you imagining a population so small there aren't multiple individuals with that combination of scores?

There are doubtless multiple individuals with that combination of scores. However, it strains credulity that so many of them turn to adventuring as a profession where those individuals within the population who happen to have a 17 strength and a 7 dex (or the reverse) do not.

Why? What's inconsistent about all PCs having stats chosen from the array of 65 arrays, while NPC stats range more widely? Where's the contradiction?

The inconsistency is that the PCs are thus drawn from (one assumes) a subset of the population rather than the entire population. The bell curve tells me there's going to be members of the population out there with Intelligence 18 and Wisdom 7 - why can't I play one of those - or at least have the chance to, should the dice be so kind?

It's nonsensical to think that if you have even a single stat that falls outside of the range given in those arrays, you are somehow kept from ever being a PC. 65 magical PC stat ranges and the rest you the world is left out in the cold.

In a living breathing game world inhabited by people who are on a bell-curve distribution it only makes sense that particularly daring people of all ability levels are going to try their hand at adventuring at some point, be it by their own choice or not.

Which opens up some other cans o' worms, I suppose:

1. Are the PCs the only classed-and-levelled adventurers in your game world? (if yes: where do replacement PCs or PCs for new players come from, if the original PCs are the only adventurers the world has)
2. Can non-adventurers in your game world - e.g. militia, stay-at-home temple clerics and lab mages, street thieves - slowly gain levels just by doing what they do?

If the PCs are in fact your game world's only classed-and-levelled people then their generation method becomes moot - they just are what they are. But if they're not, and-or if your answer to question 2 is 'yes', then the distribution of stats among all the various level-gainers (including the PCs, who are obviously part of that level-gaining population) should reasonably mirror that of the population as a whole, though maybe skewed a bit higher than average; and that requires some sort of bell curve which neither array nor point-buy provides.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

He's probably imaging a world where there isn't Inspector 12 measuring all of the people who want to be PC adventurers.

Inspector 12: "Sorry Bork, you have a 17 strength before racial bonuses. I have to stamp you an NPC. Next!"

How is that different than anything else in the game? You have rich people in your game world don’t you? How do I get that as a pc during chargen?

Sorry Bork, you have 251 gp to your name. You can’t be an adventurer.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

How is that different than anything else in the game? You have rich people in your game world don’t you? How do I get that as a pc during chargen?

Sorry Bork, you have 251 gp to your name. You can’t be an adventurer.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Nah, apparently they do believe that Wreck It Ralph and Toy Story are documentaries, and that our PCs are pulled from a general population of "real" NPCs. It does explain a lot.

If someone doesn't believe that then there is no issue. There is no imaginary population of NPCs that PCs are "pulled" from and the whole argument is just an excuse to justify rolling as something other than a preference. Or, as you you point out, that the vast majority are moderately well off but not extremely poor nor wealthy.

Of course in my world NPCs aren't real. Since they aren't real they don't have any ability scores. If I choose to create an NPC I'll use the rules from the DMG which will mean that in general they have whatever ability scores fit.

 

[Hriston]

He's probably imaging a world where there isn't Inspector 12 measuring all of the people who want to be PC adventurers.

Inspector 12: "Sorry Bork, you have a 17 strength before racial bonuses. I have to stamp you an NPC. Next!"

The fact your group uses point-buy, doesn't mean there aren't other adventurers in the world with scores outside the 8-15 range. They just aren't in your group.

 

[Caliban]

Nah, apparently they do believe that Wreck It Ralph and Toy Story are documentaries, and that our PCs are pulled from a general population of "real" NPCs. It does explain a lot.

Well, of course they are. It's just that they were normal NPC's until something happened that turned them into adventurer's. Suddenly their physical or mental abilities are boosted and they become much harder to kill, they begin developing skills and abilities at an unbelievable rate, and they become involved in bizarre events whether they like it or not.

Some sages say they have been chosen by fate and empowered to fill the role chosen for them. Others theorize that they are being controlled by extra-planar intelligence's, pawns in a great game beyond our ability to understand. These "Planar Contolled" individuals, or "PC's" begin behaving in a bizarre fashion. They suddenly feel compelled to tell each other their life history at the drop of a hat, or are prone to sudden outbursts of violence over trivial slights. They frequently take the law into their own hands, or embark on suicidal quests...and survive!

 

[Maxperson]

How is that different than anything else in the game? You have rich people in your game world don’t you? How do I get that as a pc during chargen?

You roll it. We use Central Casting and starting gold can be very, very high. Heck, you can start as a king if you roll well enough.

Yes, I know, that's a house rule. However, the better argument against yours is that just because one things is limited and Borked, doesn't mean everything should be. It's okay to want to control something that could throw off balance considerably like starting with 10,000,000 gold. Starting with higher than 15 in stats(before racials) and/or lower than 8 doesn't affect balance in the same way.

 

[Maxperson]

Nah, apparently they do believe that Wreck It Ralph and Toy Story are documentaries, and that our PCs are pulled from a general population of "real" NPCs. It does explain a lot.

If someone doesn't believe that then there is no issue. There is no imaginary population of NPCs that PCs are "pulled" from and the whole argument is just an excuse to justify rolling as something other than a preference. Or, as you you point out, that the vast majority are moderately well off but not extremely poor nor wealthy.

Of course in my world NPCs aren't real. Since they aren't real they don't have any ability scores. If I choose to create an NPC I'll use the rules from the DMG which will mean that in general they have whatever ability scores fit.

And since they don't have any ability scores they are paralyzed(no strength or dex), brain dead(no intelligence), physically dead(no constitution), and completely unaware of themselves and their surroundings(no wisdom or charisma). Well done!

 

[Maxperson]

The fact your group uses point-buy, doesn't mean there aren't other adventurers in the world with scores outside the 8-15 range. They just aren't in your group.

That's a Strawman. I didn't say adventurers. I said PC adventurers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not about generating the whole population. It's about knowing the range of stats for the whole population and which method best expresses that range.

The range of stats is presumably that 1-30. The whole population including extremely disabled, adventurers of all levels and whatever else.
PCs are only representative of the elite/adventuring sub-set, and, whichever method the DM allows PCs, if he gives NPCs of comparable power comparable stats, is representative, by definition: a non-issue.

Where it gets relevant is the 'feel' of using, not the same method, but similar methods, when the stats of other, lesser or greater samples of the population come up. If PCs/adventurers are rolled on 4d6 & arrange, it's be consistent, if not realistic, for lesser NPCs to be generated on variations of 3d6 & arrange, for instance...
...but, only one instance.

Sure, that's true. It's also not important to this discussion. For the last 93 pages, this discussion has been about generating PCs and NPCs, not about what happens after generation.

Chargen affects the whole campaign. ASIs serve to ameliorate the potential profound imbalance possible in random, and can eliminate the sameness of identical standard arrays and the upper limits on both array & point-buy.

We have been talking about implications of the population a great deal, and the population cannot possibly be all 1st-level if the PCs are going to retain any expression of it whatsoever.

 

[Hriston]

Not in isolation, no. You are picking those numbers, though.

I think it's more accurate to say you're picking one of sixty-five arrays of numbers that are considered to be equal to each other. Point-buy doesn't involve setting your own power level in any meaningful way. Dice-rolling, on the other hand, can produce widely divergent levels of power. A point-buy analog of dice-rolling that replaces the randomness of the dice with player choice would allow you to choose the number of points you can use within some reasonable range, say from 13 up to 41 points.

Yes, but God doesn't give people one single set of stats that everyon has, or even 65 varieties of stats. The range is much greater, like rolling gives.

Well, to quote Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.

Also, you're shifting the goalposts. I was addressing the problem with immersion that arises from making decisions in director stance, not the problem with using point-buy and standard array for world building. These are two separate issues, and shifting from one to the other does nothing to move the debate forward. To address that issue, however, and assuming that by "everyone" you mean everyone in the party (rather than everyone in the world), we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and I think standard array (or point-buy) represents that just fine once the scores have been assigned to different abilities. It just depends on the level of abstraction with which you're comfortable. Adventurers are considered to be at a certain power-level as defined by 4d6 drop lowest. The standard array approximates that power-level by giving you the most likely result that isn't above average. As an alternative, point-buy lets you swap scores within the limits set by the standard array. It's all pretty much the same if you squint.

I keep saying that the section that talks about rolling NPCs means the rolling rules in the PHB. You keep responding with, but adventurers. If you are not saying that the rolling rules are 4 adventurers only, then they can in fact be for NPCs of all stripes.

Sure, if DMs want to use 4d6 drop lowest whenever they roll-up an NPC in their campaign, there's no rule that says they can't. That's a long way from your claim that when the DMG says you can roll that it's telling you to use only the method in the PHB.

It's the only system 5e gives, yes.

True, it only gives a system for rolling the scores of adventurers. The reason, as others have speculated, is probably because 5e is meant to be a flexible edition that allows you to play in the style you want. AD&D, 1e says to roll 3d{2,3,3,4,4,5} for general characters. 3e says to roll 3d6 if you want. 5e avoids settling disputes between editions and allows individual DMs to run the game the way they prefer and/or in the style of their favorite edition. The default is that rolling for NPC scores is completely optional, as is the method used, if any.

The PHB references adventurers, because it's a book for players.

The reason the word adventurer is used in the citations I provided is because they're from a chapter that is a step-by-step guide for creating an adventurer! If you follow all the steps in that chapter, including generating your character's abilities by one of the methods provided in step 3, the resulting character will be an adventurer or its equivalent.

However, not one rule in the PHB is only for players. Those rules, items, etc. are also for the DM and all of his NPCs.

Agreed. The DM is welcome and explicitly empowered by the DMG to create an NPC adventurer by following the steps in Chapter 1.

The PHB also says the following about items.

"For an adventurer, the availability of armor, weapons, backpacks, rope, and similar goods is of paramount importance, since proper equipment can mean the difference between life and death in a dungeon or the untamed wilds.".

If we're to believe your argument that the words "For an adventurer" and the like preclude commoners, then you are arguing that no commoner can have a rope or pick up a sword. Heck, they can't even eat since food is listed as "For an adventurer". The argument falls flat, because despite all of the "For adventurers" comments, all of it is for everyone. The PHB just talks to the Player(adventurer) as the mode of speech it uses.

Commoners are not adventurers. Commoners do not generally venture into dungeons or the untamed wilderness. Therefore, the items described are not "of paramount importance" to them because their lives don't depend on said items. I think that's all quite clear from the context.

The fact that every single rule in the PHB is not just for players or adventurers. Those rules are all used by the DM as well and no language anywhere says otherwise.

Do you realize that assertion doesn't support your claim in the slightest? No one has said the DM can't use that rolling method. That isn't part of my argument.

So... no citation? I thought not.