Wow, do I hate rolling for stats!

[Jeff Wilder]

I would suggest that what they're interested in most when they choose Rolling as the method of choice for their campaigns is to steer their players away from approaching character creation as yet another opportunity to push the boundries of optimization - to exercise creativity through IMAGINATION and not statistics.

I don't quite get how randomizing something -- in other words, leaving critical facets of my character's abilities to chance, rather than to me -- is somehow more imagination-involving, rather than less.

If I randomize my gender, height, weight, age, class, weapons, spells, and so on, does it continue to become more and more an exercise in creativity?

I fully understand and agree with folks who've pointed out that the structure imposed by randomization can result in surprising or unexpected results. But that is not, at all, the same as saying that it's more encouraging of creativity and use of imagination. It is restrictive, not open. Using point-buy and my imagination I can create any character dictated to me by random rolls ... but the opposite is not true.

 

[Sunseeker]

While I think there is a certain amount of value in rolling for stats, I think most of that value is lost when you get to arrange the results to taste because you're not really living with what you got or playing a character you didn't intend to except in the extroadinary edge cases where you either have pitiful or amazing scores.

View of the GM and the player but it generates class to be played after the role and that class and character is what the player role-plays. If a player gets a 18 and a 16, they more than likely will play the same class over and over again; you get Bob the Cleric, always Bob the Cleric, never Bob the Wizard or Bob the Monk.

Sure, Bob may always play a cleric, maybe he likes the mechanics, the lore, the theme, or he just likes wearing a man-dress.

But the problem with not arranging your stats, choosing your class based on your rolls, is that you are highly likely to end up with a party with poor roles. Certainly this is less of an issue in some older, looser D&D systems, but the problem still exists.

2 mages, a cleric, a ranger and a rogue don't exactly make for a functioning adventuring party without a whole lot special tuning JUST for them. It may make for an interesting adventure, I'll give you that, but overall, it would seem like a good excuse for a group of bandits to close-range them all to TPK.

That, and while pushing people outside the happy bubble is useful in SOME occassions, it rarely makes life better. Bob plays the cleric because healing is his thing, he knows when to use it, what spells to use, how much of it, how injured someone need be when they need healing.

Joe, the "I just hit things" fighter, does not, he plays a fighter because he likes simplicity. When you suddenly hand him a wand, he has no idea what to do. Hard as he tries, he just "doesn't get it", Joe is not having fun, Joe isn't healing as well as Bob did, Bob doesn't understand how his rogue works, and the party dies. People are angry, people are upset, overall, the end result was...not fun.

For people who are sure to understand any role they're given, great! This could be a fun way to do things. But if even one person in your group doesn't, I wouldn't reccommend it, because you're bound to cause issues.

This is where the problem lies it seems. Not with rolling stats in and of itself, but with deciding on a concept... committing to a concept, and only THEN finding out that the DM's decision on how characters will be created may not accomodate it.

Which is why I've gotten into the habit of setting up a "pre-game meeting" with any DM whose game I want to join, or with any players who want to join mine. Surprise is NOT a good tool outside of the story.

Edit:
And how is the DM to ever know the players have an issue with his choices if they say nothing?

Doesn't ensure he'll listen though. But of course, if players don't speak, he CANT listen.

I don't quite get how randomizing something -- in other words, leaving critical facets of my character's abilities to chance, rather than to me -- is somehow more imagination-involving, rather than less.

I agree, though overall I think the key is playing. I like to write what are more commonly known as "character bios", a short, 3-5 page story about a "day in the life" of a character. And I admit, I've written some interesting stuff based off random dice rolls. However, none of those characters would be any fun to actually play. Oh, they're unique, they're interesting, but they're not really functional. The 20-str wizard is interesting....but his 5 int makes him...less than playable.

If I randomize my gender, height, weight, age, class, weapons, spells, and so on, does it continue to become more and more an exercise in creativity?

In theory, it should. How does your character differ if they are 5'2 instead of 6'4? How is their world-view changed if they are 15 or 51? Why does he use a hammer and a sickle, instead of two shortswords?

I fully understand and agree with folks who've pointed out that the structure imposed by randomization can result in surprising or unexpected results. But that is not, at all, the same as saying that it's more encouraging of creativity and use of imagination. It is restrictive, not open. Using point-buy and my imagination I can create any character dictated to me by random rolls ... but the opposite is not true.

At the end of the day, I agree that characters created based on dice rolls are less creative than those that are not based on random chance. Yes, by fate or by fortune you COULD be any person in the world for your aventure, but that begs the question, you're supposed to be an above-average adventurer, why would you want to be "just anyone"?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I fully understand and agree with folks who've pointed out that the structure imposed by randomization can result in surprising or unexpected results. But that is not, at all, the same as saying that it's more encouraging of creativity and use of imagination. It is restrictive, not open. Using point-buy and my imagination I can create any character dictated to me by random rolls ... but the opposite is not true.

I return to the artists I've mentioned before: after a certain point, the artists whose trash was being raided for supplies became aware of this, and started to manipulate the process by doing things like leaving only paits that were 8 shades of yellow to work with. The challenge to creativity then became what could you create within that limited pallate.

And again with the chefs: any competent cook can make a tasty meal with top-notch ingredients and equipment. It takes great creativity, OTOH, to create good meals when your ingredients are cheap, not what you anticipated, you've lost some to spoilage, or your oven has broken and all you have that's working is a deep fryer (all examples taken from Food Channel shows and/or personal experience).

Or, if it helps, think of MacGyver: anyone can make a bomb with some TNT, twine and a lighter; it takes creativity to do the same with a cold capsule and a jug of water or a stick of gum (series pilot) or even pine cones (ist season).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In theory, it should [be more creative to randomize everything]. How does your character differ if they are 5'2 instead of 6'4? How is their world-view changed if they are 15 or 51? Why does he use a hammer and a sickle, instead of two shortswords?

Which example in each of these pairs is the "random" example?

Given that I can exercise my creativity to choose any of these, how is that less creative than allowing the dice to choose for me?

 

[Sunseeker]

Which example in each of these pairs is the "random" example?
Given that I can exercise my creativity to choose any of these, how is that less creative than allowing the dice to choose for me?

Because it's one of those "in theory" things. In theory a random dice roll could generate a number in a position you had not anticipated. Because you didn't think of it, you wouldn't have thought up a character with that particular number. Which means IN THEORY, it provides more opportunities for creativity than your own mind would because the rolls of the dice are not limited by your own preconceptions.

As I said at the end however, I don't think it works out to be more creative in execution. Only in theory.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Neither method is "more creative", they just exercise different parts of your creativity...like how bench presses, military presses, shrugs, flys and curls all exercise different parts of your arms & shoulders.

 

[the Jester]

I would make a deal with the DM - you will play the PC just to see how long they survive on the condition that you can transfer the XP to the replacement PC you have waiting in the wings (ie, no penalty for death/replacement PC).

Also, see if the DM will give the group bonus XP if your character lives through each combat/session/adventure (with the caveat your PC has to do stuff and not just hide during combat). For extra XP, most groups will do the craziest stuff.

OR- you could just suck it up and play by the rules like everybody else.

 

[Sunseeker]

OR- you could just suck it up and play by the rules like everybody else.

What a wonderful attitude. i should tell all my players to "shove it" when they're not having fun! that's bound to make them want to keep playing!

 

[the Jester]

See, here's one of the things about rolling for stats... you're better off rolling before you set your heart on a specific character concept (especially if you're rolling in order!).

 

[the Jester]

What a wonderful attitude. i should tell all my players to "shove it" when they're not having fun! that's bound to make them want to keep playing!

Notice that I was speaking to the player, not the dm.

But if someone is in a game that involves dice, and they cannot handle living with the roll of the dice... they might not be suitable for the game. Now, that's not a hard and fast rule- but in a table with a culture of "Let the dice fall where they may" a player that gets upset when the dice go against them is... probably not a good fit.

Likewise, if you're rolling stats in the first place, if you want to have some form of "hopeless character = re-roll" rule, by all means, do so- but rolling for stats is meaningless if you just keep rolling until you get the perfect results.

IMHO and YMMV, of course.