D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[Parmandur]

But why higher? That's my point. Why not use a generation method that doesn't swing so badly?

Except it doesn't really swing. It goes from maybe a hair below point buy to well above, to the point where a given character is effectively one level higher.

4d4 would give you a perfectly acceptable spread. I'd bet dollars to donuts that random generation people would hate it. You can't get an 18 that way. And that seems to be the point of random generation. Get those 35 point buy value characters on the table with a nice patina of legitimacy.

Random is fun, and makes for situations that would not necessarily arise from imagination alone. Personally, I love Traveler character generation the best of any I have seen, and dislike all point buy systems. The random factor creates an interesting dynamic for role playing, and even all 18's isn't useful if you keep whiffing the rolls in game.

Also love the random elements to Backgrounds in 5E, giving depth to a PC with a few dice rolls.

 

[billd91]

4d4 would give you a perfectly acceptable spread. I'd bet dollars to donuts that random generation people would hate it. You can't get an 18 that way. And that seems to be the point of random generation. Get those 35 point buy value characters on the table with a nice patina of legitimacy.

4s4 would be an acceptable spread... If the origins of the game had a 4-16 range for stats. But it doesn't, so it wouldn't be.

But maybe it's time you stopped ascribing motives to people you don't know.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't know Baldur's Gate well enough to love Minsc, but I do recognize what you're talking about.

Yeah, just pointing out how one of the most loved and memorable PCs in that game happened to have stats like that.

Gasp!

 

[Bacon Bits]

(Emphasis mine.)
So much this. Imagine members of a pro-sports team having sour grapes because they had Beckham, Derek Jeter, Peyton Manning, Michael Jordan or Wayne Gresky as a teammate.

It's not that. At least, that's not what made us give up random stats.

It's that nobody wants to be The Load. Nobody want to have The Load in their party, and nobody wants to be The Load. Imagine you're on a team with Beckham, Jeter, Manning, Jordan, and Gretzky... and in walks Dustin Diamond. For every Load that turns into Bilbo Baggins, there's 99 Loads that are just Ruby Rhod.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not that. At least, that's not what made us give up random stats.

It's that nobody wants to be The Load. Nobody want to have The Load in their party, and nobody wants to be The Load. Imagine you're on a team with Beckham, Jeter, Manning, Jordan, and Gretzky... and in walks Dustin Diamond. For every Load that turns into Bilbo Baggins, there's 99 Loads that are just Ruby Rhod.

...but that's part of the fun!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ruby Rhod wasn't a Load, he was a pretty stellar Bard who happened to be involved in an adventure not suited to his skills. He wasn't a "combat dood", he swayed the hearts of millions.

Or, to put it a different way: I once participated in a combat in a one-shot in which a warrior with some pretty über stats never landed a blow...because he didn't have anything to let him attack flying foes. He spent the encounter running around trying to get to the flyers when they got temporarily grounded.

In another game, my Ranger wasted a combat against his favored enemy by not rolls above a 7.

Lesson: everybody is a Load at some point. The trick is to find what you're good at...and shine when you get the opportunity.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's not that. At least, that's not what made us give up random stats.

It's that nobody wants to be The Load. Nobody want to have The Load in their party, and nobody wants to be The Load. Imagine you're on a team with Beckham, Jeter, Manning, Jordan, and Gretzky... and in walks Dustin Diamond. For every Load that turns into Bilbo Baggins, there's 99 Loads that are just Ruby Rhod.

All right, let's play a game. Postulate a party of three existing characters and a set of stats for a new character in the party. Let's see how low the stats have to go before he becomes The Load.

It's really not that hard to make somebody who can contribute. You could have all 10s for stats and still be a moon druid ripping heads off bodies and resurrecting dead characters, or a necromancer reanimating meat shields and summoning elementals, or sorcerer twinning Haste or Polymorph on the other PCs, or a dwarven Battlemaster in plate mail soaking hits for everybody else, or even a rogue relying on Sneak Attack damage and advantage from his Mage Hand/familiar to make up for his lousy Dex. The sheer popularity of Find Familiar in 5E ought to clue us all in on the fact that a party member with crummy stats, 1 HP, and no ability to attack at all can still be a valuable addition to the party. How much more valuable a full PC?

 

[Sunseeker]

Gamers have a choice to not participate in games that play that way.

Do they?

IME the choice is a false one. The local game usually consists of the majority of players able and willing to get together at your preferred time.

Locally, I don't have access to multiple tables. I don't have a circle of friends that includes more than 1 RPG table. I get to "choose" to play D&D with the guys, or I get to "choose" to not play D&D at all.

That's why it's rare these days to find any DM who says "my way or the highway" because the end result is more often the highway than my way. Inevitably one of your players also knows how to DM and if enough players are dissatisfied with the DM whose attitude can be summed up as "like it or GTFO" the table splits, the game people don't like dies and the new DM offers people are better deal.

 

[Crothian]

Do they?

Yes, they do have a choice. It might be no gaming or bad gaming but they have a choice. You're right about one thing though. Some people have few gaming friends and they are unable or unwilling to find different people to game with. Some people do not have access to the internet or are unwilling to play on line games. There is a saying in Tabletop RPGs "No gaming is better then bad gaming."

Locally, I don't have access to multiple tables. I don't have a circle of friends that includes more than 1 RPG table. I get to "choose" to play D&D with the guys, or I get to "choose" to not play D&D at all.

Everyone has different experiences and situations. I know a few dozen local gamers personally and through boards like EN World I know of many other gamers in my greater metropolitan area. However, even with such a plethora of gamers I don't give players ultimatums like my way or the highway except in pretty extreme cases.

But if at our table five of the six players really want to roll dice for characters then that is what we will do for all characters. It's not the DM telling that sixth player to leave; it is the majority of the group that wants to play a certain way. And this doesn't have to be about rolling dice for character creation. It could also be the game we play, or the time and place we play. I am very open with my players and we talk about these decisions before each campaign. Not everyone wanted to play Edge of the Empire but most of them did so the ones that would have preferred not to stuck with it knowing the game was not going to last forever. It's all about compromise. To go back to my Edge of Empire example. When we agreed to play that we also agreed that when that was finished we would play the game the one guy who was not into Edge of Empires wanted to play. We are doing that right now and when that finishes up in a month we will move on to something one of the other guys wants to do.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, they do have a choice. It might be no gaming or bad gaming but they have a choice. You're right about one thing though. Some people have few gaming friends and they are unable or unwilling to find different people to game with. Some people do not have access to the internet or are unwilling to play on line games. There is a saying in Tabletop RPGs "No gaming is better then bad gaming."







Everyone has different experiences and situations. I know a few dozen local gamers personally and through boards like EN World I know of many other gamers in my greater metropolitan area. However, even with such a plethora of gamers I don't give players ultimatums like my way or the highway except in pretty extreme cases.



But if at our table five of the six players really want to roll dice for characters then that is what we will do for all characters. It's not the DM telling that sixth player to leave; it is the majority of the group that wants to play a certain way. And this doesn't have to be about rolling dice for character creation. It could also be the game we play, or the time and place we play. I am very open with my players and we talk about these decisions before each campaign. Not everyone wanted to play Edge of the Empire but most of them did so the ones that would have preferred not to stuck with it knowing the game was not going to last forever. It's all about compromise. To go back to my Edge of Empire example. When we agreed to play that we also agreed that when that was finished we would play the game the one guy who was not into Edge of Empires wanted to play. We are doing that right now and when that finishes up in a month we will move on to something one of the other guys wants to do.

A mature, adult approach?

Interesting choice. Not everyone's cup of tea, but to each their own.

Seriously, in my experience everyone has wanted to roll. If somebody loudly complained about it being unfair I would be a bit taken aback.