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

[redrick]

Yes, it is. It is standard, point buy is an optional rule; not one that the books seem to encourage, as with feats or multi-classing.

Never done any other method than rolling; just wouldn't be my cup of tea without the dice deciding. And, it seems, WOTC found that to be a common feeling when surveys were done.

The basic rules (and PHB) present both rolling and the standard array as normal and interchangeable ways to determine ability scores. The point buy is then presented as an option to customize the standard array. Neither is presented as the default, preferred, or encouraged method.

EDITED TO ADD:

Which is to say that, unlike multi-classing or feats, choosing the standard array is not presented as something which is done at the discretion of the DM. (Of course, any table is welcome to restrict or modify whatever options they wish for their game.)

 

[Sunseeker]

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."

I think it takes a pretty horrid level of "bad gaming" to reach the "no gaming is preferable" though, and of course that's all based on how readily you can find better gaming.

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.

I don't allow point buy, but that's usually because people don't understand it very well and it takes them too long to figure it out.
I always allow at least one alternative option for players. If you really don't want to roll, the standard array is your choice.

As far as "I don't want to play this game." goes, well as the DM this is the material I have prepared so it's what I am capable of running, not simply what I am willing to run. I'm always open to allowing someone else to run a different game.

To use your Edge of the Empire example: If after talking to the group we decided we're going to play Edge of the Empire, that's what I'd bring out, if someone objected they'd have the option to either A: play it. B: leave. C: convince the group to play their game, which they would then be in charge of running.

 

[Crothian]

I think it takes a pretty horrid level of "bad gaming" to reach the "no gaming is preferable" though, and of course that's all based on how readily you can find better gaming.

Different people have their own threshold. I have seen players leave a game because the home the game is run at has children in it. Other times we have had players take a campaign off they were not interested in but also had busy lives outside of gaming. Sometimes it is better to not go to a game you will not really enjoy especially when instead you could be taking the kids to soccer practice or putting in some needed extra time at work. Gaming has an opportunity cost and that should factor into the choice of whether or not to game.

To use your Edge of the Empire example: If after talking to the group we decided we're going to play Edge of the Empire, that's what I'd bring out, if someone objected they'd have the option to either A: play it. B: leave. C: convince the group to play their game, which they would then be in charge of running.

Option C is a very important part. Everyone at the table has a chance if they want it to try to convince everyone to their way of thinking be it the not roll dice or a different game or whatever. I want to hear from everyone so we can get any grievances out in the open before the game starts. Now, having the chance to speak up and convincing everyone are two very different things.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think it takes a pretty horrid level of "bad gaming" to reach the "no gaming is preferable" though, and of course that's all based on how readily you can find better gaming.

It's based on the opportunity cost. I play D&D on Tuesday nights because I have a group of friends who are into it and for whom I enjoy DMing; when they lose interest I'll go back to reading Brandon Sanderson novels or playing Go. There's another D&D group that I recently quit because it didn't fit my style (not sandboxy, too "story"-oriented, too many magic items). It wasn't a horrible game, but I'd still rather use those Saturdays in other ways.

 

[redrick]

meh, never mind. It's all good! Let's all enjoy the game as we want to play it!

 

[Parmandur]

The basic rules (and PHB) present both rolling and the standard array as normal and interchangeable ways to determine ability scores. The point buy is then presented as an option to customize the standard array. Neither is presented as the default, preferred, or encouraged method.



EDITED TO ADD:



Which is to say that, unlike multi-classing or feats, choosing the standard array is not presented as something which is done at the discretion of the DM. (Of course, any table is welcome to restrict or modify whatever options they wish for their game.)

True about the array, but point buy is. Still, random does seem to be the assumption for balance purposes, given bounded accuracy.

 

[redrick]

... random does seem to be the assumption for balance purposes, given bounded accuracy.

I'm not sure that I follow. How does bounded accuracy make random abilities the assumption?

If anything, I would say that the balancing of feats with ability score increases works better with lower starting ability scores than one will typically get with the 4d6 method. That's part of the reason I started entertaining the idea of just using point buy/standard array in the first place. (Up until recently, I've been staunch supporter of rolling and looked down my nose at point buy, but I've come around on that.)

That being said, I'm sure that the designers assumed for either option, seeing as they presented both options as standard. The game doesn't break when you have characters starting level 1 with 18, 19, or 20 in their prime stat. It's just not, in my opinion, as good as when you have them starting at 15,16 or 17. (Starting at <15 is dope, but I don't know that many players who would want that and I wouldn't, as a DM, force that on them.)

The less powerful your level 1 characters, the more room they have to grow within the confines of bounded accuracy. Growth is fun. That's why we play level-based games.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure that I follow. How does bounded accuracy make random abilities the assumption?



If anything, I would say that the balancing of feats with ability score increases works better with lower starting ability scores than one will typically get with the 4d6 method. That's part of the reason I started entertaining the idea of just using point buy/standard array in the first place. (Up until recently, I've been staunch supporter of rolling and looked down my nose at point buy, but I've come around on that.)



That being said, I'm sure that the designers assumed for either option, seeing as they presented both options as standard. The game doesn't break when you have characters starting level 1 with 18, 19, or 20 in their prime stat. It's just not, in my opinion, as good as when you have them starting at 15,16 or 17. (Starting at <15 is dope, but I don't know that many players who would want that and I wouldn't, as a DM, force that on them.)



The less powerful your level 1 characters, the more room they have to grow within the confines of bounded accuracy. Growth is fun. That's why we play level-based games.

Assumed for balance. Really, unlike say 4E, a lower than average character is not that far off from a stupendous character in practice.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny, I get comments about ascribing motives, yet [MENTION=26510]SAN[/MENTION]crosact flat out states that anyone who doesn't like die rolling is guilty of "Jealousy" or "Sour Grapes". Funny how ascribing motives is all one sided.

The problem is, my issue isn't from a player perspective. The problem afaic is entirely on the DM's side. You wind up with one or two characters that are effectively one level higher than the rest of the party, which makes encounter design that much more difficult. Or you wind up having an entire party that's operating one level higher, you then have all sorts of people jumping on En World complaining about how this or that edition sucks because they can't challenge the party.

The vast majority of balance issues with any edition of D&D vanish the second you stop using die rolled characters.

 

[Crothian]

The problem is, my issue isn't from a player perspective. The problem afaic is entirely on the DM's side. You wind up with one or two characters that are effectively one level higher than the rest of the party, which makes encounter design that much more difficult.

This is an interesting statement. It assumes that all the characters of a party are always going to be the same level. It also assumes the DM is specifically crafting all encounters specifically for their level. It further assumes that the classes are balanced across level. I think there are many reasons other then attributes that can cause one character to outshine others and play as if they were a level or two higher most important of those factors is the player. Not all players are equal and because of the variety of skill level we can see that I think would influence character power far more then attributes.

Or you wind up having an entire party that's operating one level higher, you then have all sorts of people jumping on En World complaining about how this or that edition sucks because they can't challenge the party.

I think Morrus would love to see a huge influx of posters that want to talk about 5e. That would be kind of awesome.

The vast majority of balance issues with any edition of D&D vanish the second you stop using die rolled characters.

I find this a huge exaggeration and again just filled with assumptions. The first being that rolled characters cause balance issues. They can but they don't always. People do roll average characters using that system and in fact probably roll average more then not average.

I don't understand this attitude. If rolling doesn't work for you that's great, don't use it. But the insistence that no one else use it because "all sorts of people jumping on En World complaining about how this or that edition sucks because they can't challenge the party." and cause all kinds of balance issues that I've personally never seen is ludicrous. Yes, I'm sure they happen to people as we have testimony to that here and elsewhere. But just because some people can't handle it doesn't mean it should go away for everyone.