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

[bedir than]

(The inspiration point strikes me as orthogonal, because it is not easier to earn inspiration if your PC has low stats.)

Since those with great stats are more likely to do things that their great stats call for they are specifically not engaging in role play and earning Inspiration. They're just doing what the data says, that's roll play.

Low score characters that succeed are going to have to do things in the social and exploration tiers that the high stat player is more likely to ignore, because "The whole rationale for a player having a PC, in my view, is to be able to engage in conflict as the core of play."

Since my low score characters will be succeeding at two tiers while you are succeeding at one I would expect the DM to reward Inspiration and XP for that behavior.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It absolutely depends on campaign style, and goals for play more generally.

I would never use a PC generation mechanic which produced PCs whose players had to be willing to avoid conflict, or whose stand-out feature was the player's willingness to risk them because of poor stats. (The inspiration point strikes me as orthogonal, because it is not easier to earn inspiration if your PC has low stats.)

The whole rationale for a player having a PC, in my view, is to be able to engage in conflict as the core of play, and to have a meaningful chance of impacting the shared fiction as a result of that.

I agree with the bolded part. Am curious whether your remarks assume one PC per player, or if your opinions hold even for campaigns where each player has a whole character tree. That seems like a pretty crucial playstyle difference to me, and I hypothesize that the one-per-player playstyle is less tolerant of PC variance because the stakes are so much higher. Can you help me falsify this hypothesis by confirming/denying?

An alternate hypothesis would concern pillars of play. I run a fairly exploration-heavy game, so "engaging in conflict as the core of play" doesn't really apply as far as I've seen. It's more "engaging in problem solving." Players tend to pick their battles or avoid them in order to accomplish their play goals, and stats frequently have little impact on outcomes. (E.g. sneaking past vampires, it matters little whether you have +19 to Stealth with 20 Dex or +17 with 16 Dex, either way the main factor is "Did it occur to you to put out the torch and activate Pass Without Trace?" Surviving a roper attack is more "Did you bring javelins" than "Do you get do 1d8+4 or 1d8+2?" Etc.) Not that stats never impact the outcomes, but the guy who had the most impact on the last couple of sessions did it without leveraging his one standout stat at all (Dex 18)--the big deal was that he figured out how to run the lifejammer, and he had a Sailor background so he was also able to teach his hirelings to use the rigging. Other crucial non-stat-related decisions in the past have included "Who's willing to run away from this combat instead of charging into melee", "Who's willing to expend magic items here and who has them to expend," "Who's in control of the money," "Who's willing to talk to the skeletal warrior and what are you going to do about his proposal," "Who's got a plan to propose to the Council for defending the city from the hobgoblin hordes," etc., etc.

Maybe in a game more focused on combat, stats might be more crucial to determining whether you have "a meaningful chance of impacting" the result of combats. Maybe.

Edited to add: RE: "whose stand-out feature was the player's willingness to risk them because of poor stats." The point is that a PC who takes risks is likely to regress to the mean IMC. Either he'll die/get permanently altered or he'll get some cool extra stuff, or both. (Gaining tons of XP also counts.) The unoptimized dragonborn cleric with 12s and 13s evenly distributed in all abilities? He's the one who climbed into the xixchil machine and wound up with -2 Int, -2 Cha, a bad temper, and trollish regeneration. Now his schtick will be "the death cleric who will never meet his god again," which is good because I think his player was a bit traumatized when he (the PC) got eaten by wolves. All of the high-stats guys avoided that machine because they were too afraid of the side-effects.

Regression to the mean, man.

 

[spinozajack]

Personally, I see rolling vs point buy to be indicative of playstyle more than anything else.

It boils down to, do you look over at the muscular jock over there and think to yourself, he must be about as strong and fit as I am smart and wise. Or do you think, maybe some guys get all the luck, and maybe I'm okay with having a few points more or less overall, because it's what I do with what I'm given that matters. Sometimes the tall dark and handsome guy over there also has a high IQ and a super work ethic. Or a terrible one. And that's where you come in. Beat them by working harder. It's not like in D&D you can't easily get your highest rolled stat to 20 within a few levels anyway. In 2e you rolled and were pretty much stuck with what you got. The stakes for such an outcome in 5th are very low.

When we start a new game and I'm DMing, I let people roll if they want but they must keep the character and not be obviously trying to commit suicide if they didn't roll very well. If they take point buy, however, and someone else who took the risk and got three sixteens, two eighteens, and maybe a 7, and they get jealous, then I start thinking, this person is going to be a problem player who is going to argue rules with the DM at every opportunity to gain some advantage. I generally see people who are fine with a bad roll as being more mature, more zen about things, and usually therefore more chill, and better players. I wouldn't disparage people who like point buy because they are the RRSP type investor, but I have seen quite often that the type of player who is vehemently anti-rolling probably doesn't like too many surprises or bad things happening to their characters, and therefore wouldn't be a good fit in my games anyway. I prefer players creeping around against terrible odds and sometimes failing and dying, than thinking, "I picked these stats because I have the (unwarranted) expectation that this character is going to last". Why on earth would they believe that? If you think your player is going to last, does that not imply that you know the DM is going to play the game unfairly by giving you reprieves against the wishes of the dice?

If the dice have no agency at character creation, why should they have more agency when it's time to decide if your character dies?

I appreciate that people play D&D to have fun, but I am not a kid any more and I don't think playing with immature players is fun. I do think it's immature for you to peek over at someone else's character sheet and say "no fair, they rolled three 18s". I wouldn't just stop playing D&D with such a person, I probably wouldn't hang around AFCs outside the game, either. Entitlement complexes to having life treat you fairly gets tiresome. Stop complaining and whining about stuff, pick up a sword, and go do something about it. I bet the best swordsman in history wasn't the strongest or even the most agile, just the best trained and skilled and determined. That's the kind of winner I enjoy playing, one who starts off as the underdog and beats the favorite. As a story trope, I find David v. Goliath far more satisfying (and interesting) a story than Goliath v. Goliath.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since those with great stats are more likely to do things that their great stats call for they are specifically not engaging in role play and earning Inspiration. They're just doing what the data says, that's roll play.

Er...what? Are you seriously saying that because a PC has high numbers, the player is not going to roleplay as frequently?? What prevents "doing things related to your high stats" from being excellent roleplay as well?

Low score characters that succeed are going to have to do things in the social and exploration tiers that the high stat player is more likely to ignore, because "The whole rationale for a player having a PC, in my view, is to be able to engage in conflict as the core of play."

Why would any player--regardless of the character's stats--ignore a built-in, ready-made, and (fairly) easily-obtained bonus? Even with high stats, there is (almost) always a chance of failure, so even from a "rollplay" standpoint (and you should know that most people consider that an insult) there's no reason not to seek Inspiration. The low-stat character may need Inspiration to have a hope of success, sure, but both of them definitely will want it.

And, again, I completely fail to understand how high stats--whether point-bought or rolled--will make it harder to roleplay. I'm going to roleplay my character the way I roleplay it regardless of its stats, though the pleasure I derive from play may be affected by how often I can succeed, which is affected by stats.

Personally, I see rolling vs point buy to be indicative of playstyle more than anything else.

It boils down to, do you look over at the muscular jock over there and think to yourself, he must be about as strong and fit as I am smart and wise. Or do you think, maybe some guys get all the luck, and maybe I'm okay with having a few points more or less overall, because it's what I do with what I'm given that matters.

I've...never thought that in my entire life. Usually, when I look at someone physically fit, I think, "Ugh, I wish I had the patience, endurance, and gumption to work out so I could look like that." I know I'm no slouch when it comes to the cranium, and I could get such a physique too, I'm just not motivated enough.

Also: did you mean to imply that most/all people who prefer point buy are "immature" gamers with an "entitlement complex"? And that "expecting a PC to last" inherently means the DM pulling punches? Because the first is pretty blatantly insulting, and the second would mean you aren't very good at accepting others' gaming preferences, neither of which I think you actually want to communicate.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I appreciate that people play D&D to have fun, but I am not a kid any more and I don't think playing with immature players is fun. I do think it's immature for you to peek over at someone else's character sheet and say "no fair, they rolled three 18s". I wouldn't just stop playing D&D with such a person, I probably wouldn't hang around AFCs outside the game, either. Entitlement complexes to having life treat you fairly gets tiresome. Stop complaining and whining about stuff, pick up a sword, and go do something about it. I bet the best swordsman in history wasn't the strongest or even the most agile, just the best trained and skilled and determined. That's the kind of winner I enjoy playing, one who starts off as the underdog and beats the favorite. As a story trope, I find David v. Goliath far more satisfying (and interesting) a story than Goliath v. Goliath.

I mostly agree, but I don't think the above is necessarily immature. I've played in groups where we all rolled up PCs, and all three of the other players had PCs had multiple 18/17 stats. I didn't make a big deal of it but it did twig my radar a little bit. It didn't impact play for the short time the campaign lasted, but it did impact my level of trust in the players, and probably affected how I (the player) reacted to shenanigans like one PC looting silver daggers from a friendly NPC's house and not telling the party about it even when we were under attack by werewolves. If I hadn't already suspected him of cheating on stats I probably would have seen his PC's behavior more as an in-character thing instead of a problem-player thing.

Also, I do enjoy Goliath vs. Goliath. I enjoy curbstomp fights as much as nailbiters, and I enjoy investing in PCs with high potential more than PCs who are born underdogs. But I respect that you enjoy being David, and that's perfectly fine with me. (I don't mind being David occasionally but I want at least one born Goliath in my character tree. Growing a Goliath: that's my payoff for playing.)

 

[Iosue]

Some people do not want to play a game in which some players have characters whose mechanical capacity to impact play is significantly different from that of others.

I don't think that's a very complicated preference. Even those who don't share it should be able to understand it.

The disconnect here, as I see it, is that Sacrosanct doesn't see the mechanical capacity to impact play as being significant, vis-a-vis 5e's array/point-buy vs. rolling. Worst case scenario, array/point buy player has 17 in their primary stat while the rolling player rolled an 18 and was able to jack that up to 20 via racial bonuses. In which case, we're talking about a total difference of +2. 10% difference. Mind you, even in the tightly balanced 4e, it was often said that the difference between an optimized character and non-optimized character was less than 20%. So, the question becomes, what is a "significant difference"? Is it +/-2? +/-3? 4?

In 3e, the game was set-up so that an optimized character could be so far ahead of a non-optimized character that creating challenges for the party became incredibly difficult: something challenging enough for the optimized character would be impossible for the non-optimized characters to overcome, while something that was a decent challenge for the non-optimized characters was a cakewalk for the optimized character. 5e's bounded accuracy mitigates this problem a good deal. The game is designed so that even characters of differing level can work together.

I think it's a fair question if, in the course of play, a mixed point-buy/roll 4d6-low group would find that the rolling group was impacting play more to a significant degree. If we assume a player will generally make 5 rolls per encounter, that hypothetical character with the +2 advantage is getting 1 more success roll every two encounters. If the group had not done the math, would that even be noticeable?

 

[Hussar]

I do wonder if my opinion is coloured by my experience with 3e where the differences can be very pronounced.

Although, even in 5e if you surf back to that die rolled spread a few pages ago, that character has bonuses on every single skill check and saving throw where a point buy character wouldn't.

 

[DaveDash]

I would never roll. If I rolled crap, I'd be forever unsatisfied with my character.

I grew up playing D&D where you'd roll 3d6 assign, then 4d6 assign, then 4d6 arrange. Clearly the focus now is on letting players play the kind of character they want to play. But hey, I can understand the fun and challenge in going back to 3d6 or 4d6, but its just not for me.

 

[Lezta]

Honestly, I'm in favour of rolling. I've found playing with low stats can be just as fun for me as high ones.

But the real reason I like rolling is because it feels more organic to me, less mechanical. I'm discovering who my character is going to be, not deciding. It represents that element of life that you can't control, the genetics, if you will. You can chose what you want to do in life, but you can't change the cards you're dealt. That's exciting to me.

Of course, I'll almost always have a concept in mind, but those random results can take that concept in unexpected directions. I like that.

When I'm DM, though, I don't tend to force dice rolling. What I'll normally say is you can choose to roll, or you can point buy; but once the dice have started rolling, you can't change your mind back to point buy. Means that those who wanted the risk know what they let themselves in for if they do roll awfully (I don't think I've ever seen an utterly unplayable character in my 10+ years of DMing though). It's a risk/reward thing.

I remember one character, playing a cleric, who rolled pretty great stats. Well, except his Con (the stats for this game were rolled in order, not arranged), which was 3. But all his other stats were amazing. He ended up being this frail, sickly man who we supported and often just carried around because in all other respects, he kicked arse. Just had to make sure he never, ever, took a hit. Added an interesting, different, element to the party. We enjoyed it. And it would never have happened with point buy.

 

[pemerton]

But the real reason I like rolling is because it feels more organic to me, less mechanical. I'm discovering who my character is going to be, not deciding.

I can understand this. Some interesting options have been mentioned upthread - [MENTION=6777696]redrick[/MENTION]'s rolling for point allocation, rolling across a set of arrays, etc - that substitute "organic" for mechanical building but preserve a degree of mechanical equality.