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

[Celtavian]

This is just...no. It is entirely conceivable to have a world that is always just. Justice is not a zero-sum game. Abiding by the moral principles of right conduct absolutely does not entail that you, or others, must also fail to abide by the moral principles of right conduct.

Similarly, depending on the particular arena, it's totally possible to have black without white (turn off all the lights), plus without minus (ionized hydrogen nucleus), and light without darkness (a room with walls, ceiling, and floor made of luminous material). And even if absolutely every single one of those things WERE in fact truly, inherently dipolar, it wouldn't prove a single thing about justice and injustice--because the argument is inductive, not deductive ("X, Y, and Z are all dipolar, therefore Q *must* be dipolar too!")

This is like that ridiculous "if everyone is special, no one is special" Syndrome spouts in The Incredibles. It's the equivocation fallacy--because two different meanings of "special" are being used. If you actually force a single meaning of "special" the whole idea falls flat--e.g. "If everyone has a unique ability possessed by no one else, then no one has a unique ability possessed by no one else." The only way it works is if it becomes statistical: "If everyone becomes above average by the old average, then no one is above average by the new average." But again, you have to sneak in that "old vs. new" distinction--the two specials aren't the same because they don't refer to the same population data anymore. (And it also overlooks the fact that, by having an average, there almost certainly have to be some people who are below it and above it, because a population that was all EXACTLY at the mean would be incredibly unusual.)

I believe what he is saying is that the concept of justice would not exist had their not been injustice in the first place. That is true. Humans create ideas to fix problems. Injustice was a problem, thus the creation of justice. Maybe not in those exact words until the word was created, but the basic concept is sound. Ideas are discussed because based on observation and analysis of the human condition creating the concepts that we contemplate concerning human behavior.

I don't necessarily believe the analogy applies to a fantasy game. I certainly wouldn't look at someone at a table and tell them "They had a fair chance" in a voluntary game. Injustice and unfairness are usually involuntary. Very few, if any, people voluntarily submit to injustice or unfairness. If you're running a game with point buy and rolling and a player rolls exceptionally poor, he does have the option to find another game until he finds a suitable stat generation method, thus defeating the perceived unfairness.

We're playing a voluntary game. This whole idea of fair and unfair is more a matter of individual perception. No one has to play in a game their perceive as unfair and probably won't no matter how much the DM tries to explain the idea of "hard knocks" or the like.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm just saying we don't need to have the same argument every six months in the same thread with the same half dozen people.

But this is what gamers do...in reality, it is what most people do. Same thing happens all the time on sports, political, or finance forums.

 

[pemerton]

If you let the players self-pace, higher stats either make normal combats easier or allow accelerated progression through levels towards the endgame, whatever that happens to be, because fighting tougher things sooner grants more XP. Either way it's what the players enjoy so no harm done.

True. But I don't see that this is special to rolled stats. Eg every player could build his/her PC with a superior array and the same approach could be adopted, couldn't it?

The poster I replied to seemed to be asserting some sort of connection between particular means of stat generation, and particular means of encounter building or campaign pacing, but I'm not seeing any general connections of this sort.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

True...but OTOH, I have run Str or Dex 12 melee characters in D&D going back to 1Ed, happily. It CAN be done.

To continue your analogy, there are all kinds of published adventures in which one or two- and no more- powerful artifacts is acquired by a party member. There is no subsequent balancing.

IME, the mere fact that someone else's PC has better stats or better gear doesn't affect MY fun to the negative. I LIKE having a powerful ally on my team.

When I say "campaign" I really mean "long campaign". Some lumpiness in rewards are expected in every campaign. Some modules are too small a piece of the campaign puzzle to have any reasonable expectation of non-lumpiness -- that is for the DM and players to worry over in the long haul IMO.

As for your last point, I have two answers:
(1) Your argument is too simplistic to the point of being meaningless. My observation is the most fun is to be had when all PCs are powerful, but shine at different times. That provides variety and encourages teamwork, which is the primary attraction of playing a RPG over one of those many boardgames I have on my shelf.

To that end, point buy is very auspicious, because I can consciously choose to develop my PC into his own niche that is different from other PCs, and work together with other players to see that happens. With rolling stats it is entirely possible that I will roll 18 Str, 16 Con, 16 Dex while you roll 14 Str, 12 Con, 8 Dex. The result is my PC, not necessarily through any plan on my part, ends up being better than yours all the time at everything. Where is the fun in that? In fact, I think that will be less fun for you and less fun for me, too.

(2) That imbalances between PCs can degrade the fun for the players is not just some random whine by a few players; I have played we DMs who said as much outright. When the imbalances are too large, a challenge to a very powerful PC risks being overwhelming to the point of downright boring to players of other PCs. It is no fun to have a great build up to a combat and have your PC knocked out of the fight on Round 1. The player does not like it. And DMs do not necessarily like it either, if they worked hard for what they were hoping would be an interesting drawn out fight.

So it is not just some players saying this is less fun. It is also DMs saying this is less fun for them.

 

[pemerton]

I believe what he is saying is that the concept of justice would not exist had their not been injustice in the first place. That is true.

Yes, this conjecture as to intended meaning occurred to me also.

But it is then irrelevant to the issue at hand. The posters who are saying that they prefer points buy because it makes the starting conditions of their games fairer aren't making a claim about the epistemic accessibility of concepts. When people say that a certain set of starting conditions would render their game unfair, and another set of starting conditions would render the game more fair, they are not refuted by pointing out that they wouldn't be in possession of the vocabulary they are using but for having encountered instances of unfairness.

 

[pemerton]

So the mace's average damage per hit is equivalent to the longsword. Big whoop. The fighter has a host of weapons to choose from with even better DPH that the cleric cannot use, barring divine dispensation, like the Bastard sword.

The bastard sword used one-handed has the same stats as a longsword.

You are correct that a cleric cannot directly rival a two-handed weapon using fighter. But that is small comfort for the player of the sword-and-shield fighter, which is hardly an uncommon build (either today, or back in the heyday of AD&D).

the difference does exist, and over time, the Fighter will continue to improve his to-hit at a better rate and will gain multiple melee attacks per round...something non-warrior classes didn't get until 3Ed.

There are a range of options in 2nd ed AD&D to give non-warrior PCs multiple attacks.

More generally, the fact that fighters get better than clerics over time doesn't change the fact that the cleric can overshadow the fighter. We've just had survey data from WotC indicating that the majority of campaigns are in the 1st-to-6th level zone.

On the 1st ed AD&D attack tables a 5th level cleric (XP: 13,001) has the same THACO as a 4th level fighter (XP: somewhere between 8,001 and 18,000). With a 17 STR compared to a 16 STR fighter, the cleric will have a better chance to hit. 5d8 hit points is a marginally better average than 4d10, and if the cleric has a better CON score the difference might be genuinely noticeable.

It does not stop this cleric overshadowing this fighter for what might be months of play to point out that, if or when the fighter reaches a higher level at some hypothetical future time, to hit bonuses and multiple attacks will get to a point that the cleric can't rival them.

Point buy and Die-rolling for stats are 2 different kinds of fairness: one is an example of fairness of outcome, the other is an example of fairness of opportunity.

You may legitimately prefer one over the other- and which you prefer may vary depending on context- but calling one fair and one unfair is a logical no-no.

Which is no justification to deem one method "fair" and the other "unfair." They are different, but objectively equal in fairness.

This is like saying because a horse is in some contexts tall (eg when I'm talking about animals or even mammals in general) but in some contexts not tall, or even short (eg when I'm trying to work out whether I can stable giraffes in the same building where I stable my horses) it is therefore a "logical no-no" to ever call a horse short (or tall).

When someone says that die-rolled stats are unfair, they are not suggesting that the dice are biased. They are saying that, relative to the context and purposes of their game, it is unfair for one player to have a mechanically stronger PC than another - eg becaues that player thereby gains an unearned advantage - and that rolled stats open up that possibility. Whereas points buy stats or array close it down.

That is not illogical. It's perfectly sensible. And is not rebutted by pointing out that from the point of view of gambling, the die rolling is fair because unbiased. The whole point of the critic's claim is that allocating starting positions via gambling, even a fair gamble, is unfair. There is nothing illogical about that claim. It's quite unremarkable.

 

[billd91]

This is like saying because a horse is in some contexts tall (eg when I'm talking about animals or even mammals in general) but in some contexts not tall, or even short (eg when I'm trying to work out whether I can stable giraffes in the same building where I stable my horses) it is therefore a "logical no-no" to ever call a horse short (or tall).

When someone says that die-rolled stats are unfair, they are not suggesting that the dice are biased. They are saying that, relative to the context and purposes of their game, it is unfair for one player to have a mechanically stronger PC than another - eg becaues that player thereby gains an unearned advantage - and that rolled stats open up that possibility. Whereas points buy stats or array close it down.

That is not illogical. It's perfectly sensible. And is not rebutted by pointing out that from the point of view of gambling, the die rolling is fair because unbiased. The whole point of the critic's claim is that allocating starting positions via gambling, even a fair gamble, is unfair. There is nothing illogical about that claim. It's quite unremarkable.

I think the point is that logic alone cannot get you to die rolling being unfair. As long as all players are rolling with the same rules, there's no universal basis for calling it unfair. Whether or not you think it is unfair is a matter of preference, something I am not required to agree with, just as I may disagree with the assessment that a horse is tall or short depending on my perspective and not just some logical argument, label, or proof.

 

[Umbran]

Point buy and Die-rolling for stats are 2 different kinds of fairness: one is an example of fairness of outcome, the other is an example of fairness of opportunity.

You may legitimately prefer one over the other- and which you prefer may vary depending on context- but calling one fair and one unfair is a logical no-no.

Informal logical fallacy alert! I call equivocation on the play.

Danny, when someone says they think something is unfair, they have a particular type of fairness in mind, even if they don't say so explicitly. To claim that since the term has another meaning, that person is wrong is a rhetorical no-no. You don't get to claim they mean all types of fairness at once, since you aren't the speaker.

 

[Umbran]

But this is what gamers do...in reality, it is what most people do. Same thing happens all the time on sports, political, or finance forums.

Yah. And at least in this case, it is in one very long-running thread, so people can easily avoid it if they don't want to participate in the rehash.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

can a system be fair if it's result is not...

I think the point is that logic alone cannot get you to die rolling being unfair. As long as all players are rolling with the same rules, there's no universal basis for calling it unfair. Whether or not you think it is unfair is a matter of preference, something I am not required to agree with, just as I may disagree with the assessment that a horse is tall or short depending on my perspective and not just some logical argument, label, or proof.

ok see here is the problem... 5 people walk up and plan to sit here every Friday night for the next year and play poker... before they start they set the rules as they all take chips and anty X amount who ever has the most chips at the end of the night takes the anty... before the first time they play they draw for high card... the highest card starts with the most chips every week for the year... just because they all have equal chance tonight doesn't make it fair in 6 weeks when again (like every week) player A starts with twice the chips player B does...

or to get back to gaming...
the 5 of us sit down to play D&D every Friday night for a year, but before we play the first night we throw some dice, and randomly determain who has the moste powerful stats....


If Player A is going to run Connan the Barbarian with 18 str 15 dex 16 Con 14 Int 16 Wis and 15 cha and player b is stuck with Bobby the barbarian 14 str 11 dex 12 con 10 int 13 wis 14 cha why can't player B say "Hey, this isn't going to be fun for me..."

If player A sits down to run Gandalf the Grey with 15 str 15 dex 15 con 20 int 19 wis 18 cha, and player B gets stuck playing ron weasly with 12 str 9 dex 10 con 13 int 11 wis and 10 cha... he has every right to call the results unfair...

If the DMs girl friend is playing a level 3/3 monk/battle master fighter named Xena with 17 str 20 dex 16 con 15 int 15 wis and 20 cha, and you get told to play jocksor the might the 2nd level fighter with 13 str 11 dex 12 con 9 int 9 wis and 10 cha... that is even worse... I don't care if you say "well we rolled for level and she rolled a 6 ont eh d6 and he rolled a 2...he could have rolled a 6 also"