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

[billd91]

1. Rolling 4d6 drop the lowest 6 times will result in a range of stats. Some high some low. The strong guy will still likely be stupidier and sicker than weaker people in the 4d6 drop lowest system. Healthy people will still tend to be less charismatic. That the rolling method provides a chance to get all high stats or all low stats doesn't really fix the problem since it's still very likely that these some characterizations will exist.

If you allow players to arrange as desired, yes, because the combat rules offer some synergy among the physical stats. But if you just roll down the line, no rearranging, then the rolls are all independent and there is no correlation between healthy and dumb or smart and weak.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you allow players to arrange as desired, yes, because the combat rules offer some synergy among the physical stats. But if you just roll down the line, no rearranging, then the rolls are all independent and there is no correlation between healthy and dumb or smart and weak.

Yea. I thought everyone allowed the stats to be assigned as desired these days?

 

[pemerton]

It does contradict real-life experience, not of heroic parties but of trait distribution. In real life, intelligence and health are not anti-correlated, nor health and charisma, nor strength and health. Under point-buy they are anti-correlated because they all feed off the same resource.

That doesn't make point buy a bad game, to be sure, but it does damage verisimilitude

I am assuming that the adventuring party is not a random sample of inhabitants of the gameworld. I am likewise assuming that the process of PC construction (via array or point buy) is not a model or emulation of any ingame causal process. Hence, the PC stat spreads tell us nothing about trait distribution in the gameworld per se, and nothing about what traits may or may not be correlated. All it tells us is what the distribution of traits among these four to six individuals is, and there is nothing anti-verisimilitudinous (that I can see) in the fact that all of them have either specialised depth, or a degree of breadth, but not both.

If you build in additional premises - eg that point buy is a model of an ingame causal process, or that the PCs are a random and representative sample of the gameworld inhabitants - then I can see the potential damage to verisimilitude. But then letting the players roll 4d6 (if the campaign world norm is 3d6) or letting the players assign their stats (which corresponds to no ingame process) would equally damage verisimilitude, I would think, on those strong simulationist premises.

EDIT:

the most verisimilitude would come from a system that enforced positive correlations... but I don't know of any such system

They existed in the 80s - I can't remember off the top of my head, but I've encountered heavy process-sim systems where STR and CON have to correlate (or where a low STR gives a penalty to CON).

You get other approximations to these, too, like in RQ where hit points are a function of size and CON. Or 1st ed AD&D, where a fighter has a CON minimum as well as a STR minimum.

 

[pemerton]

Someone's confusing "compromise" with "do it my way". Kind of ironic, actually. Because of all the 'sides" I see here, there is one side who absolutely will refuse to play any other way but theirs (everyone's stats have to be the same). By and large, the random die roll crowd is perfectly fine with you playing with whatever method you want

Except some of them keep telling me I'm jealous, am suffering from sour grapes, am an immature whinger, or don't know what is or isn't fair in my campaign!

I don't care about others' games, which I don't get to enjoy, nor have to suffer through. I only get to enjoy, and suffer through, my own game. The point of my posts is mostly to explain why, in my game, rolled stats would be a detriment and introduce needless unfairness into it.

That's what the array is, quite literally: every starts with the same stats. We've also had people admit they do not like it at all if any other PC has any additional bonuses, using phrases like "not fair" or "punishing", which certainly infers that everyone must have the same stat baseline.

Array is not "everyone starts with the same stats". It's the same stat spread, but players can choose where to allocate them.

Furthermore, as I have already stated, my 4e campaign uses point buy, and I posted the spread of stats upthread. The players don't have the same stat baseline. They can trade off breadth against depth. Only one started with a primary 20. Another started with a primary 16 (also wanted CON, DEX and WIS as well as primary STR).

But the outcome of point buying stats can be disparate as well. So is point buy also one of the methods that can be fair but may not be depending on the outcome?

The issue isn't disparity. It's mechanical advantage. Points buy forces a trade-off between breadth and depth. Rolliing permits a lucky player to have both.

What people are saying (and I've said it myself), is not "go play your immature non-D&D game". Use whatever style you want, I don't care. What we/I am saying is, "if you're getting that worked up because another player happened to have a higher stat and you're seriously telling me you're getting punished and encounter out of game distress over it, then that's an immature reaction."

I don't think it's immature to be irritated by a game set-up being biased in favour of one player rather than another.

Which, for the approach to play that I prefer, is a potential consequence of rolling stats.

Just because some PCs are a few points better in their check modifiers, doesn't mean they have to rule everything. I wouldn't want to base my fun on how successful another players is, and seeing some variations in mechanical success doesn't make it any less true D&D.

I think this is an illustration of differences in goals of play, of the sort I have mentioned above.

If the goal of play is success, but not competitive as between players, then the fact that some players have a mechanical advantage, and hence get more successes, may not be an issue. Particularly when the fun consists to a significant extent in trying to succeed, then provided you don't lose to often the fact that you're not the most successful may not matter.

In my case, an important goal of play is for the players to shape the shared fiction via the mechanics of action resolution. To some extent this is a zero-sum game (if A shapes the fiction, then B hasn't), whereas in a non-competitive environment success is not zero-sum. Also, unlike success as a goal, shaping the fiction is something where the fun is more strongly located in the realisation of the goal, rather than in the trying.

Rolling stats doesn't lead to a fair spread, because life isn't fair. Why should D&D worlds be more fair with respect to one's mental or physical attributes than it is in real life?

The question seems to be rhetorical, but I'll answer it nevertheless.

In my case, because D&D is a game. A leisure activity. In which the players converge to participate, collectively, in an activity that involves them adopting vehicles (player characters) for shaping a shared fiction in which those characters will be protagonists confronted by crises and driven by dramatic need.

It undermines this project for the players to have vehicles that are not of (roughly) equal adequacy for the task.

Low bonuses often lead to interesting characters, because they tend to work harder to get good, don't rush into combat every chance they get, don't do reckless things, and tend to play more intelligently and consciously and get more immersed in the story.

This is absolutely contrary to my experience. The degree to which a PC is interesting depends on play, not stats, and play is about engaging the fiction via the mechanical action resolution systems. Low stats don't facilitate this any more than high stats.

Interesting things happen when players declare actions with lower chances of success (because failure is more likely). But interesting things happen when players delcare actions with high chances of success, too (because, until the campaign comes to an end, success in respect of one conflict will lead the PCs to a new confict).

If you think your character is "overshadowed" by a single +1 advantage by your neighbor, then yes, that is by definition what a "rollplayer" is. It's not like using point buy doesn't lead to viable characters in 5e, it absolutely does and by level 4 or 8 you will have that 18 or 20 and be caught up. If you then complain about not using those slots for feats, then yes, again, that's what a powergamer is

You seem to assume that wanting to impact the fiction via the mechanics is a flaw in a player. I regard it as a virtue.

(I think there is also some tension in your views (as I understand them) that (1) there is something good about playing a mechanically strong character, but (2) it is a personality flaw to want to do so.)

I especially like the challenge of making a viable, even potent character, with some oddball stat combos. A character that had multiple 16s would end up quite different than one with a single 17 and a bunch of 12s and 13s and a couple 7-9s. It adds variety because there is a completely different subset of optimized race / class / feat / multiclass choices for each set of stats.

This can be done with points buy also.

 

[pemerton]

you can tell the GM what you want to do/be in the game, but as is often the case actions can speak louder than words. Building a PC is taking action.

But as people have pointed out, an unclear one. I build a bard with high charisma, am I a great musician? Do I do fun geriatrics while telling stories? Am I the sexiest, but perhaps least-silver-tongued man around?

The stats by no means are a clear indication to the DM the sort of content you want to experience.

As has been said, there can be multiple modes of communication.

But I think this also brings out differences in approaches to play. When I am GMing and looking for signals of the sort that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] talked about, I will look at the mechanical features of your PC. Does your PC have skill in Diplomacy, or in Bluff, or . . . etc? What are your powers, class, background, etc?

If you build a bard with high CHA, I don't care so much whether, in the abstract, you conceive of your CHA as a sign of musical flair, eloquence or something else. If it is very important to you that the character be a non-eloquent musician, and the game has no way of conveying that distinction in mechanical terms, then the burden is on you to bring this out in play in other ways - eg in the way you describe action declarations for your PC, and hence establish the fictional context within which I, as GM, will be narrating the outcomes of action resolution.

I have known groups where a PC being sexy but not silver-tongued, or vice versa, wouldn't be expressed via mechanical build (eg the game has no skill system, and so no contrast between Diplomacy training and its absence); and nor would the participants expect it to frame the fiction of action resolution. It is more like mere colour - analogous to the details of my PCs gloves and boots, or to talking in a funny voice. The expectation is perhaps that the GM will reflect this colour back to the player in narrating the events of the campaign - eg a NPC compliments the PC on a dapper choice of hat - but that it shouldn't be of any significance in the core business of play (which, in the games I'm thinking of, is typically some sort of McGuffin-quest dictated by the GM).

In that sort of play, PC build doesn't send any terribly strong signals, but that's not a style of play that particularly appeals to me.

Universe composition should be independent of PC design[1].

<snip>

[1] N.b. when I say "should be" I am expressing a strong preference for my own games, not a moral judgment of people who enjoy customizing encounters to players.

If you approach the game in this way, then PC building is by definition not sending any sort of meaningful signal. Which is the case both in the games I described above (GM-dictated McGuffin-quest) and in a certain sort of sandbox.

But both these are very different from the sort of game that I prefer.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am assuming that the adventuring party is not a random sample of inhabitants of the gameworld. I am likewise assuming that the process of PC construction (via array or point buy) is not a model or emulation of any ingame causal process. Hence, the PC stat spreads tell us nothing about trait distribution in the gameworld per se, and nothing about what traits may or may not be correlated. All it tells us is what the distribution of traits among these four to six individuals is, and there is nothing anti-verisimilitudinous (that I can see) in the fact that all of them have either specialised depth, or a degree of breadth, but not both.

If you build in additional premises - eg that point buy is a model of an ingame causal process, or that the PCs are a random and representative sample of the gameworld inhabitants - then I can see the potential damage to verisimilitude. But then letting the players roll 4d6 (if the campaign world norm is 3d6) or letting the players assign their stats (which corresponds to no ingame process) would equally damage verisimilitude, I would think, on those strong simulationist premises.

I agree that for someone who shares your assumptions in bold probably won't have a problem with verisimilitude under point buy. I don't share those assumptions: in particular, I see PCs as approximately a random sample of a sub-population within the gameworld (not "all inhabitants of the gameworld", but the difference isn't important). Because I don't share your assumption, I don't share your conclusion that verisimilitude is unaffected.

It is okay if you don't share my conclusions. Remember, all we're doing is explaining what factors other than nostalgia explain distaste for point buy. All you have to do is say, "Hmmph. That's an interesting way to play."

 

[FrogReaver]

This is one of the best reason I've seen on this thread for using systems other than the basic point buy described in the PHB.

"I especially like the challenge of making a viable, even potent character, with some oddball stat combos. A character that had multiple 16s would end up quite different than one with a single 17 and a bunch of 12s and 13s and a couple 7-9s. It adds variety because there is a completely different subset of optimized race / class / feat / multiclass choices for each set of stats.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...hment-Or-overlooked-data/page56#ixzz3baXUOwjJ"

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

[delete dupe]

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

So.. jumping in late, read most of it. I am most interested in the "middle of the road" approaches:
(4d4, or 2d6+6, roll for group array)
I wanted to throw out something else. My personal attraction to rolling is the mystery and discovery. That said, rolling a meh character is no fun.

Something that my group has used that seems to hit a sweet spot for middle of road people is "4d6 by cards, no replacement". (It is probably listed up thread somewhere.)

4d6 by cards, no replacement
1. Pull out the the 24 Ace(1) through 6 cards from a standard playing deck
2. Shuffle. Deal into six piles
3. Reveal "in order", and choose three values to add (No, Real Loonies are not required to pick the highest three values )
4. You may swap two scores
5. If you really do not like what you end up with, you may choose Standard Array

In 3e terms, you usually end up with 26-28 point buy equivalent. But it has the nice organic feel of rolled dice and the surprise of having no idea how your PC will turn out, to get those creative juices going. If you have a high number you are very likely to have a low stat. This is very much like the usual 4d6, but without wild swings up or down.

It might benefit from minor tweaking for 5e, but the idea is still sound

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You may not agree with verisimilitude as a reason, but you've got to admit that it isn't nostalgia. Among other reasons, I find it unaesthetic that stronger people under point buy are stupider and sicker than weaker people (due to limited point budget), that healthier people are less charismatic, that wiser people are less intelligent, etc., etc. As near as I can tell, in real life these correlations go the other way. Under random stats they are uncorrelated.

I never noticed such a correlation because the group I play with nobody consistently exploits dump stats. Thus, on average, the physically strong are still mentally superb relative to the 10.5 of the general populace (albeit the effect is probably weaker than seen from groups that usually roll), and vice versa. From this point of the view, your expected positive correlation actually holds.