D&D 5E Rolled character stats higher than point buy?

[delericho]

Over the years, I've spent a long time going backwards and forwards hunting for the 'perfect' character generation method. Eventually, I concluded that it just doesn't exist.

So these days I let each player choose for themselves: point buy, standard array, or random roll. (I do make players aware that if they choose to roll, I expect them to play the resulting character in good faith - no suicide-by-goblin. If they choose to roll, they choose the consequences that go with it. )

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I dunno about "non-existent." There are plenty of people who talk about going for purely diceless, "pick what you want" stats. In fact, most groups that try it seem rather pleased with it--and don't report that it is abused very much. Perhaps it's a self-selection effect, e.g. a DM who didn't think their group could handle it wouldn't offer the method, so only those who really think it will work try it. But it's definitely a lot more than "zero."

I'd like to think there are some. Personally, i don't think i'm experienced enough to either DM the approach or play/generate such characters, but in essence, i think it's the "purest" form of role playing available. But it does put a lot of responsibility on the DM and requires the players to utterly trust him/her.

One day though..... i'd like to be a part of such a table.... maybe even let the DM generate the stats for me.

 

[Arial Black]

Averages are measures of center, not measures of individual data points. That's a trivially true statement, so yes, you're absolutely correct. But modifying a data set at any point--before or after it is collected--does, in fact, make a difference.

Er...no. Although modifying data both before and after would affect the average of sets of stats that are played, this (true but trivial) fact has no impact on the set any single person rolls and plays. For that set, changing stuff before (or during) stat generation (like 4d6k3, re-roll 1s) does change the average of the stat set you are likely to roll, but discarding a set after it is generated has absolutely no effect on the next set you generate, as the second set was generated using the same maths as the first. This means that every single set you actually keep was statistically as likely whether or not you had an option to discard it.

Consider a hyperbolic example: "I will reject all values less than 18." What is the probability of having any given stat at 18, given this rule? 100%.

No!

Imagine that your stat generation method is, '4d6k3, discard any full set in which there is any single stat below 18'. We know that 100% of KEPT stats will be six 18s, but that doesn't change the probability of actually rolling six 18s one iota! It's still as ridiculously unlikely as it ever was!

Removing 'sets without a 14+, and sets without a combined modifier of +1 or more' in no way changes the probabilities of 4d6k3. The set you keep will be unaffected by any set you discard.

Although this will raise the averages of kept stats (versus the same method but with no discards allowed), it will in no way mean that the set you keep had a different average probability of being generated than if you had an (unused) option to discard a different set that you never rolled.

 

[Queer Venger]

I think it did.

People cheat. I mean, I saw a lot of Paladins in 1e back when we were rolling 3d6 in order.*

Of course, one can be generous, and say that people discard a fully rolled character, and roll again, and again, until they get a character they want. And that's not cheating. Or attribute it to "survivor bias," in that characters you see posted are more likely to be characters that have survived, people are proud of, and are therefore more likely to have high scores.

And rolled scores will tend to be higher (as I explained, averaging two points on average than a standard array, and with more variance and more upside).

But, yeah, (some) people cheat.


*Given the minimum score prerequisites, this was statistically unlikely given the way we were rolling characters. "Paul, I'm shocked, shocked I say that you managed to roll another Paladin. Oh, and you found a Holy Avenger? Again? You're just so very lucky!"

I once had a player back on 1e that had a notebook filled with sets of rolled stats, I mean hundreds of them.

 

[JonnyP71]

I once had a player back on 1e that had a notebook filled with sets of rolled stats, I mean hundreds of them.

I encounter a similar type many years ago... he'd turn up to a session with stats he'd 'rolled' the night before, insisting on using them.

He was a horrible player to have to work with, everything had to revolve around him, he was obsessive and none of the group liked him. But he owned the books we were using. So another player suicided, collapsing a building which killed the whole group. Mr Stats went home in a huff, taking his books with him. We never played again -it was my last game for 20 years.

 

[Queer Venger]

Wow, that's awful Jonny, hopefully this guy is still not gaming this way.

Personally, Im a generous DM, if a player wants to bring in rolled stats, I let them roll 2 arrays, 4d6, keep highest; but Id never allow a notebook filled with stats I have not personally seen the player roll.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I encounter a similar type many years ago... he'd turn up to a session with stats he'd 'rolled' the night before, insisting on using them.

He was a horrible player to have to work with, everything had to revolve around him, he was obsessive and none of the group liked him. But he owned the books we were using. So another player suicided, collapsing a building which killed the whole group. Mr Stats went home in a huff, taking his books with him. We never played again -it was my last game for 20 years.

You should have seen my face before I realized that you meant the PC suicided and killed the PC group. I thought for a second that one of your actual players was driven to suicide by this guy in real life.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No!

Imagine that your stat generation method is, '4d6k3, discard any full set in which there is any single stat below 18'. We know that 100% of KEPT stats will be six 18s, but that doesn't change the probability of actually rolling six 18s one iota! It's still as ridiculously unlikely as it ever was!

To roll it? Yes, absolutely, you'll be rolling for bloody ages to make that rule work. But the odds of rolling it do not matter for what ACTUALLY hits the table--which is what I've been talking about this entire time. Things that won't ever see the light of play because you won't use them do not matter, the only thing that matters is the average and distribution of stats that ACTUALLY get used (or at least COULD get used). If you look at a random sampling of "actually used" rolls, the averages will be higher, and the probability of having better stats will go up--the two are intertwined facts.

Removing 'sets without a 14+, and sets without a combined modifier of +1 or more' in no way changes the probabilities of 4d6k3. The set you keep will be unaffected by any set you discard.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here--I have an idea but it...doesn't actually seem relevant to the discussion at hand, so I feel like I'm missing something. Could you rephrase?

Although this will raise the averages of kept stats (versus the same method but with no discards allowed), it will in no way mean that the set you keep had a different average probability of being generated than if you had an (unused) option to discard a different set that you never rolled.

I don't care about the probability of being generated. I care about the probability of having good stats vs. not having good stats--which absolutely depends on what things you reject. Because if the average result changes, that is equivalent to saying the probabilities change. You can't have a different average result if the probabilities and options are completely identical--that's the definition of expected value, ΣP(x_i)*x_i (i=1 to n) = x̅.

The average result of 4d6k3 is fixed. The average of "4d6k3, apply some extra rules, ignore all results that don't work with those rules" is also fixed--and different. I literally showed that with actual data earlier.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is impossible to ever get an outcome of 1 when you roll a d6 and always reroll on 1's. Sure a 1 can appear on some intermediate step but that doesn't mean you rolled a 1 as far as the final outcome goes. Such a reroll rule changes the expected average and the distribution to essentially be the same as rolling a dice with 2,3,4,5,6 as its faces.

The same principle applies to anytime rerolls are allowed to be part of the process. Anything in the rerollable pool is essentially not counted because it will never actually be a final outcome. This changes the probability distribution for all ultimate outcomes. Rolling perfect stats under such a method is demonstratively more likely with rerolls of any set of non perfect stat combinations allowed.

Er...no. Although modifying data both before and after would affect the average of sets of stats that are played, this (true but trivial) fact has no impact on the set any single person rolls and plays. For that set, changing stuff before (or during) stat generation (like 4d6k3, re-roll 1s) does change the average of the stat set you are likely to roll, but discarding a set after it is generated has absolutely no effect on the next set you generate, as the second set was generated using the same maths as the first. This means that every single set you actually keep was statistically as likely whether or not you had an option to discard it.



No!

Imagine that your stat generation method is, '4d6k3, discard any full set in which there is any single stat below 18'. We know that 100% of KEPT stats will be six 18s, but that doesn't change the probability of actually rolling six 18s one iota! It's still as ridiculously unlikely as it ever was!

Removing 'sets without a 14+, and sets without a combined modifier of +1 or more' in no way changes the probabilities of 4d6k3. The set you keep will be unaffected by any set you discard.

Although this will raise the averages of kept stats (versus the same method but with no discards allowed), it will in no way mean that the set you keep had a different average probability of being generated than if you had an (unused) option to discard a different set that you never rolled.

 

[JonnyP71]

I'd like to think there are some. Personally, i don't think i'm experienced enough to either DM the approach or play/generate such characters, but in essence, i think it's the "purest" form of role playing available. But it does put a lot of responsibility on the DM and requires the players to utterly trust him/her.

One day though..... i'd like to be a part of such a table.... maybe even let the DM generate the stats for me.

That would probably work at my table, but from a personal point of view I'd struggle a little with it. Some players are able to visualise their character in fine detail before actually creating them, I have problems preparing more than just basic details, instead, I like to use whatever the dice rolls give me to flesh them out.

In our main campaign I decided to play a bookish human Necromancer - so when I rolled my 4d6k3 I put the highest score (15) on Intelligence. I got 3 rolls that were -1 or 0 modifiers, they went on strength, charisma and dexterity - so he was now physically smaller and slighter than average, and socially a little awkward and difficult.. and now his personality was beginning to develop in my mind - he's disdainful towards physical exertion, and pedantic, believing only his opinion matters.

I would not have had the same inspiration had I been presented with a list of 8s and told to 'buy' my stats.

Thinking about rerolls - I would rather play 15/13/10/9/8/7 than 14/14/14/14/14/14 because the 1st set are just more 'interesting', the 2nd set would feel bland and uninspiring.