D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

Nah, I'll just call it what it is: circular logic.

I'm sorry, I thought I had...

...but, as long as you stay inside that circle, you're internally consistent, or consistently internal. Whatever.

 

[Oofta]

I'm sorry, I thought I had...

...but, as long as you stay inside that circle, you're internally consistent, or consistently internal. Whatever.

So it's OK to use a completely invalid logical justification as long as you consistently use the same completely invalid logical justification?

It's like circular logic squared; just turtles all the way down. Or circular logic all the way down.

If the goal is to model an unrealistic world, then 3d6 is one way of achieving that goal. That does not make it realistic.

I think I'm getting dizzy.

 

[Hriston]

What is my point?

After you said "I don't believe there's any evidence for your position" I responded by saying "I think there's lots of evidence for @Arial Black's position."

That's my point. I never called it convincing, conclusive evidence. I just said that it was there.

If it doesn't convincingly indicate the truth or validity of his position, then it isn't really evidence, is it? At least not in the sense in which I was using it, basically as synonymous with proof. The "evidence" you brought forward doesn't prove anything.

I'm confused now why you said there was no evidence for his position if you held the same position at some point. How did you arrive at that view if there was no evidence for it?

Like I said, it seems to be a widely held misconception. I think I retroactively assumed 3d6 was for commoners because 4d6 drop lowest was for adventurers. I think a lot of people make the same mistake. If you look at the history of the game, it turns out that 3d6 is for adventurers too. 4d6 drop lowest just makes sure you don't get a really bad adventurer.

 

[Yardiff]

If you look through old modules, those from AD&D and OD&D, you see that those NPC with stats fall into the 3-18 range. Stats range from (those few I looked through) as low as 5 and as high as 17. So not fitting into the 8-15 range.

 

[Morrus]

You understand that most of this thread is about the start of a character right? So this comment is pure . I for one like the age effects from the earlier games and I'm sure that most of those who favor 'old school' stuff in their game do as well.

And yes I'm aware of your (not all) qualifier, your comment is still .

This post is completely inappropriate. Please do not post in this thread again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So it's OK to use a completely invalid logical justification as long as you consistently use the same completely invalid logical justification?

Yes...?

It's like circular logic squared; just turtles all the way down. Or circular logic all the way down.

Helical logic, sure.

And one side can use that logic, but not the other, a double-standard, making it Double-Helical Logic - and since Watson & Crick proved the double-helix, it must be right! Yeah, something like that.

If the goal is to model an unrealistic world, then 3d6 is one way of achieving that goal. That does not make it realistic.

It makes it realistic by the standards of that world. Because reality isn't fair-

-no! wait! I meant 'balanced....'

I think I'm getting dizzy.

See, it's working already!

 

[Tony Vargas]

@Arial Black: your handle is a font.
Why did it take me so long to realize that?
I kept reading it as 'Ariel' ....

So it's OK to use a completely invalid logical justification as long as you consistently use the same completely invalid logical justification?

Yes...?

It's like circular logic squared; just turtles all the way down. Or circular logic all the way down.

Helical logic, sure.

And one side can use that logic, but not the other, a double-standard, making it Double-Helical Logic - and since Watson & Crick proved the double-helix, it must be right! Yeah, something like that.

If the goal is to model an unrealistic world, then 3d6 is one way of achieving that goal. That does not make it realistic.

It makes it realistic by the standards of that world. Because reality isn't fair-

-no! wait! I meant 'balanced....'

I think I'm getting dizzy.

See, it's working already!

 

[Oofta]

It makes it realistic by the standards of that world. Because reality isn't fair-

-no! wait! I meant 'balanced....'

Because you've decided it's not balanced. Why is it not balanced? Because we have to roll dice. Why do we have to roll dice? Because it gives us results that are not balanced. Why do we want...

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody ... actually apparently it doesn't ever stop.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why is it not balanced?

Reality doesn't have to be balanced, because it's not trying to be a good game.

Hmm... D&D is realistic, that way.

 

[Maxperson]

Speaking to the argument about the range of scores derived from each method, 3-18 was only ever available to adventurers, who were conceived of as 'exceptional' individuals, outside the normal range of human abilities. For the scores of members of the general population, Gygax recommended the 'averaging' method, which produces a limited range of scores (from 6 to 15) before any modifiers for profession and has a very high frequency of 10's and 11's. This normal range should be kept in mind when considering the desirability of scores outside this range for PCs.

And yet tons and tons of NPCs had 3-18 in basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e. Methinks you are incorrect about that. I can't imagine that the game creators and later the designers would all get that so very wrong.