D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[OB1]

And look at The Archetypal Adventuring Party - is Pippin balanced with Aragorn? Do Sam and Legolas start out on an even footing, or even at the same level? Obviously not.

But do Pippin and Sam end up doing vital things and getting their share of the spotlight? Yes.

Yes exactly! And in 5e, Class and Level so outweighs ability scores, that even a low stat character can still contribute in big and unique ways in each pillar with the things their class is good at.

You're a harder-core randomizer than I am...and that's saying something.

For me it goes:

Roll stats and (later) rearrange to suit class/concept
Choose race from a short list or roll from a longer list, player's option but if you roll you're bound to it
Choose or roll class, player's option but if you roll you're bound to it
Roll secondary skill/past profession(s), build or roll background based on this
For each non-native language known, choose from a short list or roll from a long list
Roll proficiency levels in languages and secondary skills
Roll hit points

Class is just about always chosen, race is chosen maybe half the time.

Lanefan

For us, it's a group decision to roll or buy, and when we decide to roll, we want the randomness to heavily influence the concept. Birth and circumstance has led the characters down a certain path, but by nurturing their best talent, they have taken a step outside of the everyday world and chosen a new path via their class choice.

We are rolling new characters for each of the Yawning Portal adventures this way, and has led to two crazy and memorable parties and one that got TPK'd in the first session

Once our current 4 year homebrew campaign wraps up next summer, I'm hoping to convince the group to go in on a randomized party for the next big homebrew campaign, but my guess is they will prefer to point buy since they will potentially be playing the characters for 2 or 3 years.

 

[Caliban]

But do Pippin and Sam end up doing vital things and getting their share of the spotlight? Yes.

Lanefan

You do realize that those are characters in a story where all events and characters are controlled by a single person (the author) and not a group of people (i.e. the players and the DM).

So they get the spotlight because the author says they do, and no one complains about being a "sidekick" because there is no one to complain about it since there are no players controlling the characters, it's all just one person. Saying it works in a story and therefore it should work in a D&D game doesn't make any sense. They are two very different situations.

A group of PC's is not like characters in a story told by a single person. They are an ensemble cast with multiple storytellers (the players and the DM) and not everyone is going to be OK to be relegated to sidekick status with an occasional moment in the spotlight (assuming the "main character" lets them have it). The DM has more influence on the overall story than the players, but doesn't control their actions or motivations.

Random stats and everything can certainly be fun, I'm not denying that. If you like it you should certainly use it - but it's not for everyone. Why is that such a difficult concept for some people? The impression I keep getting from this debate is "Well, I've always done it this way and it has worked for me, so why don't you just do it my way and stop talking about this new-fangled point buy thing I don't use and don't care about? It can't be all that great anyway, since I don't use it." Followed by a bunch of rationalization that doesn't really hold up if you think about it.

(Note - my overall impression plus some hyperbole, actual individuals may have a more nuanced stance.)

 

[Satyrn]

I've been lurking on this thread for quite a while, and have been surprised by how few people seem to actually like rolling for stats, but even more surprising is the sentiment that having unbalanced PCs is bad for the game.

Nice post, but I just want to quibble with one thing.

I thinkyou're mischaracterizing that sentiment expressed by the pro-PointBuy crowd, and I know you certainly are in my case.

I don't consider unbalanced characters bad for the game. It's kinda bad for my group, though, because we seem to have less fun together when that's the case.

With a different group it might be more fun to have that disparity. The game better for having the option.

 

[Oofta]

Absolutely agree that there is not just one true way! I play both ways depending on the group and the story we are trying to tell.

I brought up the team sport perspective because it is so different than the expectation that is the preference when playing a RPG. In any team sport, there is an expectation that some players on the team will contribute at a much higher level than other players, but that all members of the team are important to achieving the goal of winning. Additionally, there is no expectation that the rules of play will make the contest balanced between sides. And yet even on a team where I am not the best player and we get trounced by a team that is far superior, I still have fun because of the experience of playing with my team mates and doing something I enjoy.

I was curious as to why that experience doesn't translate to more RPG tables, and theorized that it's due largely to the nature of the genre itself, which tends towards stories of achievement by a special individual rather than a group, through the exertion of will over the environment (which also helps to explain why optimization is very popular in RPGs as well). And I enjoy being a part of that kind of story! I'm running that type of game in my homebrew, because the players prefer that Avengers Assemble type of dynamic and the story we are telling is one where each PCs was recruited to the cause due to their talent.

But I also enjoy the unique story and challenge that is created through random generation, where the party may have to protect it's weakest member, or the weaker members may have to protect it's strongest who constantly attracts the attention of the most deadly foes. Or simply the challenge of rising above what the character was "born" into to achieve great things as part of a larger team all trying to do the same.

I can only speak for myself and my wife (since we've discussed this a lot), it's just that we have a different perspective.

I don't need or want to be the star of the group. I don't need or want to be the "best". But I don't want to be the worst either.

While I share the story with a group, it is still in some ways my character will always be the hero of my story; hopefully as part of a team. When I DM I try to make sure the spotlight shifts from person to person, giving everyone a chance to shine. Sometimes they shine by blowing up the bad guys, sometimes they shine by keeping others alive, sometimes it's because they talk the group out of a sticky situation.

But if you have 2 PCs where one is always outshining the other, it gets old. Joe rolled amazingly well and now has a super stud character. He's good at combat and the best for picking locks and the has the best diplomacy and bluff as well. Bob rolled poorly so he doesn't contribute as much in or out of combat.

Yes, I can force the spotlight onto Bob, but it would be artificial. If Joe is there, he should be the one trying to convince the guards that these are not the warforged they are looking for because he has the best chance of succeeding. We can jump up and down and cheer when Bob rolls a 20 and Steve rolls a 1 but everybody knows it's the equivalent of a trophy for just showing up.

In addition, I plan on playing my PC for a long time. My wife's campaign is ending after 3 years, I've been running a campaign for 2 (it is getting close to wrapping up soon as well). I also think a lot about my character before the campaign starts. Because my wife's campaign is ending I already know who my next character is, even if I don't know exactly what class he is yet (paladin? fighter? subclass from Xanathar's Guide?). But I know his backstory, his motivation, his relationship to some other members of the team. I'm sure our new DM has some plans based on his background.

I guess I'm just trying to say that I don't want to play a random PC. I want to play Tormod the warrior fleeing from his pirate king father seeking refuge with his long lost cousin. One day he will be one of the best warriors in the land and on that day he will confront his father and make him pay for his sins.

I'm playing the hero of my story. Just like everyone else in the group. I want my chance to shine while letting others shine as well. You may enjoy playing Chuck the Waterboy who didn't make the cut to be on the pro sports team, but I want to be on the field.

Neither way is right or wrong. I accept you have fun, but saying I just don't understand your version of fun is implying that I'm playing the game wrong. That's what I have a problem with.

 

[OB1]

You do realize that those are characters in a story where all events and characters are controlled by a single person (the author) and not a group of people (i.e. the players and the DM).

So they get the spotlight because the author says they do, and no one complains about being a "sidekick" because there is no one to complain about it since there are no players controlling the characters, it's all just one person. Saying it works in a story and therefore it should work in a D&D game doesn't make any sense. They are two very different situations.

A group of PC's is not like characters in a story told by a single person. They are an ensemble cast with multiple storytellers (the players and the DM) and not everyone is going to be OK to be relegated to sidekick status with an occasional moment in the spotlight (assuming the "main character" lets them have it). The DM has more influence on the overall story than the players, but doesn't control their actions or motivations.

Random stats and everything can certainly be fun, I'm not denying that. If you like it you should certainly use it - but it's not for everyone. Why is that such a difficult concept for some people? The impression I keep getting from this debate is "Well, I've always done it this way and it has worked for me, so why don't you just do it my way and stop talking about this new-fangled point buy thing I don't use and don't care about? It can't be all that great anyway, since I don't use it." Followed by a bunch of rationalization that doesn't really hold up if you think about it.

(Note - my overall impression plus some hyperbole, actual individuals may have a more nuanced stance.)

So, a bit of nuance here, I'd agree that players shouldn't be relegated to sidekick status, but I'd argue that has more to do with the players and the DM herself than the stats. A spotlight hog will find ways to hog spotlight regardless of what is on their sheet.

Secondly, I certainly get that rolling isn't for everyone, I'm just trying to understand why it isn't an option some people like. Is it just purely aesthetic, similar to "I don't like playing Paladins" or is it more connected to the fundamentals of what people enjoy about playing the game. My sense from the passion expressed in this thread, is that it is something fundamental to the play experience, but since I enjoy both ways, I have a blind spot as to why someone absolutely wouldn't enjoy one way or the other.

Nice post, but I just want to quibble with one thing.

I thinkyou're mischaracterizing that sentiment expressed by the pro-PointBuy crowd, and I know you certainly are in my case.

I don't consider unbalanced characters bad for the game. It's kinda bad for my group, though, because we seem to have less fun together when that's the case.

With a different group it might be more fun to have that disparity. The game better for having the option.

Agree completely that the game is better for having the option!


Perhaps a few anti-Random posters have overly influenced my perception of the sentiment of the pro-PointBuy group. I do know that I've seen posts that specifically call Random character generation and the results it produces bad for the game and unfair. Certainly didn't mean to lump all pro-PointBuyers into that group.


Very curious as to why your feel your group has less fun when you have unbalanced characters. Again, for my group the choice isn't about better or worse, but about what kind of feel we want, similar to a dozen other choices we make when starting a game.

 

[Caliban]

Secondly, I certainly get that rolling isn't for everyone, I'm just trying to understand why it isn't an option some people like. Is it just purely aesthetic, similar to "I don't like playing Paladins" or is it more connected to the fundamentals of what people enjoy about playing the game. My sense from the passion expressed in this thread, is that it is something fundamental to the play experience, but since I enjoy both ways, I have a blind spot as to why someone absolutely wouldn't enjoy one way or the other.

So preferring random stats needs no justification, but preferring point buy requires justification because it's not normal?

Meh. Already been explained multiple times, but somehow the explanations are never believed or accepted. "Well, I don't feel that way, so that can't be the real reason...you need to justify it another way now ."

 

[Tony Vargas]

And look at The Archetypal Adventuring Party - is Pippin balanced with Aragorn? Do Sam and Legolas start out on an even footing, or even at the same level?

Nah, they're clearly henchpersons.

But do Pippin and Sam end up doing vital things and getting their share of the spotlight?

Only via 'author force.'

And in 5e, Class and Level so outweighs ability scores, that even a low stat character can still contribute in big and unique ways in each pillar with the things their class is good at.

The bonus from level, proficiency, ranges from +2 to +6, the bonus from a stat ranges, in a practical sense, from -1 to +5. They're pretty closely matched in magnitude.

Class abilities - especially spells that don't require an attack roll, force a save, or otherwise key off a stat - can make a huge difference in the binary sense of having the ability simply granting automatic success.

But, class is a choice, and level usually about the same in a regular campaign, so you've got a 'ceteris paribus' case going, where the higher stat character is 'just better' than the otherwise-comparable lower-stat character. Rather like finding a magic item that happens to be perfectly suited to you, rolling particularly high is just a pure advantage.

 

[Satyrn]

Very curious as to why your feel your group has less fun when you have unbalanced characters. Again, for my group the choice isn't about better or worse, but about what kind of feel we want, similar to a dozen other choices we make when starting a game.

Probably for the very commonest of reasons - that enough players in the group prefer playing from an even starting point, we're better off doing so. That's why back when we were rolling we were adjusting the scores of those who rolled low.

Using the Standard Array gave us that evenness, but it also fixed another issue our DM was having (he was tired of adjusting encounters to match the inflation our rolling method created.

And it created a nice side effect I wasn't expecting. Because the range of modifiers a character can start with when using the array is only -1 to +3, suddenly that 16 was a great score, 14 was still quite good and a 12 was still decent. I'm just not concerned with getting an 18 or 20 anymore. I like it.

 

[Oofta]

Very curious as to why your feel your group has less fun when you have unbalanced characters. Again, for my group the choice isn't about better or worse, but about what kind of feel we want, similar to a dozen other choices we make when starting a game.

So you like it. Good for you. I don't. A lot of people like sushi. I don't, even though I've tried it multiple times usually at the insistence that I just haven't tried good sushi. Like you seem to be saying that I'm just not playing the game right.

It's not that I'm not open minded, it's just that I'm realistic. When we rolled people fudged. They re-rolled until they got something they liked. Their character "accidentally" jumped off a cliff. People that had super-powerful characters were more effective at their roles and were just plain better. Whether or not people "should be" envious, they were. According to my simulations, the average low and high characters in a group of 6 will have a 25% difference in effectiveness.

As [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] says, why do I have to justify it by saying anything other than that it's not my cup of tea?

Or let me turn that around. What value does it add to have some PCs be significantly worse at their roles than others?

 

[OB1]

I guess I'm just trying to say that I don't want to play a random PC. I want to play Tormod the warrior fleeing from his pirate king father seeking refuge with his long lost cousin. One day he will be one of the best warriors in the land and on that day he will confront his father and make him pay for his sins.

I'm playing the hero of my story. Just like everyone else in the group. I want my chance to shine while letting others shine as well. You may enjoy playing Chuck the Waterboy who didn't make the cut to be on the pro sports team, but I want to be on the field.

Neither way is right or wrong. I accept you have fun, but saying I just don't understand your version of fun is implying that I'm playing the game wrong. That's what I have a problem with.

Let me say first that if anything I've written has implied that your playing the game wrong, I apologize, as that is absolutely not my intention. Again, I use both styles depending on the group and our goals, so I get that both are fun! And I get that you like and prefer PointBuy, I'm just truly interested in why. It sounds like perhaps it's about having control of all the details of your character, is that a fair conclusion?

On the other hand, I would like to understand some of your conclusions about Random style.

For example, I don't see random rolling as creating a random PC. Random rolling can create Tormond the warrior fleeing from his pirate king father..etc...etc, it's just that the seed for that idea comes from a different place. In the case of Random generation, in my eyes the difference is that Tormond the warrior may want to confront his father and make him pay for his sins, but because he was born without his father's inherent strength, he will have to adventure for many years to gain the strength necessary to defeat him. Now, I don't have control of that narrative before I roll, it's one I come up with after the roll, whereas you may build your character to that concept.

As for Chuck the Waterboy, if I actually rolled a character with nothing but 3's, I would look at it as a unique challenge of my skills as a player, but it is extremely likely that I will have at least one stat 10 or higher after racial bonus, meaning I'm more likely playing Chuck the star offensive linemen instead of Chuck the star quarterback. Chuck the offensive linemen is still the hero of his own story, I as a player just didn't have as much control over his starting conditions and had to come up with his story as a reaction to the die rolls.