D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Wiseblood]

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

I understand that this is rhetorical. It's about the same value as having one class be able to alter reality while another class gets an extra attack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

He could always win a magic ring in a riddle-contest after falling into a dark hole, that turns out to be central to the plot of the entire campaign...

So, a bit of nuance here, I'd agree that players shouldn't be relegated to sidekick status

Well, unless they really want to play a side-kick type character...
...even then, though, it should be a contributing side-kick, something D&D has rarely enabled.

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.

Knowing what's desirable about each method should help, though.

Very curious as to why your feel your group has less fun when you have unbalanced characters.

It's not hard to understand. Characters that break high can tend to dominate play and trivialize the contributions of the rest of the party, those that break low can under-contribute, fail to contribute at all, or even drag the party down. In a cooperative game, either result has tremendous potential to ruin enjoyment of the game for some or all of the players.

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.

Even if you enjoy imbalance - and, if you can't at least tolerate it, why play D&D, sure - introducing it randomly isn't necessarily the funnest way (fair, though).

 

[Caliban]

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...

And there it is. "If you were a better person, you would enjoy Random."

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.

I, as a player, prefer to have total control over my starting conditions. Because I, as a player, usually have a pretty clear character concept before I start creating my character and don't like "reacting to the die rolls" until the game actually starts.

If I had no imagination or goals in mind, I might enjoy letting my characters fate be decided by the dice instead. (Yes, I deliberately chose to word that in a biased fashion.)

 

[OB1]

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 ."

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.

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?

Guys, I'm seriously not asking anyone to justify anything. I don't think you're having badwrongfun. I don't think that one way is right and the other way isn't. I don't think which method you prefer says anything about you as a person. This isn't some attempt at a deception/persuasion check to get you to change your mind about which choice you prefer.

I'm seriously asking, 1800 posts in, what the fundamental reason that you prefer one way to another is, because those fundamental reasons seem to be strong enough to have spawned an 1800 post thread of heated arguments about it. Here are the fundamental reasons I like each method.

Point Buy - Control
Random - Surprise/Challenge

 

[Lanefan]

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

It adds the opportunity to cheer for the underdog. Don't underestimate this one - everyone loves an underdog winning.

It adds opportunities for internal-party roleplay, from various possible angles depending on the individual characters/players: the higher-power (HP) characters training and helping and cheering on the lower-powered (LP) ones, or the LP becoming jealous of the HP always doing better, or the LP boasting to one and all about what the HP can do and how great she is - and the HP then having to live up to it!, or whatever.

It reflects real life, where not everyone is created equal even within a small segment of the population (in this case, statistically-above-average people who become adventurers).

Etc.

Lanefan

 

[Oofta]

I understand that this is rhetorical. It's about the same value as having one class be able to alter reality while another class gets an extra attack.

This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know what value people think it adds to the game to have significant difference in potential based on a one time roll of the dice.

If I decide that I want to play the sibling of another player at the table with the same class, same basic build (something I've done or seen done a few times now), why should 1 PC be better than the other at their job?

 

[Lanefan]

Point Buy - Control

Lawful

Random - Surprise/Challenge

Chaotic

And this goes way beyond just char-gen method - my experience tells me this Lawful/Chaotic-as-player divide extends into actual play as well, and shows up as an undercurrent to many of the other major discussions in here.

Lanefan

 

[Caliban]

It adds the opportunity to cheer for the underdog. Don't underestimate this one - everyone loves an underdog winning.

Cool. YOU play the underdog then. I don't feel like it.

Oh...you mean I don't get a choice because we randomly generated our stats? Well, I still don't want to play the underdog just so you can feel good cheering for me on that rare occasion I get to shine. Maybe I'll just go play a game where I get to enjoy playing my character instead of being an underdog for your entertainment.

And that game can still be D&D. Just played a bit differently.

It reflects real life, where not everyone is created equal even within a small segment of the population (in this case, statistically-above-average people who become adventurers).

What a load of crap. I don't care about reflecting "real life". I'm playing a fantasy game. I want to play the hero, not the underdog.

 

[Oofta]

He could always win a magic ring in a riddle-contest after falling into a dark hole, that turns out to be central to the plot of the entire campaign...

Which is just the author DM putting their thumb on the scale and showing favoritism.

Besides, you're referencing a novel not a game.

 

[Caliban]

Lawful

Freedom of Choice.

Chaotic

Resigned to whatever hand fate deals you.

And this goes way beyond just char-gen method - my experience tells me this Lawful/Chaotic-as-player divide extends into actual play as well, and shows up as an undercurrent to many of the other major discussions in here.

Lanefan

Yup, some people just prefer to take their fate into their own hands, others have no direction and just go with the flow. Our entire personalities and outlook on life are reflected in this one simple preference.