D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Thomas Shey]

Bear in mind the"elite" array was named to distinguish it from the "non-elite" array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) used on NPC-classed NPCs (adept, warrior, etc). NPCs with PC class levels always used the elite array.

Yeah, it should be noted the "elite" arrays are pretty close to the result you'd get from the 4-die-toss-the-lowest methodologies that had been common for a long time at that point.

 

[Remathilis]

This, and the attitudes toward it, all sound familiar. By the time 3e came along, most of us had been out of D&D for years, and most of the games we played hadn't used random gen (or put your finger on the scale enough that it wasn't a big issue). I mean, the truth was if you were rolling stats on 4D6 toss the lowest, raising totals so that you added bonus points until you hit that, and assigning stats after you rolled them, after a bit you started to ask why you were going through this silly dance? Some game had some issues where you didn't want to do pure point assignment because there were so many breakpoints that you could get degenerate results, but barring those there just didn't seem to be a point in random character generation anyway (anyone who liked some unpredictability could find ways to partly randomize their point assignment to suit themselves without forcing it on anyone else).

One DM, prior to switching to point buy, had tinkered with an ability score generation method called "give yourself what you want, I trust you." It didn't fix the other problems we had with rolling (Disparity between characters who rolled well and rolled poor) but their was a point we considered dropping the whole charade of rolling since we knew no one had rolled legit in years...

 

[Lanefan]

Depends on how sly they are.

In the halycon days, I was very aware players (from multiple play groups, no less) tended to:
1. Ignore a exceptionally low rolls (1s or 2s on the die) when rolling stats or HP and either coyly reroll or just give themselves the average roll (rolled a 1 on your hd fighter? Adds 5 to HP).
2. Roll 7+ times for ability scores and choose the six best
3. Roll 5 times for ability scores and assign a 16 to your primary.
4. Nudge ability scores up a point when transferring them from scratch paper to sheet, especially if they missed a racial or class min.
5. Wait until the DM and other players are busy and roll/fudge as desired (usually done with replacement PCs worked on while the rest of the group was finishing up the encounter).

Now, you have to understand that there was an unspoken acknowledgment that this was acceptable as long as you weren't abusing the system.

Ah. That unspoken acknowledgement makes all the difference; as no such thing exists here.

Here, rolls for things like stats, hit points, etc. are observed; and if a roll is made while unobserved the DM (or another player, for all that) has the (rarely-used) right to ask that it be re-done.

If we could trust people we gladly would, but we have more than enough past examples of where we couldn't to justify such rules. Usually now when someone's character levels up the player makes a big show of rolling its new h.p. in the middle of the table and the rest of us cheer or groan based on how the roll comes up.

Now, could one of us (or many of us) called out all the cheating? Sure. That player would have had a harder time finding players to play with. And I'm sure there were players who didn't adjust and there were ones who tried to abuse the system. However, the majority of the time I played 2e and early 3e when rolling stats was standard, cheating was assumed. Put another way: I never saw anyone who wanted to play a particular race or class ever stopped by their ability scores.

If that's what your table accepted as the norm then so be it, but it wouldn't fly here. If nothing else it would almost certainly become the top of a slippery slope that would lead nowhere good, as players pushed the boundaries.

 

[Lanefan]

Some DMs tried "all characters must be rolled in front of me" but that was already a big ask, and then ended with "I don't want these stats, so if you make me play them I will just put my lowest in con be a fighter and when I die take up game time rolling up my next" being implied but at least once out stated outright...

DM answer to this: you'll not be taking up game time rolling up your next; instead we'll get together during the week and see to it then. (never mind that it'll inevitably be that low-Con fighter who survives the longest!)

Ideally as DM all characters are rolled in front of me but at roll-up night when everyone's rolling at once having another player observe is fine.

 

[HammerMan]

DM answer to this: you'll not be taking up game time rolling up your next; instead we'll get together during the week and see to it then. (never mind that it'll inevitably be that low-Con fighter who survives the longest!)

Ideally as DM all characters are rolled in front of me but at roll-up night when everyone's rolling at once having another player observe is fine.

but why make them play a character they don't want to?

Lets say I roll 9, 9, 11, 12 ,12,13. I look at 3 +1's and and 1 - and 2 -1s and say "I don't want to spend the next X months playing with that"
why not just let me reroll?

Is it really BETTER to have my character (9str 11 dex 9 con 13 int 12 wis 12 cha) played and not enjoyed?

 

[tetrasodium]

but why make them play a character they don't want to?

Lets say I roll 9, 9, 11, 12 ,12,13. I look at 3 +1's and and 1 - and 2 -1s and say "I don't want to spend the next X months playing with that"
why not just let me reroll?

Is it really BETTER to have my character (9str 11 dex 9 con 13 int 12 wis 12 cha) played and not enjoyed?

If I tell my players to roll their attributes in order the reason is because I want to force them out of their comfort zone of yet another x just like the last 5 bob played. If Alice says screw that & does roll but arrange as desired or simply picks stats as desired so she can play a clone of her last 5 characters it defeats the purpose. Just like you in your example alice would be actively fighting the game the GM has stated they are going to be running

 

[Lanefan]

but why make them play a character they don't want to?

Lets say I roll 9, 9, 11, 12 ,12,13. I look at 3 +1's and and 1 - and 2 -1s and say "I don't want to spend the next X months playing with that"
why not just let me reroll?

Oddly enough, I would.

My cutoff - which this set of rolls meets - is that if the average of the six rolls is less than 10.0 or if no single roll is over 13, you have a one-time option to scrap it and start over. Going any further in the rolling process means you're keeping it.

Make that 13 a 14, though, and you're stuck with it.

You're using the 3e-4e-5e bonus mechanism and arriving at a net total of +1; were I using that system I'd say you had to keep anything with a net of higher than +0 so yes, you'd have to keep this one. (one of the most enjoyable and longest-lasting characters I've ever played started out with a net +2 in 3e, so all hope is not lost)

That said, the odds of rolling that poorly on 4d6k3 are quite low.

 

[overgeeked]

DM answer to this: you'll not be taking up game time rolling up your next; instead we'll get together during the week and see to it then. (never mind that it'll inevitably be that low-Con fighter who survives the longest!)

Ideally as DM all characters are rolled in front of me but at roll-up night when everyone's rolling at once having another player observe is fine.

That's what pre-roll characters and promoted hirelings are for. No lag time. "You've been making fun of Tim the lantern-bearer for the last year, now he's your new character. Go."

but why make them play a character they don't want to?

Lets say I roll 9, 9, 11, 12 ,12,13. I look at 3 +1's and and 1 - and 2 -1s and say "I don't want to spend the next X months playing with that"
why not just let me reroll?

Is it really BETTER to have my character (9str 11 dex 9 con 13 int 12 wis 12 cha) played and not enjoyed?

I think the point that's being missed is that it's a game. The point is to have fun playing it. Is your definition of fun only getting exactly what you want? You only have fun if...and only if...you get to play exactly what you want. That seem bizarrely limited.

A few relevant quotes form older editions...

“The D&D game has neither losers nor winners, it has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination. The players and the DM share in creating adventures in fantastic lands where heroes abound and magic really works. In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination. The important thing is to enjoy the adventure.”

And: “the object of the game is to have fun by playing roles, stupid or weak characters can be as much fun as smart, powerful ones—if the roles are played well.”

In my experience, players given the chance to simply pick their stats would have all 18s across the board. They seem to want to play perfection and anything less, even the hint of a negative or a flaw is anathema to them. It just seems backwards to me to decide you can only have fun if you get exactly what you want. Instead of see what you get and have fun with it no matter what. I mean, I just don't get that attitude.

Player: "I want to play a goblin artificer and I refuse to have fun or even play unless I get to play exactly that."

DM: "I told you we're playing a low-magic humanocentric game this time. Instead of the 12th generic high-magic fantasy romp."

If the player wants to die on that hill and not play at all, sure. But that seems like an incredibly...silly choice to make. I just don't get the attitude that if you can't play something super-awesome you'd refuse to play at all. General you, of course. Not trying to specifically call out the posters I quoted.

 

[HammerMan]

That said, the odds of rolling that poorly on 4d6k3 are quite low.

and the more you do it the more outliers you find...

in 2e I rolled a Spellfire Ranger at the table that ended up with 15str 17 dex 17con 17 int 16 wis 15 cha... I will never forget those stats. and that was 4d6 roll 6 times place where you want.

I watched as someone rolled in late 3.5 18,18,17 then nothing lower then 10 on 4d6 7times.

Both were so amazing... both ended up being the most hated members of the games though...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If I tell my players to roll their attributes in order the reason is because I want to force them out of their comfort zone of yet another x just like the last 5 bob played. If Alice says screw that & does roll but arrange as desired or simply picks stats as desired so she can play a clone of her last 5 characters it defeats the purpose. Just like you in your example alice would be actively fighting the game the GM has stated they are going to be running

When my daughter was 10 and said she didn't like mushrooms (knowing she never tried them) I would encourage her to try them but not force the issue. Now that my daughter is 22 and she tells me she doesn't like kung-pao chicken I believe her because she's an adult. I don't feel the need to pressure her to try food she doesn't like.