D&D General How Do You "Roll Up" Ability Scores?

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, yeah, sure they're going to keep it. They have to. The point I'm making is that any trial that nets the player scores below the acceptable floor levels is ignored. And any trial at or above that floor is accepted. This means that they really only get one trial result above that minimum floor, just like anyone else who got an acceptable set of values the first time they rolled. So why would we consider them to have an advantage?

I guess I'm speaking to how it "feels", then (not for me, I've only observed this happening to other players - I'm usually a DM) to roll a character that has, say 13/12/11/10/10/7 and be told (even perhaps "choosing") to keep it, and then watch someone roll 15/11/9/7/7/6 who gets to reroll and winds up with 17/16/15/13/12/12.

I've seen this happen. Many times. It put me off rolling. That is all.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

YOU (any given you) might play the dice where they lie, and I absolutely commend you for it. But that has rarely been my experience, and I've played with literally thousands of players, having taught D&D for thirty years and run games through my store. Cheating is surprisingly common, sadly.

We roll dice in the open, which includes character creation. While prevention of cheating is a beneficial side-effect, we do it primarily b/c we find it more fun to cheer or groan about rolls together.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That's one reason I stick friend & family games, despite being a regular at my GLGS as a customer.

Can't tell you how many times I've had people show up at the store with characters that they "rolled at home" that are like 18/17/16/15/14/14. It's much easier to demand an array or point-buy. But I play with those in my home games too. I don't think I've "rolled" a character in 20 years.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why it is fun that sometimes the characters randomly suck? Better hit points are part of balancing for some classes, why it is good idea to randomly deny them that? It would make just as much sense to randomise whether you get your class features when you level up.

Others (I think is was Lamefan, but don't quote me on it) have framed it to me as part and parcel with an element of risk that goes along with the the rolling on random tables, random monsters, potion miscability, HP, etc that they find attractive. And it is telling that spellcasters really did randomize their class features in days gone past.

I'm personally risk averse and don't play for that kind of thing--I find it just stressful--but it does put rolling for stats in perspective. It's a lesser version of the super risky old days and for people who don't value stats or simply ignore them per playstyle, it's either attractive for it, or not as much of a risk as you or I might see it as.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Others (I think is was Lamefan, but don't quote me on it) have framed it to me as part and parcel with an element of risk that goes along with the the rolling on random tables, random monsters, potion miscability, HP, etc that they find attractive. And it is telling that spellcasters really did randomize their class features in days gone past.

I'm personally risk averse and don't play for that kind of thing--I find it just stressful--but it does put rolling for stats in perspective. It's a lesser version of the super risky old days and for people who don't value stats or simply ignore them per playstyle, it's either attractive for it, or not as much of a risk as you or I might see it as.

I like taking calculated risks in-character just fine and I don't mind adventuring being somewhat dangerous business. But I think risks being interesting needs more complex decision space than just randomising individual numbers. And character creation is purely meta anyway, so risks there really do not contribute to immersing in the role of a character experiencing a dangerous world.

 

[Parmandur]

Can't tell you how many times I've had people show up at the store with characters that they "rolled at home" that are like 18/17/16/15/14/14. It's much easier to demand an array or point-buy. But I play with those in my home games too. I don't think I've "rolled" a character in 20 years.

In my experience, one doesn't show up with a character, it's all done together.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why it is fun that sometimes the characters randomly suck? Better hit points are part of balancing for some classes, why it is good idea to randomly deny them that? It would make just as much sense to randomise whether you get your class features when you level up.

And yet giving people max hp at 1st level wasn't always the default. Having a higher hit die gives you the chance for more hit points. It's not a certainty.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess I'm speaking to how it "feels", then (not for me, I've only observed this happening to other players - I'm usually a DM) to roll a character that has, say 13/12/11/10/10/7 and be told (even perhaps "choosing") to keep it, and then watch someone roll 15/11/9/7/7/6 who gets to reroll and winds up with 17/16/15/13/12/12.

I've seen this happen. Many times. It put me off rolling. That is all.

I understand how you feel, but to me that really is just how it goes sometimes. Different priorities, I suppose. The world and what we do in it matters more to me than how kick-butt my PC is, as a player or a DM.

 

[cbwjm]

We roll dice in the open, which includes character creation. While prevention of cheating is a beneficial side-effect, we do it primarily b/c we find it more fun to cheer or groan about rolls together.

My friend was rolling up stats a new OSE character the other week and we cheered when he rolled an 18. He later rolled a 3 which got a lot of laughs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I like taking calculated risks in-character just fine and I don't mind adventuring being somewhat dangerous business. But I think risks being interesting needs more complex decision space than just randomising individual numbers. And character creation is purely meta anyway, so risks there really do not contribute to immersing in the role of a character experiencing a dangerous world.

No one said it wasn't meta.

They like the meta risk and don't care if it contributes to immersion. Immersion isn't everything to everyone.