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

[TwoSix]

So, here's a question...if you prefer randomness in your stat generation method, is the inequity that is often produced an unfortunate byproduct, or is it part of the point of the randomness?

Like, say you had a table of 1000 random fixed stat arrays, but all those arrays were confirmed to have a sum between 70 and 75, and the sum of the stat mods was always between +4 and +5. That methodology would be simultaneously random, but equitable between participants.

Is that random enough? Or does the possibility of rolling much higher (or much lower) than the rest of the table need to exist?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, here's a question...if you prefer randomness in your stat generation method, is the inequity that is often produced an unfortunate byproduct, or is it part of the point of the randomness?

Like, say you had a table of 1000 random fixed stat arrays, but all those arrays were confirmed to have a sum between 70 and 75, and the sum of the stat mods was always between +4 and +5. That methodology would be simultaneously random, but equitable between participants.

Is that random enough? Or does the possibility of rolling much higher (or much lower) than the rest of the table need to exist?

Part of the point is the randomness. I'll play anything and see where it goes, but I'm an outlier in so far as the D&D community is concerned. At the end of the day, most people want to be on par with their fellows; how they get there is less relevant than that they do.

 

[TwoSix]

Part of the point is the randomness. I'll play anything and see where it goes, but I'm an outlier in so far as the D&D community is concerned. At the end of the day, most people want to be on par with their fellows; how they get there is less relevant than that they do.

So would you play a method that's both random and equitable, like the one I described above?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So would you play a method that's both random and equitable, like the one I described above?

Of course. Doing it now.

 

[ichabod]

So, here's a question...if you prefer randomness in your stat generation method, is the inequity that is often produced an unfortunate byproduct, or is it part of the point of the randomness?

Like, say you had a table of 1000 random fixed stat arrays, but all those arrays were confirmed to have a sum between 70 and 75, and the sum of the stat mods was always between +4 and +5. That methodology would be simultaneously random, but equitable between participants.

Is that random enough? Or does the possibility of rolling much higher (or much lower) than the rest of the table need to exist?

I think there's going to be a variety of answers that depend on the player/table. The problem people tend to have with rolling is you can have a wide gap in ability scores/bonuses. If you have five players and you do 4d6 drop low, you can expect a difference of about 16 between the highest ability score total and the lowest ability score total. Your method would reduced that drastically, to about 2 (based on randomly selecting from all 2,277 arrays meeting your criteria). But there's a range of possibilities between 2 and 16, and different tables are going to have different desired levels of between player variability. Some may be comfortable with more than 16. I think all these different ways to roll dice are looking for the value that the table is comfortable with. Some want 0, and so everyone plays with the same array. Point buy can allow for some difference, but having a lower total is chosen by the player. They're all valid choices, it's just what you are comfortable with.

Me, I would generally be fine with what you are talking about, but I might use different restrictions. 5, 5, 13, 17, 17, 17 fits those criteria, but I'm not sure that's the sort of array I want to play with. But I think you are talking about a more general case where you 1000 decent arrays without a lot of variability between them.

 

[Lanefan]

In the spirit of @Umbran reminding us that "fair" has multiple meanings, so does "great."

You had fun playing the character. For you, it was great.

As was mine.

For me, having to play a character like that would have been an anchor around my neck the entire game. I would feel like I was dead weight, hampering my friends, a constant liability. It would absolutely have put a damper on my fun and would have ensured that, whether he lived or died, whether he succeeded or failed, it would have been significantly less enjoyable.

Part of the joy - for me, anyway - of playing (or seeing someone else) play a low-stat character into a great career is that of watching the underdog win. IME most people tend to, all other things being equal, cheer for the underdog; that's what allows movies like Rocky to resonate with the public and become big hits.

Hence, for you, he was great. For me, he would have been terrible. And it would be exactly the same if I had rolled exceptionally well and everyone else hadn't--believe it or not, I would also feel bad playing Calahan. It's just that it would be guilt over feeling like I'm overshadowing everyone,

Where on the few times I've had an "overdog" character, I just take the tack that it's my job to do what I can to keep these other guys upright.

It's like a hockey team: there's going to be one or two highly-talented star players on the team whose job is to score most of the goals and there's going to be some less-talented but still enthusiatic 4th-liners whose job is to provide some energy and get the other team off their game. They're all on the same team, however, just filling different roles within said team based on their talent level; and when a 4th-liner has a great game and gets a hat trick, everyone cheers.

Sometimes the dice will give you a (potential) star. Other times it'll be a (potential) 4th-liner. Most of the time it's somewhere between those, your own personal luck notwithstanding. And I add the parenthetical "potential" in there because until the character gets played that's all it is: potential. IME starting stats are a poor (to the point of almost nonexistent) guide as to the character's likely career length, in a moderately lethal game/system.

But the thing is? You can do what you did with that character in a point-buy game. It's just a conscious choice. I cannot choose to play stats other than the stats I've rolled in a game that requires rolling.

If you're rolling in order, this is true. However roll-and-rearrange (which is, I think, far more common; and the poll agrees) allows you much more freedom, plus in either case you've got ASIs (or edition equivalent) to further massage your stats.

 

[Lanefan]

So, here's a question...if you prefer randomness in your stat generation method, is the inequity that is often produced an unfortunate byproduct, or is it part of the point of the randomness?

Both, though we don't see the inequity as unfortunate or, in many cases, even relevant.

Like, say you had a table of 1000 random fixed stat arrays, but all those arrays were confirmed to have a sum between 70 and 75, and the sum of the stat mods was always between +4 and +5. That methodology would be simultaneously random, but equitable between participants.

Is that random enough? Or does the possibility of rolling much higher (or much lower) than the rest of the table need to exist?

Not just the possibility of rolling much higher or lower overall (which is fairly uncommon IME) but of, in particular, getting one very low roll.

All array and point-buy systems, plus some random-roll systems I've seen posited, simply don't allow a character to start with a score less than 8 in any stat. My wonderful 3e Illusionist (the low-stat example I noted upthread) couldn't have existed in such a system as she couldn't have started with the rolled 7 I put into her Wisdom; and it was that low Wisdom that really made her what she was. A couple of characters in my games have started with Wisdom 6 and gone on to great careers; and I've a Charisma 6 character of my own who's done quite OK as well (I use his image as my icon; my username is one character and the image is another).

It's a standing quasi-joke here but with a serious underpinning: when a single-digit stat gets rolled the line is "OK, now it's playable!" You've got a weakness to build the character and personality around.

 

[TwoSix]

Not just the possibility of rolling much higher or lower overall (which is fairly uncommon IME) but of, in particular, getting one very low roll.

All array and point-buy systems, plus some random-roll systems I've seen posited, simply don't allow a character to start with a score less than 8 in any stat. My wonderful 3e Illusionist (the low-stat example I noted upthread) couldn't have existed in such a system as she couldn't have started with the rolled 7 I put into her Wisdom; and it was that low Wisdom that really made her what she was. A couple of characters in my games have started with Wisdom 6 and gone on to great careers; and I've a Charisma 6 character of my own who's done quite OK as well (I use his image as my icon; my username is one character and the image is another).

It's a standing quasi-joke here but with a serious underpinning: when a single-digit stat gets rolled the line is "OK, now it's playable!" You've got a weakness to build the character and personality around.

I'm with you on that; I think the inability to get sub-8 stats is a weakness of the general point-buy and array systems. The last time I offered arrays, I offered 3; 1 of the arrays offered had a 7, and the second had a 5.

But I do know quite a few players who have an absolute horror of negative modifiers, so I always make sure to offer at least "no-negative" option.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As was mine.

Part of the joy - for me, anyway - of playing (or seeing someone else) play a low-stat character into a great career is that of watching the underdog win. IME most people tend to, all other things being equal, cheer for the underdog; that's what allows movies like Rocky to resonate with the public and become big hits.

Where on the few times I've had an "overdog" character, I just take the tack that it's my job to do what I can to keep these other guys upright.

It's like a hockey team: there's going to be one or two highly-talented star players on the team whose job is to score most of the goals and there's going to be some less-talented but still enthusiatic 4th-liners whose job is to provide some energy and get the other team off their game. They're all on the same team, however, just filling different roles within said team based on their talent level; and when a 4th-liner has a great game and gets a hat trick, everyone cheers.

Sometimes the dice will give you a (potential) star. Other times it'll be a (potential) 4th-liner. Most of the time it's somewhere between those, your own personal luck notwithstanding. And I add the parenthetical "potential" in there because until the character gets played that's all it is: potential. IME starting stats are a poor (to the point of almost nonexistent) guide as to the character's likely career length, in a moderately lethal game/system.

If you're rolling in order, this is true. However roll-and-rearrange (which is, I think, far more common; and the poll agrees) allows you much more freedom, plus in either case you've got ASIs (or edition equivalent) to further massage your stats.

When I say terrible luck, I mean it. I'm talking "well...technically it's a valid array...but only technically" as the top end, or several weakly good stats and two that are less than 7. Or, alternatively, every stat is 14+. I very rarely get "well you have a couple good ones and a couple bad ones" type rolls.

There's only so much you can do with 14 10 11 12 6 8.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm with you on that; I think the inability to get sub-8 stats is a weakness of the general point-buy and array systems. The last time I offered arrays, I offered 3; 1 of the arrays offered had a 7, and the second had a 5.

But I do know quite a few players who have an absolute horror of negative modifiers, so I always make sure to offer at least "no-negative" option.

Whereas for me, if I see anything less than 8, I'm not even going to touch it. Period.

Of course, if the third array has nothing worthwhile either, that's a signal I'm not going to have a good time in general. Penalties suck. Penalties you literally cannot escape suck all the time.