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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

To me, penalties are part of the game. You've got to take the bitter with the sweet.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

My “no negative” array was 16 14 13 12 11 10. The players I had in that group who were negative averse seemed fine with it.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Yeah, that set just barely scrapes by both of my try-again limits: there's something higher than 13 (the single 14) and the average is 10.0 or higher (in this case, 10.2). I've seen one or two characters like this enter play; one even made something of a go of it.

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.

This, however, is a frame of mind that would - if expressed - see you ushered from my game fairly quickly.

Penalties are part of the game, same as bonuses are.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

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.

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, rather than frustration because I feel like I'm being denied the chance to contribute meaningfully because ability roulette screwed me over. And yes, that exact thing (rolling stupidly well compared to everyone else) has actually harmed my experience of a game before. My luck is almost always bimodal: either I roll amazingly well, or I roll terribly. Almost never in the middle, where you would expect most rolls to be.

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 can do what you do either way, but I cannot do what I do in one way but can in the other, which is the reasonable choice for a game meant to support a variety of approaches to play?

It was fun for its time (back when we rolled) but I have ALSO played Fitz and Calahan in both 4e and 5e D&D (for one-shots, the characters are really long-since retired) and they were absolutely just as fun to play with even, point-bought abilities. Fitz never felt particularly incompetent in the original campaign, (Calahan was definitely "better" than him, though) but he certainly DID feel quite a bit more competent with modern game design. As an aside - Calahan wasn't a perfect character either - he had a 6 Dex! In a lot of ways, HE ALSO felt more competent with modern point-buy (where he got to have an 8 DEX!

As another aside, until this thread, I had no idea that so many people still roll. I think that I mentioned before - I haven't rolled a character in 20-odd years. I know that rolling is still front-and-center in the 5e PHB, but I didn't think many people actually still used it.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Generally, when I want randomness (and I don’t always), yes, the possibility of some characters being significantly better or worse than others is part of the point. But, it should be noted, the appeal is to be able to get significantly better or worse stats than your own past characters. Different players getting characters with significantly better or worse stats than other players’ characters in the same party is not specifically desirable.

I think it really can’t be over-emphasized how important high lethality is to this type of play. Also, randomized treasure, and potentially randomized dungeons are huge boons to this type of play. The point is to make the game into sort of a roguelike. You’re not lovingly crafting the perfect character to play out their story over the course of a lengthy campaign. You’re generating an avatar for your next run into the dungeon, with the goal of making it as far as you can before the run eventually, inevitably, ends. Then you go again and try to get a little further. Less Baldur’s Gate III, more Binding of Isaac. In that context, if you roll up really low stats, that’s a bummer, but the worst that happens is the character sucks for a few sessions before they die, and you get another shot at a new character with better stats. If you roll up really high stats, that’s exciting, but it’s far from a guarantee of survival.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me, penalties are part of the game. You've got to take the bitter with the sweet.

And the rolls themselves--Persuade or Stealth or whatever--don't provide that?

My “no negative” array was 16 14 13 12 11 10. The players I had in that group who were negative averse seemed fine with it.

Oh, yeah that's perfectly fine then. Kinda surprised, tbh. That's better than the elite array, and I would have zero problems playing that.

It was fun for its time (back when we rolled) but I have ALSO played Fitz and Calahan in both 4e and 5e D&D (for one-shots, the characters are really long-since retired) and they were absolutely just as fun to play with even, point-bought abilities. Fitz never felt particularly incompetent in the original campaign, (Calahan was definitely "better" than him, though) but he certainly DID feel quite a bit more competent with modern game design. As an aside - Calahan wasn't a perfect character either - he had a 6 Dex! In a lot of ways, HE ALSO felt more competent with modern point-buy (where he got to have an 8 DEX!

That's fair. Though if they felt more competent in newer editions, that does seem to imply that there was a gain--which would then mean that going in the reverse direction would be a loss.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Generally, when I want randomness (and I don’t always), yes, the possibility of some characters being significantly better or worse than others is part of the point. But, it should be noted, the appeal is to be able to get significantly better or worse stats than your own past characters. Different players getting characters with significantly better or worse stats than other players’ characters in the same party is not specifically desirable.

I think it really can’t be over-emphasized how important high lethality is to this type of play. Also, randomized treasure, and potentially randomized dungeons are huge boons to this type of play. The point is to make the game into sort of a roguelike. You’re not lovingly crafting the perfect character to play out their story over the course of a lengthy campaign. You’re generating an avatar for your next run into the dungeon, with the goal of making it as far as you can before the run eventually, inevitably, ends. Then you go again and try to get a little further. Less Baldur’s Gate III, more Binding of Isaac. In that context, if you roll up really low stats, that’s a bummer, but the worst that happens is the character sucks for a few sessions before they die, and you get another shot at a new character with better stats. If you roll up really high stats, that’s exciting, but it’s far from a guarantee of survival.

This is good stuff.

I guess it also follows that it is nice when XP follows the player, at least to some extent. That way, if your bummer-statted character manages to beat the odds and survive a few sessions, it has been worthwhile to the player in the sense that their next rolled-up character doesn't necessarily have to start at square (level?) 1 upon the inevitable demise of their predecessor.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is good stuff.

I guess it also follows that it is nice when XP follows the player, at least to some extent. That way, if your bummer-statted character manages to beat the odds and survive a few sessions, it has been worthwhile to the player in the sense that their next rolled-up character doesn't necessarily have to start at square (level?) 1 upon the inevitable demise of their predecessor.

I guess you could do that, if you wanted to make it more of a rogue-lite, but generally no. You want to start over every time, because the challenge is in getting as far as you can with each run, trying to beat your own personal best. Maybe you have some elements carry over between runs, like by having your character leave their treasure and magic items to your next character in their will. And resurrection spells can act as a safety net to bring back a character you’ve been running really hot with and don’t want to give up yet.

 

[Parmandur]

As another aside, until this thread, I had no idea that so many people still roll. I think that I mentioned before - I haven't rolled a character in 20-odd years. I know that rolling is still front-and-center in the 5e PHB, but I didn't think many people actually still used it.

That's why it is: that's what WotC data showed when they went to see how people actually played.

 

[Jack Daniel]

3d6 in order, no whammies, no waiting. Get the dice on the table and then pick a class and let's effing go.