D&D General How Did You Generate Your Most Recent Character's Stats?

[TwoSix]

To me, the argument for rolling falls down because there’s no positive argument that having 2 players with characters with a wide disparity in stats is actually positive in play. At best, it can be endured, but there’s no argument it enhances your play.

I can see valid arguments for more organic character creation, but there’s are plenty of stat generation methods that provide variety without disparity.

 

[Umbran]

Because the designers don't like random stats, or at least felt they wouldn't suit the game experience they wanted to deliver.

Why not?
(Not being flippant. The technique is "Five Whys", and this is only number three now. "Because they wanted to" is not a suitable final answer. They wanted to for reasons. What were those reasons?)

 

[Clint_L]

I used the standard 4d6 x6 method. With re-roll 1s.

The results were remarkably close to the standard array- all were between 10 and 14, save one, and I rolled 6 sets.

so all ability modifiers were 0-+2. no penalties, but no really good scores, either. I like it.

You had extraordinarily bad luck, then. 4d6 drop one produces a slightly better average total than standard array without rerolling ones. Doing it 6x6 times and getting only one result outside of 10-14 is mathematically almost impossible.

Which got me thinking: the three options in the PHB are designed to produce roughly similar numbers on average. But most folks who roll are describing using methods that are much more generous than the method in the PHB (ie roll six sets and keep the best, roll seven times, drop the worst, reroll ones, etc.).

Even back in the day a lousy set of rolls was typically rejected (“they decided to become a farmer).”

So maybe a strong reason many prefer rolling is that they get higher scores, and a little disparity is worth it. Especially since you can bury low scores in unimportant attributes.

 

[prabe]

Why not?
(Not being flippant. The technique is "Five Whys", and this is only number three now. "Because they wanted to" is not a suitable final answer. They wanted to for reasons. What were those reasons?)

"Because that wasn't the experience they wanted the game to deliver" is, in fact, an adequate answer, but I find that asking "why" questions about human behavior/s (at least on smaller scales--and designing a TRPG is smaller-scale) is most effective when addressing one's own behavior/s.

 

[CleverNickName]

To me, the argument for rolling falls down because there’s no positive argument that having 2 players with characters with a wide disparity in stats is actually positive in play. At best, it can be endured, but there’s no argument it enhances your play.

I can see valid arguments for more organic character creation, but there’s are plenty of stat generation methods that provide variety without disparity.

I mean, there's no negative argument either. For some people and some playstyles, that might be a feature instead of a bug. (shrug)

My two cents:

I think it's simply a matter of preference: some people prefer to roll their stats, and some people don't. I think the game developers knew that, and so they gave us three different ways to generate stats. That's pretty much what it says in the book, anyway: "If you want to save time or don't like the idea of random ability scores, you can use the following scores instead..."

Folks talk about numerical ranges, bounded accuracy, balance, and probability quite a bit, but I don't think the rules for D&D were ever meant to be that rigid. Certainly not as rigid as we often make them, anyway. I think that the game devs assumed that the rules for character creation would be treated like any other rule of the game, and the DM would adjust them to fit--maybe because of the math, maybe because of the vibes.

Again, just my two cents. There's nothing wrong with two characters having a wide disparity in stats at my table, but it sounds like it would cause problems at yours. That's not an indictment, that's just acknowledging that the game can be enjoyed in different ways.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

To me, the argument for rolling falls down because there’s no positive argument that having 2 players with characters with a wide disparity in stats is actually positive in play. At best, it can be endured, but there’s no argument it enhances your play.

I can see valid arguments for more organic character creation, but there’s are plenty of stat generation methods that provide variety without disparity.

Hard to argue against these points. They are good ones.

As someone who has utilized various stat generating methods for different campaigns including rolling, point buy, and a stat matrix, I’ll offer a counterpoint by focusing on the point above about disparity.

That is, are we making too big a deal about disparity in stats at the outset?

The goal of 5e is explicitly to have “a good time and [to create] a memorable story.” Do stats, by themselves, or more specifically, the disparity in stats, prevent this goal? In a game of cooperative adventuring, IMO, it’s up to the players and DM to spread the spotlight, which seems to be a much bigger contributor to the goal than a 15% or 20% difference (or whatever one deems a wide disparity) in success at any particular ability check or save or attack. One could argue that the fickle d20 would obscure these differences, when dice are even called for. A DM can also obscure the differences by allowing a reasonable plan to auto-succeed -even if it was from the PC who is significantly worse at that particular skill than any other party member - and very much instead of the DM policing said PC by telling the player “your character wouldn’t think/say/try that”.

I guess I’d also add that a D&D character is defined by way more than their stats. Especially if one does not adhere to the maxim that stats dictate how one should roleplay. If a player feels their character would be fun to play and be able to contribute meaningfully to the parties and thus allow memorable stories to emerge, the disparity problem dissipates.

And, of course, that’s all my approach and my opinion and YMMV.

 

[TwoSix]

Hard to argue against these points. They are good ones.

As someone who has utilized various stat generating methods for different campaigns including rolling, point buy, and a stat matrix, I’ll offer a counterpoint by focusing on the point above about disparity.

That is, are we making too big a deal about disparity in stats at the outset?

The goal of 5e is explicitly to have “a good time and [to create] a memorable story.” Do stats, by themselves, or more specifically, the disparity in stats, prevent this goal? In a game of cooperative adventuring, IMO, it’s up to the players and DM to spread the spotlight, which seems to be a much bigger contributor to the goal than a 15% or 20% difference (or whatever one deems a wide disparity) in success at any particular ability check or save or attack. One could argue that the fickle d20 would obscure these differences, when dice are even called for. A DM can also obscure the differences by allowing a reasonable plan to auto-succeed -even if it was from the PC who is significantly worse at that particular skill than any other party member - and very much instead of the DM policing said PC by telling the player “your character wouldn’t think/say/try that”.

I guess I’d also add that a D&D character is defined by way more than their stats. Especially if one does not adhere to the maxim that stats dictate how one should roleplay. If a player feels their character would be fun to play and be able to contribute meaningfully to the parties and thus allow memorable stories to emerge, the disparity problem dissipates.

And, of course, that’s all my approach and my opinion and YMMV.

Sure, but I feel like that’s just recapitulating the argument that you can use other techniques to endure the disparity. But there’s still no argument that the disparity is making the game better.

If having some organic randomness required a level of disparity, I could see a stronger argument. But there’s still are a lot of stat generation methods that both provide randomness AND control for wide disparities.

 

[AlViking]

You had extraordinarily bad luck, then. 4d6 drop one produces a slightly better average total than standard array without rerolling ones. Doing it 6x6 times and getting only one result outside of 10-14 is mathematically almost impossible.

Which got me thinking: the three options in the PHB are designed to produce roughly similar numbers on average. But most folks who roll are describing using methods that are much more generous than the method in the PHB (ie roll six sets and keep the best, roll seven times, drop the worst, reroll ones, etc.).

Even back in the day a lousy set of rolls was typically rejected (“they decided to become a farmer).”

So maybe a strong reason many prefer rolling is that they get higher scores, and a little disparity is worth it. Especially since you can bury low scores in unimportant attributes.

I just rolled up a character on DndBeyond. I got 9,9,8,15,9,16 (in that order). So 21 points if I were using 3e's version (Point Buy System - Dungeons & Dragons 3.5) which allowed you go buy up to an 18. I had one number higher but other than that it was pretty significantly worse than what I'd get with point buy. I thought it was just a fluke so I tried again - 8, 11, 8, 8, 13, 14 which would be 15 points with point buy. There's a reason I don't go to Vegas to gamble.

Which is the whole point - sometimes you're going to get better, sometimes it gets worse. In the first case? I would feel very limited in what I could do, basically it would make a decent big dumb fighter if I didn't care about anything outside of combat. But if I wanted to play a monk or paladin? I just can't see it.

Which is my problem, my hand is forced. I like playing fighters but if that's not what I'm in the mood for I have limited not very good options. But as you said, most people seem to use what I would consider very generous options. If I roll up 4 characters, odds are one is going to be better than point buy - but if that's what I want then I can just use the aforementioned system from 3.5 and use the 32 point heroic array. But it's an artificial sense of "better" because either the DM will just up the difficulty or people will complain even more that the game is too easy.

If I wanted random character generation, I'd use my list of all possible options with point buy and roll to see which option to use. But, like I said somewhere, I don't randomize class, species or any other choice for my character so I don't see why I would for ability scores other than to practically guarantee one character in the group with the highest numbers will be significantly better than the lowest.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, but I feel like that’s just recapitulating the argument that you can use other techniques to endure the disparity. But there’s still no argument that the disparity is making the game better.

If having some organic randomness required a level of disparity, I could see a stronger argument. But there’s still are a lot of stat generation methods that both provide randomness AND control for wide disparities.

If a player (or players) enjoy(s) playing an underdog type, or a character that otherwise has some glaring mechanical disparities relative to other characters in the party, is that inherently worse gameplay?

 

[prabe]

If a player (or players) enjoy(s) playing an underdog type, or a character that otherwise has some glaring mechanical disparities relative to other characters in the party, is that inherently worse gameplay?

It might feel that way to one or more of the other players at the table, who might feel as though they're carrying some extra dead weight.

It's not just the players with the weaker characters who are having less fun, is what I'm saying.