5e combat system too simple / boring?

[GX.Sigma]

After a year and a half, for my preferences, I'm beginning to think the game rules are too complex and too boring (<-- see "for my preferences" back over there). Compared to editions I came up with, the PCs are buffed to 11 and the monsters are nerfed. Encounters often feel like, "Roll initiative and then apply your character build to whatever page of the Monster Manual we're on." We can play "theater of the mind" just fine, because ranged attackers always have a feat to take care of range and cover. Who cares where anything is? None of it matters. Are you in melee or not? That's all that matters. Wait...with Crossbow Expert, even that doesn't matter. When it's your turn in the initiative order, apply your character sheet. Then it's the next guy's turn.

For me, I increasingly feel like the emphasis has shifted from skilled play to character optimization. I increasingly despise feats. In practice, with the feats players actually choose, they don't enrich or expand a character concept -- they simply apply a specialized mechanical benefit. You take Polearm Master not so that you can use a polearm, but so you become twice as effective with a polearm as any other weapon. Actually, the Weapon Master feat that actually could expand a character concept...LOL at the idea of anyone ever taking it! So much for the days when fighters were weapon masters who could always use the right tool for the job, based on player skill and the tactical situation in actual play. "Uh, I've got Great Weapon Fighting Style, Great Weapon Master, and Polearm Master. What the f--- am I going to do with sword-and-shield or a bow? There's a flying creature? Someone better cast fly on me otherwise the DM is 'punishing' my build."

So yeah, it can get boring. Everyone is hyperspecialized, the monsters no longer have any game-changing abilities to fear, so exploration, recon, information-gathering, dungeon diplomacy and all the rest of it are simply replaced by everyone taking turns executing their specialized mechanical operations.

This matches a lot of my experience and feeling in the first year and a half of running 5e. Inevitably, the more you are able to customize your character, the more optimization is possible. My first 5e group was mostly "power gamers"--they were new to D&D, but they were very competitive at MTG and Diablo. They built their characters by looking in the PHB for the most powerful combinations possible. The game consistently felt way too easy, and it got boring for me (the DM), and probably for them too. This may have also been because the challenges in the official adventures are laughably easy even for a non-optimizing party. If I was a better DM and willing to put in the effort, I maybe could have made it challenging enough (though their numbers were truly outrageous)

These days, I'm running for a different "group" (a brother and sister pair). They're also new to TRPG. They're pretty hardcore gamers, but they don't care about character building. They have access to the full PHB, but they're essentially both using pre-gens. And you know what? We're all having a great time. The players are acting in character, and interacting with their surroundings in a natural and organic way.

I think the real lesson here (beyond "don't play with optimizers") is that if you want to cut down on optimization, you have to cut down on options. I don't think it's a coincidence that my first campaign (with character building) was boring, and my second campaign (with pregens) was fun. I agree that 5e's feats lead to boring gameplay, so I intend to restrict them from now on. Actually, here is my full list of tweaks for a hypothetical future "basic 5e" campaign:

1. Roll stats in order with 3d6 (you can switch any pair of scores, you may reroll if total mods are negative)
2. Restricted class/subclass list (Fighter/Champion/Battlemaster/Eldritchknight, Rogue/Thief, Wizard/all, Barbarian/Berserker, maybe Cleric/some)
3. Humans only, for story reasons, but demihumans would theoretically be restricted to certain classes (Moon Elf = Bard, Wood Elf = Ranger, Dwarf = Fighter, etc.) and have "personality trait" baggage
4. Restricted feat list (basically just Magic Initiate and the ones that give you new proficiencies)
5. No multiclassing unless you really really want to
6. Most XP doesn't come from combat

 

[Rhenny]

1. Roll stats in order with 3d6 (you can switch any pair of scores, you may reroll if total mods are negative)
2. Restricted class/subclass list (Fighter/Champion/Battlemaster/Eldritchknight, Rogue/Thief, Wizard/all, Barbarian/Berserker, maybe Cleric/some)
3. Humans only, for story reasons, but demihumans would theoretically be restricted to certain classes (Moon Elf = Bard, Wood Elf = Ranger, Dwarf = Fighter, etc.) and have "personality trait" baggage
4. Restricted feat list (basically just Magic Initiate and the ones that give you new proficiencies)
5. No multiclassing unless you really really want to
6. Most XP doesn't come from combat

Rolling up a PC with 3d6 in order is a very cool idea that will help make the game more challenging for players. I do like the idea that PCs are born, not made. Random generation with some player manipulation definitely makes it feel like the PC you play is more organic, warts and all. We are playing (or we started a campaign...and have been on hold for the last few months) where we rolled 4d6 drop one in order and then created our PCs from whatever we rolled. I really like it because it forced me to make an unusual cleric that has strengths and weaknesses/quirks that make it more interesting to play.

I'm also totally behind the idea that most xp doesn't come from combat. Story awards, and awards for doing interesting and cinematic things that make the game more thrilling is so much better for 2 reasons: 1) It is easier for the DM to assign it rather than calculating each creature xp, etc. 2) It rewards players for doing "real" interesting things and looking for options that are not always "kill the monsters and take their stuff."

Interestingly, I think these options are also better for more experienced players because they have the wherewithal to survive when things go badly, or use their experience to bring more options to the table in various game situations.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree to a degree. Out of the box 5E is very basic. I think it was intended to be very basic.

I disagree that I need an advanced upgrade. I have not had an edition of D&D inspire me like 5E does in ages. I'm writing up magic items. Writing up monsters. I'm creating traps and hazards. I'm doing more creative work on D&D than I've done in years due to the simplicity of the system. In 5E you can write so much in plain language and make it work with the simple mechanics that it is a pleasure to create again. No complex mechanics to worry about. Just write it up as you think it should work and play it out. It is easily one of the best editions of D&D yet made for telling a story and making interesting encounters.

Sure, 5E out of the box is too easy for experience players. 5E leaves lots of room for creative play if you allow players to try things that aren't covered by the rules and create challenges that highly player capabilities.

I'd even go so far as say that for some experienced DMs and players (like me and the people I play with and DM), the streamlined, less prescribed 5e system is better because it allows each DM/game table to add/improvise what works best for his/her table or campaign. I'm an old timer, and many of my players are old timers. We enjoy the rules light way 5e runs and don't find combat boring as long as encounters fit with the building campaign story and there are a wide variety of encounter types, many of which can be "won" with limited or no fighting at all.

 

[devincutler]

Rolling up a PC with 3d6 in order is a very cool idea that will help make the game more challenging for players. I do like the idea that PCs are born, not made. Random generation with some player manipulation definitely makes it feel like the PC you play is more organic, warts and all. We are playing (or we started a campaign...and have been on hold for the last few months) where we rolled 4d6 drop one in order and then created our PCs from whatever we rolled. I really like it because it forced me to make an unusual cleric that has strengths and weaknesses/quirks that make it more interesting to play.

I'm also totally behind the idea that most xp doesn't come from combat. Story awards, and awards for doing interesting and cinematic things that make the game more thrilling is so much better for 2 reasons: 1) It is easier for the DM to assign it rather than calculating each creature xp, etc. 2) It rewards players for doing "real" interesting things and looking for options that are not always "kill the monsters and take their stuff."

Interestingly, I think these options are also better for more experienced players because they have the wherewithal to survive when things go badly, or use their experience to bring more options to the table in various game situations.

This is how it was done back in the day. 3d6 in order. And paladins and monks had huge requirements to enter, so just playing one was a rare and wondrous treat.

I, too, much prefer playing PCs as rolled with interesting stat flaws. I think too much is made of min-maxing (and then those same people complain the game is too easy....go figure!). I just recently played a 3.5 druid with a 6 Cha and an 8 Int. It was a blast. Was I a little behind the 8 ball in Animal Handling? Yeah...but nothing too horrific and by 3rd level I was auto handling my animal companion. But playing a clever person who was simply not interested in complex ideas or written lore was a kick. And I played her 6 Cha not as physically ugly, but as a nature child who never bathes, never washes her clothes, is picking lice out of her hair, and who has absolutely no social filters whatsoever. If the king is overweight, she might remark: "Hello king...wow you're fat!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Rolling up a PC with 3d6 in order is a very cool idea that will help make the game more challenging for players. I do like the idea that PCs are born, not made. Random generation with some player manipulation definitely makes it feel like the PC you play is more organic, warts and all. We are playing (or we started a campaign...and have been on hold for the last few months) where we rolled 4d6 drop one in order and then created our PCs from whatever we rolled. I really like it because it forced me to make an unusual cleric that has strengths and weaknesses/quirks that make it more interesting to play.

Whereas, for me, it's a constant reminder that I'm not actually the author of my character--the dice are. And if I can't have authorship of my character, I won't be invested in it.* For you, strict dice-rolled characters liberate you from your preconceptions. For me, the dice constrain me to stuff I don't want to do. It will be a constant reminder of the artificiality of the character--exactly the opposite of what it is to you.

I'm also totally behind the idea that most xp doesn't come from combat. Story awards, and awards for doing interesting and cinematic things that make the game more thrilling is so much better for 2 reasons: 1) It is easier for the DM to assign it rather than calculating each creature xp, etc. 2) It rewards players for doing "real" interesting things and looking for options that are not always "kill the monsters and take their stuff."

This, on the other hand, I'm 100% down with. It's one of the reasons I so appreciate 4e explicitly making "Quest XP" a thing described and explained in the rules--because many DMs may not even think to give XP for things other than combat, it just might never occur to them. Having the book explicitly say, "Hey, this is a thing you can do!" is a huge deal. (IIRC, it also has a sidebar about how the DM can just handwave XP entirely, and simply tell the party when they've levelled up, which is great for DMs who aren't big on bookkeeping.)

*Of course, the one time I rolled a strict-order character, I happened to not only get a good roll, but a great roll, which perfectly fit the concept I'd been toying with--but that's a (quite literally) one in a million (or more!) event.

 

[devincutler]

Whereas, for me, it's a constant reminder that I'm not actually the author of my character--the dice are. And if I can't have authorship of my character, I won't be invested in it.* For you, strict dice-rolled characters liberate you from your preconceptions. For me, the dice constrain me to stuff I don't want to do. It will be a constant reminder of the artificiality of the character--exactly the opposite of what it is to you.

Sometimes constraint is required in order to be liberated (howze that for a koan?).

The philosophy of rolling the dice in order is twofold:

1) You cannot control what you are born as. I wish I were thin and handsome and could play baseball and had a kick ass singing voice, but I am not and cannot. Oh well. So you make the best of it and find other unique things you can do to which you are more suited.

2) It forces you, at times, to think outside the box. You can still play almost any character in 5e with almost any stats, and while 3.x had some hard limits on spellcasters, you could still do it with even a mild score in your spellcasting class.

To flip your argument around, doesn't the standard array or 4d6 drop one and reorder also technically constrain you? What if your great vision of this character you wish to author is someone who is immensely strong, charmingly handsome, cunningly intelligent, and as nimble as a ballerina? By gosh, I guess you'll be needing 18s in 4 stats to realize your character concept....won't you?

I would hope that an experienced role player would have the chops to be able to play a variety of characters and work to "author" your character working from the stats rolled.

 

[Azurewraith]

I'd love to see what you do with it.

I'm getting ready to test out the 3.5 weapon table and the 3.5 magic items when added to the system. I'm also looking at testing out a faster proficiency system and a graded skill system, and maybe adjust the number of encounters per day. The monsters ... I want to rewrite them entirely. I find their balance to be okay (a hard encounter feels like a hard encounter), but their options are just too low.

Ye if i ever get time to get it finished ill be sure to post it around here.

 

[Celtavian]

No? What does the scripted nature of bosses or shopkeepers have to do with it?

Interacting with NPCs as though they are real persons is role-playing. Scripted responses with button clicks are not role-playing.

It's not like D&D bosses and shopkeepers are radically different most of the time. I can count the number of actual D&D "bosses" I've been able to meaningfully negotiate with on one hand. And that was specifically because the DM in question likes worlds that get you to challenge preconceived notions. (But even his worlds have ancient vampires and goblin-slaver warchiefs who don't negotiate.)

I can't count the number of times I negotiated or interacted with NPCs on any number of hands I could possibly estimate.

What's the difference? Bosses interact often with the PCs adapting to their tactics. You don't get to show up and know exactly what they will do each time like WoW. They don't say exactly the same thing. They respond to the tactics of the PCs had many, many different options. It's obvious to anyone that has played WoW/Everquest what the difference is between a video game boss monster and a D&D monster is. They are extremely different. If you haven't noticed this, then you are playing a very different game than I have played.

(Also, I very rarely did raids--though sometimes we wove our own stories around raids or, more commonly, instances).

Instance bosses and NPCs are just as scripted as raid bosses and not role-playing.

First: Get the frak off your high horse. Second: Let me get this straight. Being able to have a two-way conversation with a shopkeeper or BBEG is roleplaying, but talking in character isn't roleplaying. WTF? Really? So 99% of the tabletop gaming I've done isn't roleplaying either. Because I spend way more time interacting with the other people at my table (well, electronic table) than I do killing baddies or trading.

Talking in character is only a small aspect of role-playing. If you can't change the world based on role-playing decisions, you aren't role-playing no matter how high a horse you get on to claim that you are. Your role-playing decisions did nothing to affect the game world. That is the very essence of role-playing.

We had a guild. All guild meetings were conducted in-character. OOC comments were held for the period after (or posted in the appropriate place on the website). We arranged interactions with other guilds--both Alliance and Horde--to have "live" allies and opponents as well as computer-operated ones. We would arrange times to do content, not because it had any mechanical value, but because adventuring through a particular area gave the right background for the story we wanted to tell. Sometimes, a story would come to us, that we'd play out in a particular instance--and sometimes, as we had our characters react to the world around them even in an instance we were doing for the loot, a story would evolve out of it anyway.

Bunch of people got together in a guild meeting and talking in character and it still had no effect on the game world. Meaningless to someone like me. I tried RPG servers. Once I found it consisted of a bunch of people talking in character with no effect on the game world, I left. That isn't role-playing to me.

Not within the client, no. That's why you strike a balance between what you can do "live," within the game client, and what you can do in stories, where the limitations of the client are relaxed (though some limitations remain--as limitations remain in almost all campaigns, tabletop or otherwise). But in our stories, we could interact with these forces (though not always negotiate--Arthas, much like Demogorgon or Graz'zt, or the aforementioned slaver goblins and vampire ancient, has little need or desire to "negotiate" with anyone). We could do things that aren't possible in the client alone. And with the right addons, it's possible to communicate much of this "layered on top" story.

If you had fun writing WoW stories that had no effect on the game world, so be it. It didn't interest me. If my characters actions can't affect the game world, I'm not role-playing. I would have been bored to tears doing what you were doing. That's why I left those games after I was done seeing the world and raiding. The only appeal those games had for me was to see the visual representations in the world and the challenge. I felt no satisfaction role-playing in those games. I couldn't control anything in the world with my role-play actions. Even my equipment was worn by the same people playing the same class because of how limited character customization in the game was.

See above: given your statements, I'm really confused about what you do consider roleplaying. Interacting with your party members doesn't count, but haggling with a shopkeeper does?

Interacting with the party members alone would not be considered role-playing if it has no effect on the game world. Killing the same named monster over and over again because your actions have no effect on the game world was a real wake up call that I was not role-playing and not in a role-playing game. When you've killed such and such boss in such and such instance twenty or more times after he's said the same thing to you each time, it kind of hits home that you're not role-playing. You're in a repetitive game in a fantasy world that you cannot effect.

In D&D when you slay a named dragon or a named wizard, it is recorded in the history of that world. A DM gives you all accolades for doing so in that world. It's a very different experience and the role-playing you do with the other PCs is very important because it can affect every aspect of the encounter. You can even choose to negotiate with the creature or trap it or come up with some other way to defeat it. It's not a repetitive experience unless the DM makes it so.

Sure, if you consider the only parts of the game world to be the monsters, baddies, and shopkeepers in it, and completely neglect the players and their ability to interact with each other, as well as the built-in factions, variety of cultures, petty political squabbles with minimal grand impact, or potential to tell your own story of how a particular enemy was defeated--or not defeated!--mechanics be damned. But, as I've said above, if you ignore any and all contributions from your fellow-players in a TTRPG, you're going to have a pretty damn spare "roleplay" experience anyway.

If I cannot have an effect on the game world when role-playing, then I don't consider it role-playing. If I cannot by role-playing with the other PCs and we as a group have an effect on the game world, then I do not consider it role-playing. I went into WoW and Everquest hoping for a role-playing experience. I found something very different. It was fun and at challenging, but not role-playing. I even went so far as to make sure at least to pick names appropriate for a fantasy character rather than some of the absolutely stupid names I saw in those games like Chris420 or Sucknit and the like. I gave it a shot. Once I found out I would be killing the giant hand in Karnor's castle 20 times or defeating Nagafen 30 times, the idea of WoW/Everquest being an RPG was out the window. I just accepted that video games and pen and paper RPGs are a different experience and I would enjoy each for what it was. When I want to role-play, I want the game engine to be a DM to being make decisions that allow mine and my buddies role-playing to have a permanent effect on the game world.

If I ever play with a DM that respawns creatures in the same place for me to fight again or writes scripts he repeats each time I go to a shopkeeper with no ability to negotiate, I'll be out the door.

A recent example of what I'm talking about was the paladin in the market buying armor. He took a philter of love and negotiated for its sale with a duergar merchant. He was fortunate that the duergar merchant had a lady friend in question to use it on. So he offered a more than fair price due to his need. The paladin made a good selling argument and a good Persuasion roll. I as the DM made sure this had an effect on the world by coming up with the story the guy was trying to make a beautiful slave woman he purchased love him. So he was willing to pay more money for the philter. This is the kind of material I'm looking for in a role-playing experience that I did not get in WoW/Everquest (though Everquest is much, much closer than WoW ever was).

The closest a video game ever got to providing a very cool RPG experience in a game was Everquest[/]. They had encumbrance. The primary market was the weekend player run bazaar in the East Commonlands. It required grouping to succeed. And had way more interaction required than WoW. Even that game was repetitive where you sat in a room with a bunch of buddies killing stuff over and over again. It was still a very cool experience, much closer to a pen and paper RPG than WoW. If you were satifised by role-playing in WoW, you would have loved the original Everquest.

 

[Celtavian]

This is an excerpt from the podcast Imaginary Worlds, where Paul La Farge talks about the time he sat down and played a game of D&D with Gygax.
Starts around 24:35 and is about 3 minutes long.
https://soundcloud.com/emolinsky/rolling-the-twenty-sided-dice


Interviewer is Eric Molinsky (EM)
Guest is Paul La Farge (PLF)

EM: "After the interview was over, Gary Gygax offered to DM a game with Paul and his colleague."

PLF: "He came out of the wargaming world which was very much strategy-based, and he (Gygax) played D&D as if it were a wargame. He posed problems to the players and there were better solutions and worse solutions and he had very little compunction about killing characters off if the occasion warranted.
And his thought was if you play smart you are going to win and if you don't you're very likely going to lose, and now let's sit down and see how you play."

EM: "But it sounds like you were slightly disappointed a little bit in terms of you really were...were you more interested in the character?"

PLF: "No, it was great because if as a kid if someone had waved their magic wand over me when I was eleven years old and said poof you are in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin and here is Gary Gygax and he is running a game of D&D, here is your seat at the table...go. Which actually would have been possible because he loved to Dungeon Master and he ran games at conventions.

But if it had happened then I would have been disappointed because I would have lost... I wouldn't have gotten into the problem solving aspect of it, and there wouldn't have been room for the part I liked and I would have felt frustrated.

But to meet him in the context of doing this as a grown-up, it was kind of perfect because it was as if Gary were saying 'hey this is about reality now, here's a problem, see if you can solve it'. You don't get into the theatrics of being an elf because who cares about the theatrics of being an elf...you're not an elf."

Here is an answer from Gary saying it's not story-telling as normally presented. I can agree with that. It is not a pre-scripted story. It's a mix of things that very much includes elements of story-telling, which he always included in his modules.

Whether Gary intended it or not, D&D has strong elements of story within it. The game plays much better when such elements are included in the game. The designers that were drawn to the game tend to love story-telling. It is a game that is very attractive to people that like telling or participating in stories, even if not in the traditional scripted manner.

Gary: Insightful, that question, and allow me comment on it a bit before answering.

I do not, and I stress NOT, believe that the RPG is “storytelling” in the way that is usually presented. If there is a story to be told, it comes from the interaction of all participants, not merely the Game Master–who should not be a “Storyteller” but a narrator and co-player! The players are not acting out roles designed for them by the GM, they are acting in character to create the story, and that tale is told as the game unfolds, and as directed by their actions, with random factors that even the GM can’t predict possibly altering the course of things. Storytelling is what novelists, screenwriters, and playwrights do. It has little or no connection to the RPG, which differs in all aspects from the entertainment forms such authors create for.

As false to the game form as the pre-scripted “story,” is play that has little more in it than seek and destroy missions, vacuous effort where the participants fight and kill some monster so as to gain more power and thus be able to look for yet more potent opponents in a spiral that leads nowhere save eventual boredom. So pure hack and slash play is anathema to me too.

Tactical, and strategic, play is a fine addition to the RPG, and if it is in-character, something I see as desirable, In this category fall such things as exploration, economics, politics, and even intrigue.

The LA RPG was designed to accommodate any and all styles and play approaches, and hopefully so presented as to encourage an amalgam of all the elements of the game form. That encourages varied adventures, different challenges from time to time, and well-rounded characters (and players) that find the game has long-term interest for them. In short, I agree with you in that all aspects of the RPG should be presented and played.

Now, as to the LA MMPO game, I have not yet had the opportunity to really get into anything like what actual online play will be. We have discussed that a good bit, naturally, and soon I expect to be adventuring about with an Avatar in more than just a general environment, as has been the case up until now. What is particularly exciting to me about that is the new facets of play that will be presented thus, things not now contained in the LA pen-and-paper game.

Here is another interview with Gygax with the man himself admitting how strongly influenced he was by fiction including Tolkien: http://archives.theonering.net/features/interviews/gary_gygax.html

Whether Gygax believes his game is story-telling or not is irrelevant. The story-telling influences on the game are clear. He created a game where a group of people could participate in a story. It is obviously not in the traditional scripted sense, but an open-ended, cooperative story in a fictional world with outcomes decided by game mechanics and dice.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sometimes constraint is required in order to be liberated (howze that for a koan?).

The philosophy of rolling the dice in order is...

...something I already get. I get why people want it. Just like I get why people want to watch horror movies. But cognitively understanding what people get from it, and emotively understanding it, are two distinct things. I get no--zero, zip, zilch, nada--catharsis out of watching horror movies. They leave me feeling depressed, upset, even anxious--I have to "unwind" after watching them by doing some other thing entirely. I can cognitively understand that, for other people, going through the emotions elicited by a good horror movie is cleansing, relieving, an outlet for all sorts of things. But I don't feel any of that when I watch them--so I choose not to. Same for strict-rolled characters. I'll do it, if a friend or the like is offering a game where it's required--I get a good portion of my enjoyment of an RPG from interacting with the other players. But that character creation method will not contribute to my enjoyment, and may reduce it (slightly, but still).

To flip your argument around, doesn't the standard array or 4d6 drop one and reorder also technically constrain you? What if your great vision of this character you wish to author is someone who is immensely strong, charmingly handsome, cunningly intelligent, and as nimble as a ballerina? By gosh, I guess you'll be needing 18s in 4 stats to realize your character concept....won't you?

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." Also, it's a rookie mistake to assume that a character that's great at everything will be a character that wins audiences or naturally/easily produces compelling stories. Superman is quite possibly the most iconic superhero--and yet he's often reviled for being a boring, impossible-to-challenge, powers-on-demand character. It IS possible to write good, even great stories that revolve around the Man of Steel (who is, in fact, one of my favorite superheroes)--it just takes dramatically more work than other characters, because (near-)perfection makes drama harder, not easier. To challenge Superman, you basically have to go outside the limits of the superhero story--because he's already won that--and into something else. Like Superman: Red Son, or Kingdom Come, or What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?, or For the Man Who Has Everything. The last two, incidentally, were also adapted as stories for the DCAU, and are fairly faithful adaptations. If you're not big on comics but have the time to watch (respectively) an animated film, Superman vs. the Elite, or TV episode, For the Man Who Has Everything (JLU ep 2).

What you ask is sort of the logical opposite of an actual question in virtue ethics: can we truly call effective, challenging evil completely unvirtuous? The answer given is usually no: an evil being that was completely, utterly devoid of all virtues would be incapable of any meaningful action. Evil, then, lies not in a total absence of virtue, but the privation of virtue. (As Aristotle put it in the Nichomachean Ethics, "Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feeling or in action, but Virtue finds and chooses the mean.") Having a story where all of the villains are so cowardly they cannot take actions, or so stupid that they never take actions that benefit them, or so reckless that they always get themselves killed through constantly challenging opponents--well, that would be a pretty gorram boring story! Instead we must mix just the right amount of steel and rot and sweetness into each villain, so that they are capable threats, and compelling characters, while still being revolting. A good author, similarly, knows to give protagonized characters a touch of clay to go with their steel, because you can't have drama if there was never a challenge to overcome in the first place.

Finding the balance between "sufficiently capable and likable" and "sufficiently flawed and incapable" is hard! But fortunately, point-bought or array stats guarantee that you can get such a character. Dice rolls, on the other hand, cannot guarantee such things--in fact, they essentially guarantee that at least some portion of them, in the long run, will be all flaws (sub-10 stats across the board) or all awesome (no stat less than 15).

I would hope that an experienced role player would have the chops to be able to play a variety of characters and work to "author" your character working from the stats rolled.

I can create a story for just about anything. But it will be flat to me. Lifeless. It will exist, not because it reflects or contains anything within me, but because an inanimate object "told" me to do it. And that completely taints my enjoyment of it. Like I said, I will constantly be reminded, "This wasn't my creation. This was made by someone else, or rather something else, and handed off to me." I *have* tried. Truly I have. And even with the dice on my side (as I said above), it wasn't enough. I was able to enjoy the game because the DM was good and the world was interesting. My character? I really couldn't have cared less if it died, except that that might mean I'd sit the rest of the session out, which would be boring and unfortunate.

A character I create is one that inspires me--perhaps like an old favorite dish, redolent with memories and pleasant nostalgia; or perhaps like a new experiment, a challenge to meet and investigate. A character handed to me, even by the dice, is neither of those things.

I don't expect you to change your mind about what you like or dislike. I am absolutely 100% supportive of your choice to roll and play such characters, because that is what gives you joy. All I ask is that you recognize that it does not bring everyone joy, and for some people (like me), it opposes what gives them joy in RPGs.