ability roll cheating

[Arnwyn]

So my question to you all is: would you accept such a character when all your other players have a more reasonable set of stats?

Did he roll in front of me? No? Rejected. Now roll in front of me like you should have.

Has this happened to you and how did you deal with it?

Never. I witness all rolled stats. Period.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

If the DM sets a character creation scheme that is set for the entire group (say 4d6, drop lowest), what happens when the player gets a set of stats that are not what he wants? Perhaps his character concept required an 'unnecessarily' hige Cha (perhaps for a Fighter), but the dice come up with only a couple of good numbers. This gives the player two choices: ditch the character concept, or play a suboptimal character.

If I were DMing and a player fed me this line of reasoning I'd start to lose my temper. A decent character concept does not rely upon disproportionately higher stats than an AVERAGE player character will get in order to be worthwhile. If your "concept" demands all 18's is it a reasonable concept? What if it only demands all 16's? No player is ever going to tell me I'm being unreasonable or unfair if I tell them that their "character concept" is not going to make it in my campaign if it means I MUST allow them to have abnormally high stats right out of the gate.

Same with "suboptimal". A good character does NOT REQUIRE being maximally optimal. A good character is what you make of it, not just what his stats are. The louder a player starts trying to tell me that he has to have "optimal" stats the less inclined I'm going to be to allow him to have them! I don't mind giving players a fair amount of leeway in devising character concepts, obtaining a decent set of ability scores, or the like, but there's nothing that says I HAVE to allow players to get everything they want. "Having a thing is often not so satisfying as wanting a thing. It is not logical but it is often true." - Mr. Spock

Now if a DM has "approved" a character concept, but then won't bother to facilitate a player actually being able to FULFILL that concept then you're talking about a DM who's being a jerk and not any fault of the actual scheme for character generation.

There's a question there about how far the DM can go to insist on the 'purity' of the results, versus the rights of the player to play the character he wanted. Too strict, and the DM loses a player. Too loose, and the player can simply declare that his concept requires four 18's, or whatever, and keep 'rolling' until he gets it.

And those limits are set by the DM. Players who start out thinking they have every right to exceed those limits just because they WANT to don't really grasp the concepts involved. Yes a DM can set overly restrictive limits, but once a player agrees to the guidelines a DM is setting for his campaign then it's quite obvious that some concepts are simply OUT, regardless of how badly a player may want them. I therefore have no sympathy for players who complain after the fact about not getting what they want and being forced to accept "suboptimal" characters.

If I am DMing a game, the group will only use random rolls if the players push me hard into doing so. If the players do so, then they will use the numbers they roll. You don't get to have things both ways.)

Then you're being unreasonable. To accept the possibility of players using random rolls then you accept that random rolls are NOT PERFECT. It is a method that has advantages and disadvantages, just as point-buy has both advantages and disadvantages. I'll be the first to admit that random methods are LIKELY to require more DM intervention and monitoring than many DM's are willing to exercise. It's one thing to say that you don't like random methods and thus to disallow them, but to say you don't like them and then make them WORSE by not agreeing to adjudicate the results as necessary? Why not just disallow them and have done with it? All you're doing is strutting your dislike of random methods, not allowing players to make proper use of them. A player would be DOUBLY foolish to try it under your auspices because it would be quite clear that (though you haven't SAID so) you're more than wiling to force acceptance their low rolls and blame it on the players foolish choice, but if they actually roll quite well you'll almost certainly blame it on the method and take it away from them anyway.

Random methods require DM's active participation. The DM needs to set minimums, maximums, to work WITH players in coming up with acceptible character concepts and to be willing to still comprimise if the randomness of the dice are uncooperative. Players likewise need to accept that even WITH DM participation the random results of the dice may NOT give them what they want and to a noteworthy degree they MUST be willing to accept less than "optimal" results. Accept that or reject it as you wish, but if you do accept it then ACCEPT it.

 

[diaglo]

3d6 rolled in order
str
int
wis
con
dex
cha


i know a guy who cheats with point buy. he claims to know how point buy works, yet still ends up "rigging" his stats. when you call him on it... he says he didn't realize. and then next session he has changed his stats and race and classes all around just so he is better suited for the session....

in other words, it doesn't matter. he will cheat no matter what.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Wow, I can't believe the number of point-buy suggestions flying here. I hate point-buy, it takes the joy out of getting a "special" character.

"Special" is not dependant on good stat rolls. It just ISN'T.

Though I could be wrong/misremembering I seem to recall having seen at least one poll here on ENworld that showed that point-buy users are still in the minority by about half. I think what you see on threads like this is that they are FAR more vocal in their advocacy. My guess is that it's because they do have players who, if they didn't use a system of FORCED equity among PC stats, would complain endlessly or cheat repeatedly. That would be a player problem, not a problem of character generation methods.

My enjoyment of my character does not rely upon my character having stats that are either superior OR equal to other players characters. It relies much more upon what I do with what I have. My enjoyment isn't diminished if using random methods because I don't care for being afraid that someone else at the table might be having MORE fun than me. I don't need to have an "optimal" character to have fun. I don't need to be assured that noone else has a superior character to have fun.

Most of my personal dislike of point-buy methods is the resulting sterility of character creation, and the LACK of individuality (because ability scores are repeatedly min/maxed in the same ways with little or no variation) while under the distracting guise of allowing players what they want.

 

[leporidae]

In my group, rolling stats is a large part of the fun of making a character. When I offered the option of either the 3.0 method or a generous point buy everyone chose to roll. (All rolls public, witnessed by me or another player. Letting players roll privately is a formula for creating bitter inter-player conflict. As a GM I don't think high stats for players matters that much, though you may need to recalibrate encounter level.)

To even out the range of stats (and keep people from killing off or 'losing' characters with below-average stats) my system is that everyone rolled up two sets of statistics, using the 3.0 method. Then they chose one and put the other set into a pool - everyone then had the option of trading their numbers for a set from the pool (with a roll-off if two players wanted the same set). Essentially everyone ended up with an above average roll that more or less fit their character concept, without having to resort to point buy. (Nothing against point buy - we even play Gurps sometimes, I think it's more that random stats are a tradition, and help create the 'feel' of D&D.)

The spare sets of statistics came in handy for the rest of the campaign, to build allies and followers.

 

[ARandomGod]

RE: point buy. I did bring this up prior to the game starting, but the players do not want to use this method, preffering the chance to get higher stats from random rolls.

Try a point buy method that doesn't penalize the character's for having higher stats. A simple 28 point buy with every stat bought up from 8 at a one per one basis is a pretty good generation method.

(Of course, 4d6 drop the lowest is probably still better, but make it a 32 point buy at one per one and the point buy will probably be better.)


But, of course, as others have pointed out... always make people roll in front of you if you're using a random generation method.

As for the actual character itself... The way I see it you have two options (some might argue three). The third that I don't really see is to talk with him about cheating. I see this as a bad move socially, and I'll end my thoughts on that subject there.

So. Option one would be to ignore the fact that it's likely cheated, accept that it does fall within the realm of possibility if not probability, assume he rolled honestly and accept that you're an untrusting bastard... Having done all that, always make people roll in front of you. Not because you fear flaws in them, but because you've noticed a flaw in yourself and this will help you. (It's always best to take negative character traits on yourself than to try to project them on others).

Option two is to kill the character. That's right. Kill him. You're the GM, I'm sure you can find a creative way that he'll die without alerting him that you've got it out for him. Then allow him to make a new character. Hell, stop the game right there and console him, and watch those dice rolls. (or do point buy, but be sure you've announced future character gen changes like this before the death if you plan on making them). THen there's no access to ressurection magics (make certain there is not, if you're playing high enough this isn't an option, you'll have to be more creative in the way that you kill the character, but it can be done.)

And there you are. Either way the problem is solved.

 

[orsal]

Try a point buy method that doesn't penalize the character's for having higher stats. A simple 28 point buy with every stat bought up from 8 at a one per one basis is a pretty good generation method.

Especially for minimaxers -- 18s come pretty cheap with a linear point buy scale.

(Of course, 4d6 drop the lowest is probably still better, but make it a 32 point buy at one per one and the point buy will probably be better.)

Nope. The standard 3-out-of-4 d6 roll averages 12.24. Since your proposed scale is linear, you can convert that average directly: 6x4.24=25.4. Rather less than your form of point buy.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'll take a stab at this "special character" definition.

History: d&d originally used 3d6 in order & a character with 1 or more 15s was rare & "special".

Portablility: characters would be transferred over from one adventure to adventure, there was no campaign just a series of episodes. Characters were directly compared with each other rather than viewed within their campaign context.

Contempory: players want to have a special character relative to the other players existing characters & to their own previous characters. Specialness is defined by having a set of scores that are amazing compared to the others but they want these scores to be pseudo-legitimate. In effect this type of player wants a random & wide variance of possible scores but want their character to be special by occupying the upper decile of the range. It is an amazing mentality based (I think) on, if not adversarial gaming then very competitive gaming in some sort of effort to "win" by 'beating' the other players with amazing scores. I'd even go further to suggest that it is a hopelessly optimistic mentallity that does not recognize the probability of getting average scores, & when this not surprisingly happens, well, then the cheating begins.

Solution: ensure the player rolls the agreed method & enforce the results fairly. If need be revise rolling method to better suit the players vision.

****

Otoh, a special character could simply refer to a character that the player loves playing & all the group enjoy interacting with. This is my definition.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The "special" ness of any character randomly rolled died when Unearthed Arcana for AD&D first came out. What was it, like 9d6 for a fighter's strength?

Dragon had follow up articles for demi-human races.

Heck, even Advanced Game Mastery Guide by Green Ronin revisits this idea.

Of course the best is when the player doesn't get an 18 and then doesn't want to play the character anyway.

 

[delericho]

If I were DMing and a player fed me this line of reasoning I'd start to lose my temper. A decent character concept does not rely upon disproportionately higher stats than an AVERAGE player character will get in order to be worthwhile. If your "concept" demands all 18's is it a reasonable concept? What if it only demands all 16's? No player is ever going to tell me I'm being unreasonable or unfair if I tell them that their "character concept" is not going to make it in my campaign if it means I MUST allow them to have abnormally high stats right out of the gate.

Same with "suboptimal". A good character does NOT REQUIRE being maximally optimal. A good character is what you make of it, not just what his stats are. The louder a player starts trying to tell me that he has to have "optimal" stats the less inclined I'm going to be to allow him to have them! I don't mind giving players a fair amount of leeway in devising character concepts, obtaining a decent set of ability scores, or the like, but there's nothing that says I HAVE to allow players to get everything they want. "Having a thing is often not so satisfying as wanting a thing. It is not logical but it is often true." - Mr. Spock

Now if a DM has "approved" a character concept, but then won't bother to facilitate a player actually being able to FULFILL that concept then you're talking about a DM who's being a jerk and not any fault of the actual scheme for character generation.

I agree with everything you say to this point.

And those limits are set by the DM.

This I don't quite agree with. I think the group as a whole has to discuss power levels and acceptable concepts as a whole. If the DM wants to play a very low-powered game, and the players want to play a heroic game, there's a problem there, and there needs to be some movement on one end. And I don't feel that it's necessarily the players that should change. So, I feel the group needs to determine the chargen method together.

but once a player agrees to the guidelines a DM is setting for his campaign then it's quite obvious that some concepts are simply OUT, regardless of how badly a player may want them.

Yes, I agree with this, except that the group should set the guidelines together.

Then you're being unreasonable. To accept the possibility of players using random rolls then you accept that random rolls are NOT PERFECT. It is a method that has advantages and disadvantages, just as point-buy has both advantages and disadvantages. I'll be the first to admit that random methods are LIKELY to require more DM intervention and monitoring than many DM's are willing to exercise. It's one thing to say that you don't like random methods and thus to disallow them, but to say you don't like them and then make them WORSE by not agreeing to adjudicate the results as necessary?

What adjudication? The group decide to use 3/4d6, with no rerolls allowed, and then complain that they don't get the results that they want?

On the other hand, if the group had decided to use 3/4d6 with one reroll, or two rerolls, or rerolls if the numbers were unbalanced by X amount, then we use that, as stated. Either way, the system that was agreed is used.

No, I don't like random rolls, and I will make that clear to my players if I'm in that situation. If, however, the players are keen to use random rolls, then that's fair enough. But we'll then discuss exactly what random rolls to use, what rerolls to allow, and so on. But once a system is determined, that's it.

If the system is "3/4d6, reroll at the DM's whim", then what happens if everyone rolls a net +1 modifier and someone rolls +7? Does the DM have everyone else reroll, or the one player who rolls really well? If I were the player who rolled +7, I'd be really pissed if the DM tried to insist on that - such stats don't happen often.

Conversely, if one player rolls net +1, and everyone else is at +4, what happens if the reroll gives that player a +9?

So, I'm sorry, but I'll not adjudicate random rolls. The group will develop a system, and use it as written.

Why not just disallow them and have done with it? All you're doing is strutting your dislike of random methods, not allowing players to make proper use of them. A player would be DOUBLY foolish to try it under your auspices because it would be quite clear that (though you haven't SAID so) you're more than wiling to force acceptance their low rolls and blame it on the players foolish choice, but if they actually roll quite well you'll almost certainly blame it on the method and take it away from them anyway.

Not a chance. I have a preference for point-buy, but if the group decide to go with random rolls, then so be it. I'll not gloat over a player's low rolls, nor will I overrule high rolls. (Caveat: I will witness the rolls.) Once the decision is made, I'll accept it and move on. I have better things to argue about.

And, on a related note, I won't go out of my way to victimise a character because he happens to have rolled high stats, or has found a corner in the rules where his character is super-optimised. Similarly, I won't nerf the challenges faced by a character whose player has rolled low, or failed to optimise. What I will do is ensure I design challenges that allow each character time in the spotlight, preferably in a way that limits the ability of the super-character to steal the spotlight, but I'll do that for random rolls and point buy equally.

Random methods require DM's active participation. The DM needs to set minimums, maximums, to work WITH players in coming up with acceptible character concepts and to be willing to still comprimise if the randomness of the dice are uncooperative.

I generally take the view that, under a random roll scheme, the concept has to follow the stat rolls, and not the other way around. It strikes me that there are very few concepts that are so dependent on a particular number of 'good' stats that they can't work with whatever's rolled (with modification to the concept as required). Likewise, there are very few concepts that cannot be fit around a 'bad' stat or two. And those concepts really aren't suited to a random-roll scheme. If you must have a particular combination, you should really be using point-buy.

Players likewise need to accept that even WITH DM participation the random results of the dice may NOT give them what they want and to a noteworthy degree they MUST be willing to accept less than "optimal" results. Accept that or reject it as you wish, but if you do accept it then ACCEPT it.

In the event that I'm DMing for a group that's going with random rolls, we'll have discussed the two main pitfalls of random rolls: you might be stuck with one or two bad stats, perhaps even really bad stats, and one PC may be significantly better or worse than the others. Before the decision is taken, the group will have been asked if they're okay with that. Only if the answer is 'yes' will random-roll be used. Under those circumstances, I honestly don't believe it's unreasonable for the DM to deny a reroll to the player who rolled a 5. He agreed to the risk, and got unlucky.