Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2475523" data-attributes="member: 32740">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification