D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[Sacrosanct]

I presented an argument upthread pre-necro. [MENTION=9053]SteveC[/MENTION] presented basically the same argument not very far upthread and post-necro.

Some people do not want to play a game in which some players have characters whose mechanical capacity to impact play is significantly different from that of others.

I don't think that's a very complicated preference. Even those who don't share it should be able to understand it.

.

Yes, I don't prefer to play in a game where some people start of better mechanically than others. This is surprising someone?

OK, I think I need to repeat myself a bit because you both seem to be ignoring it. Let's break this down. What exactly is "better mechanically" or "impacts play significantly"? A +1 bonus? A +2 bonus? Because that's all you're going to get if you take the risk to roll vs. array or point by. You also will most likely have extra -'s as well, which you keep ignoring. But anyway, let's just set that very relevant point aside for now. Even if you ignore that very important fact, right now you have the same thing in point buy and array. I gave examples earlier. In my array game right now, the two fighters have different bonuses to hit and damage and have since creation based on the choices of array distribution and race. That +1 difference between the two has no impact to gameplay, encounter building, whatever in the game. So disparity already exists no matter which method you use. It also happens whenever a PC finds an item that either increases an ability score or increases a bonus. It is indisputable fact that the game assumes PCs will have different values in their bonuses/penalties.

And the bonus is nothing like choosing to wear a particular kind of armor, because that's a choice. If I have a choice what my stats are, they're going to be a point-buy or an array... and that's a choice. Like wearing the right or wrong armor.

Choosing how to distribute your array or point buy, and choosing which race to play are also choices. It's all a choice.

It seems like you and I don't like the same kinds of games. That's fine: enjoy. Just don't think you're doing anything "better" than I am, m'kay?

I said this to Hussar earlier when he tried the same strawman. I'm making no judgements about what type of games you like or don't like. And I'm not saying my style is better than yours. It's actually you guys who are arguing that one (random chargen) is worse than the other. In fact, I've stated from the beginning that the two styles more often than not end up with similar results. Some times one ends up mechanically better than the other, and vice versa. What I am saying is that the arguments I'm seeing for why random chargen is bad seems to be coming down to sour grapes or jealousy. Why? Let's look at the arguments:

1. I don't like one PC having a significant mechanical advantage over another
2. I have to change encounter balance when one PC is mechanically better than the other.
3. I am being punished because another PC has a higher stat
4. It is not fair for another PC to have a higher stat (these last two aren't necessarily in this thread, but in other threads that sparked this one)

Let's look at the objective factual data
1. The vast majority of time, random roll will not grant a PC additional variation in modifiers outside of array or point buy, and when it does, it's just as likely to have lower modifiers as well
2. Attribute modifier variance exists in all three methods currently due to player choice of distribution and race selection
3. The game assumes variation in modifiers from one PC to the next already

Those three factual points all disprove argument 1 and 2 right off unless you're talking about a variance of maybe a +4/5 difference, and even then it's still pretty subjective as to what the impact is. Also, the chances of that actually happening in random vs array are so remote that they likely won't ever happen.

For argument 3, that's just not what punishment means, as I explained in the very first post of this thread.

For #4, people are confusing "fair" with "lucky". They mean different things. If everyone is treated the same, given the same choices and opportunities, then they are being treated fairly. Like I keep saying that keeps getting ignored, if me and Bob are both given $1000 and I put mine in the bank and Bob invests his in a risky venture and doubles it, I'm not being treated unfairly. That's just silly to think or say that, and if I did, it would only be because of my sour grapes or jealousy.

So....this all begs the question of both of you. Since variation already exists in all methods, and I'm assuming you don't make all your PCs have the same modifiers for everything, why do you still steadfastly argue that random gen is bad when it doesn't result in any more variation than what currently is there? What exactly is this "significant difference" look like? Because from where I'm sitting, just the thought that another PC might have an extra +1 is what you don't like. It doesn't impact balance, or overall game play, or anything like that because there are so many factors that impact modifiers throughout the game that mathematically an additional +1 is incredibly minor. Just that someone else might be a little better overall is what chaps your hide and you can't have that. Nevermind the fact that the PC most likely also has an additional "-" or lower value in another stat than your PC (because that's how statistics works).

So yeah, when someone adamantly sticks to an argument that easily breaks down upon scrutiny, that rings of sour grapes or jealousy to me. I said it earlier. 99% of the time you wouldn't even know the other PC had a higher stat unless you looked at their sheet or did the reverse math on their die rolls. And that's the exact same behavior of little Jimmy measuring the pie slices to make sure they were exactly the same. As my mom used to say, and as I say to my kids, "Worry about yourself, and stop worrying about him."

Besides, D&D is a team game. This attitude of PC vs PC competition (no one can be better than me) is toxic, IMO, because it breed resentment. PCs are supposed to help each other, and be glad when something good happens to another. Not get upset because your PC didn't roll as high. It's the exact same with random HP rolls. There's a big difference between:

"I don't like random HP rolls because I want the sure thing and I don't want to take the risk or mathematically taking 6 on a d10 always is better"

and

"Random HP rolls are bad because I rolled a 4 for HP and Joe rolled an 8. That's not fair."

 

[Sacrosanct]

What I suspect is many people are pretending to enjoy dice games but actually rebelling against the system.

"I love rolling dice. I just hate the randomization."

 

[Lezta]

Have you allowed anyone to reroll if they were unhappy with their stats? Because that's a pretty big component of the "problem" PB-favorers have with rolling. That is, there's never less chance of "reward," but almost all rolling methods, and many tables, offer things which partially or even significantly reduce the "risk" involved. One table I played at, the DM flat out said, "I don't think it's interesting to have PCs that suck. Reroll any stat that's less than 10, if you like, until it's at least 10." I was quite happy accepting rolling there (and, surprise surprise, most people got pretty good stats as a result! ) This is, of course, not what I'd expect at most tables that roll, but it's hyperbole for effect: even you seem to make exception for the really terrible rolls (e.g. 8/5/3/9/8/6 or whatever you would consider "unplayable") despite them being just as likely as really amazing rolls (e.g. 12/17/18/11/12/14, which is the exact 'inversion' of the aforementioned terrible array)--and cutting the bad ones out ups the chances of getting the mediocre and good ones.

I'm pretty clear that there is no reroll, you get what you get. However, in game as mechanically constrained as 4e, I'd be more inclined to allow some leway. In 2e, 3e, and 5e I'm less worried about a bad array of stats, though as I said, I've never actually seen an entire set of stats that I'd describe as 'unplayable' (i.e. nothing as high as 14).

EDIT: Of course, some players may be significantly less powerful than others, it can happen. It's funny though, those players tend to get a bit more focus on their characters story, a little more chance of a useful magic item. You can balance 'broken' stats in other ways, if its needed.

 

[spinozajack]

If you want PCs to not diverge in power too much in 5th edition, you need to play without feats anyway.

These feats are nowhere near mechanically balanced in that sense. I like them, but there are a few outliers in terms of power.

If PC 1 has a 16 strength at level 1 and polearm master, and the other has an 18 strength from rolling stats, those two PCs will not be mechanically balanced in the slightest.

It is for this reason that I do not allow the optional rule of variant humans. A feat like polearm master or sharpshooter with a dual wielding axe throwing archery style fighter will walk all over the rest of the group in terms of damage output.

5th edition feats are not balanced. So if people care about balance, don't use them. Or houserule them. But the base game, having one PC use stat rolling and the other using point buy is likely to have a far lower max difference in ability than PC 1 taking a feat and PC 2 not taking one.

Of course, if you allow variant humans and stat rolling to take a chance to get at least one natural 17 or 18, it's easy for them to have a super powerful PC at level 1, and by level 5 forget it. People who are not mechanically inclined to not picking the "right" feats will be in a whole different ballgame in terms of damage output.

 

[Parmandur]

You know if people were not so prone to use stupid loaded words like whine and baby and jeluse or sour grapes these threads would be mutch nicer places....





I also have laugh at people saying +1 doesn't matter well skipping my examples where Mitch higher variance accrued... If my high roll is 14 and your is 18 you choose aa race that give +2 to that stat and I don't that is already +3 different...and at level4 you choose a feat and I choose to get closer to your stat... You could have 3 feats before I catch up on stats....



The real world isn't fair... I see no reason a game can't be

Solution: never use Feats, so that super rolled characters only choice is to bump their dump stats. Given Bounded Accuracy, the difference isn't that great. I wouldn't ever want to play point buy, as rolling is more fun for me and everybody I've ever played with, but rock on and enjoy your game!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There seems to be some sort of equating of "conflict" with combat; and of "conflict" (and combat) with "not roleplay". That's an approach to the game that is very foreign to me.

If you assume that there is no conflict or pressure outside of combat; that outside of combat there is no mechanical action resolution; and that mechanical action resolution is at odds with roleplaying; then I can see how you would think that stats don't matter to roleplaying. Again, that's a set of assumptions that is very foreign to how I play the game.

If the game focuses on a certain sort of exploration rather than on conflict, though, then I can see that mechanical action resolution, and hence stats, may not matter. I would think of that as a certain sort of Gygaxian or Moldvay-style play. Though that's not an approach to the game that I would associate with "roleplaying" in the sense that the Inspiration rule are addressing.

It's more that other factors dominate stat bonuses in mechanical action resolution than an absence of mechanical action resolution. Stat bonuses may give you +5 to stealth and prof gives +3 or +4, but being in the dark is also an effective +5 (due to passive perception penalties for your opposition) and PWT gives +10, so what matters is not whether your Dex is 14 vs 20 but rather whether the place you're trying to sneak into has tripwires/pit traps/guard dogs/intellect deckers devourers, which don't rely on smell. That's one example. It's not that stats don't matter at all, but they're not mandatory. Even combat doesn't have to be approached from a stats-heavy perspective. If you don't think you can handle the dragon, feel free to organize a militia and pass out drow poison. Or evacuate the planet, as they chose to do instead.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sunseeker]

I just prefer that everyone start on the same mechanical playing field.

That's fine then. I know a lot of people don't like it when better players or potentially luckier players get better stuff when those options were potentially available to everyone.

 

[SteveC]

OK, I think I need to repeat myself a bit because you both seem to be ignoring it. Let's break this down. What exactly is "better mechanically" or "impacts play significantly"? A +1 bonus? A +2 bonus? Because that's all you're going to get if you take the risk to roll vs. array or point by. You also will most likely have extra -'s as well, which you keep ignoring. But anyway, let's just set that very relevant point aside for now. Even if you ignore that very important fact, right now you have the same thing in point buy and array. I gave examples earlier. In my array game right now, the two fighters have different bonuses to hit and damage and have since creation based on the choices of array distribution and race. That +1 difference between the two has no impact to gameplay, encounter building, whatever in the game. So disparity already exists no matter which method you use. It also happens whenever a PC finds an item that either increases an ability score or increases a bonus. It is indisputable fact that the game assumes PCs will have different values in their bonuses/penalties.

Uh, any of them. As someone who favors a point-buy or array system, I don't want anyone to be better--or worse--by chance at the start of the game. Yes, that means I also prefer static hit point increases, for instance.

I prefer the factors that you decide when you build a character to be controlled by you, the player, and not subject to random factors.

This isn't a strange notion: there are many, many games out there with this assumption. In fact I'd say that games that aren't based on AD&D or the OSR use this method overwhelmingly.

When you're playing the game, all bets are off: if you pick up a +1 sword, well, good for you. Find a manual of gainful exercise, and your strength goes up. Cool for you! The game mechanics set equality for opportunity, not result.

As I write this, I find it increasingly difficulty to understand why this is something that needs to be argued, but I suspect that you have not played many games outside of D&D or OSR games. For RPGs that aren't D&D, this is par for the course. You could argue that this is the very reason for some of their existence.

I strongly suggest playing a game like Dungeon World if you haven't. It's SRD is free and you can find it right here. Other games like Fate, the Star Wars RPG, the Hero System and many more of them all approach character building this way, and many of them have been around for decades.

If I'm not playing a game that's Diceless (like, say Amber, or it's new incarnation Lords of Gossamer and Shadow), I'm all-in for randomness in my gameplay because I like uncertainty as a part of the game part of an RPG.

I just prefer the character creation to be something I control. You ask a lot of questions about why that matters, but the simple answer is "it's a preference." At my age, I don't get a lot of time to play RPGs (this 'lack of time thing' has sort of become my mantra) so I find that I play games that actually cater to my preferences at this point, which 5E certainly can do, although I don't think it does this as well as previous editions.

 

[Umbran]

in my experience, almost always turned out to be the ones who think an unlucky dice roll that killed their character is "unfair". And why play unfair games, right? And then they storm off after throwing the dice across the room. Immature. Player. Gone. Goodbye.

You have to go a long, long way to demonstrate that your personal experience is sufficient to cast aspersions to a wider group. So, please don't go there. In this, you have basically suggested it is a personal flaw for people to disagree with you - and that turns this into a matter of insult and ego, rather than reason, which means an invitation to non-productive argument.

So, as we usually say, don't make it personal.

 

[Coredump]

Uh, any of them. As someone who favors a point-buy or array system, I don't want anyone to be better--or worse--by chance at the start of the game. Yes, that means I also prefer static hit point increases, for instance.

I prefer the factors that you decide when you build a character to be controlled by you, the player, and not subject to random factors.

As you say, this is a preference, so I am not trying to convince you otherwise. But for me... I like the idea of roleplaying a human that happens to exist in that world, using point buy feels more like I am designing an android instead. To me if feels unnecessarily artificial that all 5 PCs are at the exact same starting point.
Plus, by rolling I have a greater feeling of uniqueness. Two fighters are likely to have very similar, if not identical, starting stats. By rolling, the stats are more 'yours' rather than 'same as everyone'.

When you're playing the game, all bets are off: if you pick up a +1 sword, well, good for you. Find a manual of gainful exercise, and your strength goes up. Cool for you! The game mechanics set equality for opportunity, not result.

Um...... rolling for stats is the *exact same*.... equality for opportunity, not result.

But I prefer a more organic game. I prefer that found treasure/magic be organic and somewhat random. Some systems/DMs will allow you to 'pick and choose' what items you get.... I don't want that either.