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

[GMforPowergamers]

If you don't agree to the character creation rules then no one should be rolling anything.

that's not even close to my experience... I have to say that even at my house sometimes I have topick up one of the players (over 40 years old and still no licence) and as such I get to game after things already started... if it is a new campaign I could easily sit down with ross and have my roommate easy say "hey they already started making characters here is the way to do it"

If people are rolling up character then everyone has agreed to roll up characters. If you didn't agree to it but are going to do it anyway then get a backbone and put your foot down or something.

um... my example was that 3 people rolled, and then I asked a question... I can't imagine what you mean by get a backbone... I asked a question when presented the rules... what are you talking about here?

If you can't keep to something as simple as character generation then what other rules are you going to want changed after the fact? It's a warning sign to me of a problem player.

so just to make sure this exactly what you mean to say... because I have a different option that I ask for you relate that to a problem player...

I would not game with them.

only 1 person from that group is still in my group...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How is character generation the "entire campaign"?

because if we generate stats, those stats are yours for the game...

As far as recourse for what to do - in many games, there are plenty. 3e and PF have certainly made a good many easily available, and for all stats not just Strength and Dexterity like in previous editions.

yes, but it is then your answer to give items that balance them... how is that different then just balancing?

Or, realize that your competition is the enemy, and focus on your competition with them rather than your compatriots.

the point of the game is to have fun... if you are not having fun, then what difference does it make who the enemy is

 

[Crothian]

that's not even close to my experience

Ya, I think we game with completely different people. Reading these posts it almost sounds to me you have less issue with people rolling stats then of people cheating when they roll stats. Point buy at least potentially keeps everyone honest. I think with some of the players you seem to play with I would have an additional rule of only one person rolls attributes at a time so everyone at the table can watch. And none of that "well that roll doesn't count" nonsense. If I felt I had to play with people like that I would insist on point buy too.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ya, I think we game with completely different people. Reading these posts it almost sounds to me you have less issue with people rolling stats then of people cheating when they roll stats. Point buy at least potentially keeps everyone honest. I think with some of the players you seem to play with I would have an additional rule of only one person rolls attributes at a time so everyone at the table can watch. And none of that "well that roll doesn't count" nonsense. If I felt I had to play with people like that I would insist on point buy too.

that was years ago, I haven't had an issue with cheaters since before 5e playtesting started (the pathfinder game was the last time half of those people and I meet)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am about to run a game for two players. The decision is made to use randomly generated stats using 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired. To save time, I generate the stats. Th first set is all 14's or higher. The second set is all 12's or lower. I flip a coin to see which player gets which set. Is that fair?
What if I had decided before I generated the stats, "these are Tracy's stats" and then, "these are Terry's stats": would that be any less fair?
Statistically speaking, the methods are identical and a they are statistically equivalent to letting each player generate their own stats.
To say the resulting game experience will be equitable for both players is to misunderstand the definition.

It may be statistically equivalent and also equitable (equitable: "fair and impartial"; fair, just, impartial, even-handed, unbiased, unprejudiced, egalitarian) by some definitions of "fair" including the one I'd use. That doesn't make it a good idea. Mathematically, rolling saving throws for the players is equivalent to letting them roll their own, but I don't think many players like having the DM roll their saves for them. It feels like stepping on the player's toes, and especially in this case, the players are likely IMO to feel that the experience is a bit cheapened by you having rolled these stats for them. But maybe not--if they asked you to roll their stats for them (as I have done with some DMs) to remove any possible suspicions of cheating, then the players would be fine with it. I would, anyway, and if I got the 12 and under set I'd play either a Moon Druid or a Sorlock, because either one can be fun with low initial stats.

(Cha 9 for a warlock would be pushing it--I have a Cha 9 sorcerer in my current game, now Cha 11 due to ASI, and while he is playable, his niche is narrower than it could be with better stats. He throws a lot of Magic Missiles for example because Cha doesn't affect them. If all stats were 9 and under I would definitely make a Moon Druid instead of a Sorlock because Cha 9 goes past my personal boundaries of where fun is.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There is a word for that and it is called cheating. If everyone agrees to roll then you get to roll. Sure, some of those stat blocks are pretty good and others might not be so good but that's part of the game when you agree to roll up characters. If you want a fair game then everyone gets to play by the exact same rules and we don't make exceptions for people just because.

Careful. He was springboarding from my response to Sacrosanct, via his own earlier post.

If all these posters are so serious about being openminded and fair in their pro-rolling views, then there should be nothing wrong with the player holding back agreement to see how the chargen plays out in this group. Giving the context, why not just write down stats and ask the DM for permission? It is not cheating if I made no specific promise, and the DM agrees the results are reasonable in his/her campaign. What is the problem? Am I supposed to "earn" my stats by some unwritten definition of "fairness"? Do my stats negatively impact someone else's fun?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Careful. He was springboarding from my response to Sacrosanct, via his own earlier post.

If all these posters are so serious about being openminded and fair in their pro-rolling views, then there should be nothing wrong with the player holding back agreement to see how the chargen plays out in this group. Giving the context, why not just write down stats and ask the DM for permission? It is not cheating if I made no specific promise, and the DM agrees the results are reasonable in his/her campaign. What is the problem? Am I supposed to "earn" my stats by some unwritten definition of "fairness"? Do my stats negatively impact someone else's fun?

I don't understand the bolded text, but as far as "choose your own stats" goes: in GURPS I'd allow it. In D&D I'd be quite reluctant for reasons that have nothing to do with over/underpoweredness. (E.g. I bet you all the stat values will be even numbers, which is statistically unlikely and therefore artificial and unaesthetic.) Given my relationship with my players, if they really wanted to choose stats instead of rolling them I might just say, "Okay, fine," but I'd really rather play D&D with random stat distributions. I even random-generate some NPC stats in order to keep them realistic.

 

[Crothian]

If all these posters are so serious about being openminded and fair in their pro-rolling views, then there should be nothing wrong with the player holding back agreement to see how the chargen plays out in this group. Giving the context, why not just write down stats and ask the DM for permission? It is not cheating if I made no specific promise, and the DM agrees the results are reasonable in his/her campaign. What is the problem? Am I supposed to "earn" my stats by some unwritten definition of "fairness"?

If the players want to pick stats then let them. But if we agree to something first and then based on the results you want to change the rules that's where I have the problem. If you say "Let's roll and then if we are not happy we pick stats" I'm fine with that. Honestly, as long as the players all agree then I don't really care how they do it. I just don't like it when we all agree on one thing and then the results come in and one player now has a problem with it. If you want to put in a safety net then let's do that first not after the after the fact.

Do my stats negatively impact someone else's fun?

They seem to since one of the arguments from the non rolling people is they don't like it when another player has better stats then they do.

 

[Sunseeker]

Character creation is not the end of the conversation, rather it is the beginning of on going conversation that exists as long as the game is being played. Would it be better if we were all able to effectively communicate all our expectations and wants effectively? Sure, but we communicate on many levels.

Which supports my statement that character creation alone is not enough to provide a clear picture of what you want from the game.

 

[billd91]

yes, but it is then your answer to give items that balance them... how is that different then just balancing?

My answer isn't to "give" them anything. My answer is to remind them that, if the issue is important, they have means to redress it within the game. It's entirely possible that the issue won't be significant enough to pursue given the events of the campaign. Either way, it's the player's decision to make based on how the game is unfolding, not just because of a comparison based on character stats in a vacuum.

the point of the game is to have fun... if you are not having fun, then what difference does it make who the enemy is

How do you know you aren't going to have fun with lower stats if none of the role playing has actually occurred?