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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Those are all true too and clearly shows that both ways have their pros and cons. I think my main issue with the times I have played with rolled stats (both as player and DM) has been that it was normal to reroll bad arrays, but it wasn't really clear what constituted a bad array. Did you get to reroll 14, 14, 13, 10, 9, 3 or where were the undefined line that gave you a second chance. If we had used one set of rolls, no rerolls, I could see the charm in rolling stats (especially if they had to be placed as rolled), but if it dependent on who is best to argue for a reroll, it is less fun.

Another issue for me is, that very low stats give problems with roleplaying. Why would anyone hang around a guy with CHA 4 or INT 5 for very long (even if he hits like a truck)?

Good points. May I share an opinion?

I don't allow re-rolling, and I don't like re-rolling as a player. I give my players a fallback-to-point-buy option. (I also let them start at level 1d3, when we remember to do so. That's a Dark Sun influence BTW. It has no real effect on play since levels 1-3 go so fast but it injects some random variation which I find aesthetic.)

Beyond that fallback option, if someone rolled poorly and wanted to re-roll, I'd say, "No. Finish that character and put it in your character tree, or donate it to me as an NPC. Then roll up a new character." The idea is that every character who gets rolled up is somehow "real", even if you don't want to invest time in him.

I agree about Cha 5, although not necessarily about Int 6. For that reason, when I have to pick a dump stat it is usually Str. If there's a second dump stat it might be Cha, but I will expect repercussions. I will probably end up playing the guy like Arnold J. Rimmer, and apologizing to the other players between sessions for his boorish behavior in-game. It could still be fun though.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

What it sounds like to me is you are asking everyone else to play by one set of rules and you by a different set. Everyone else will be rolling their characters but you hang back and see what way will be the most advantageous to you. For these games I like everyone to operate under the same set of rules what ever they might be.

My personal experience is that even basically honest and good guys may tell you things that turn out to not be true, because the unofficial rules and ritual are hard to describe. So, indeed, I once ended up playing under a different set of rules, to my great disadvantage, though I do not think anyone did that to me on purpose.

Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about...

I think my main issue with the times I have played with rolled stats (both as player and DM) has been that it was normal to reroll bad arrays, but it wasn't really clear what constituted a bad array. Did you get to reroll 14, 14, 13, 10, 9, 3 or where were the undefined line that gave you a second chance. If we had used one set of rolls, no rerolls, I could see the charm in rolling stats (especially if they had to be placed as rolled), but if it dependent on who is best to argue for a reroll, it is less fun.

I am finding your point of view confusing, Crothian. If you are a roll with the punches and roll with the rolls kind of guy, is me "hang[ing] back and see[ing] what way will be the most advantageous" something worth worrying over? It seems very inconsistent, but I might be missing something. Is there some specific scenario you have in mind? Is it really a bad thing if I just wait to see and ask the DM for averageish stats, after the other data points are in? Sure, other players might want in on that action, but that does not seem like a problem to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Good points. May I share an opinion?

I don't allow re-rolling, and I don't like re-rolling as a player. I give my players a fallback-to-point-buy option. (I also let them start at level 1d3, when we remember to do so. That's a Dark Sun influence BTW. It has no real effect on play since levels 1-3 go so fast but it injects some random variation which I find aesthetic.)

Beyond that fallback option, if someone rolled poorly and wanted to re-roll, I'd say, "No. Finish that character and put it in your character tree, or donate it to me as an NPC. Then roll up a new character." The idea is that every character who gets rolled up is somehow "real", even if you don't want to invest time in him.

I find it funny, but that is how my brother in law used to play... you could have 5 'active' and 5 'passive' characters, and they only got used when you wanted... but 9 put of 10 times it was really make X number of characters then choose 1 or 2 to play... at that point it's really just roll till your happy.

It's your way (and his old 2e DM who I think also took from darksun) and in the end it means that low rolls don't get put in play... so it really is the same end as my way, it just is different.

 

[Crothian]

I am finding your point of view confusing, Crothian. If you are a roll with the punches and rolls with the rolls kind of guy, is me "hang[ing] back and see[ing] what way will be the most advantageous" something worth worrying over? It seems very inconsistent, but I might be missing something.

It's just treating people all the same. If we all agree to roll character except you then we don't roll characters. So there would be no need for you to hang back and see what happens. I want to come up with rules and guidelines that apply to everyone equally and everyone is happy with. Honestly, this is why I moved to allowing the players to pick their stats. We didn't have to go through any of this other BS.

The way I really liked though was when everyone had to describe the character they wanted to play without using any game terms or mechanics and based on their descriptions everyone else assigned stats for their character.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

"Hold back agreement" simply means agreeing to nothing. "Let me see how you guys build your characters." Is there anything wrong with that? Is it really necessary for me to sign something in blood at the outset?

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. I was asking for clarification of your meaning, not criticizing your meaning. (How can you criticize something you haven't even yet understood?)

Furthermore, if you come to my table, and I say, "You can roll and then fall back to point-buy if you don't like the rolled array," and you say, "Hang on, I want to create my character last," I'll say, "Sure, no problem. In fact it's great if you guys coordinate amongst yourselves to make sure you'll all be happy with your race/stat/class choices. Good thinking." You could even say, "Hang on, I'm not even sure I want to play with you guys yet. Let me see how your chargen goes and then I'll let you know." and I would say, "Sure, no problem. I hope you come onboard but do what's right for you."

I have no problem with players wanting to make decisions with full information.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I find it funny, but that is how my brother in law used to play... you could have 5 'active' and 5 'passive' characters, and they only got used when you wanted... but 9 put of 10 times it was really make X number of characters then choose 1 or 2 to play... at that point it's really just roll till your happy.

It's your way (and his old 2e DM who I think also took from darksun) and in the end it means that low rolls don't get put in play... so it really is the same end as my way, it just is different.

Over the long haul, it was not necessarily so greatly different at Gary's table or in other early groups. Reading between the lines and a bit of speculation...

The PC attrition rate was extremely high in early D&D, and players were constantly rolling up 2-3 PCs to be butchered in the coming session, to come back and do the same tomorrow night. Surviving to level 2 was hard, and level 3 made that character something special, regardless of stats. So if your crappy PC from last week got "forgotten" and you rolled up two more PCs for the night, nobody cared. That PC with the bad stats who survived last night's blood bath and was now close to 2nd level, whether he made another appearance was your call.

So in multi-DM megadungeon bloodbaths being run at HS and college gaming groups, it would be perfectly normal to roll up a new PC every week until you got the cool stats and hoped that PC lived. He probably did not.

Eventually the game transitioned towards higher PC survival rates and even protagonist-like conventions. But the idea of roll until you get a PC you like persisted in various fashions.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Good points. May I share an opinion?

If I wasn't interested in your opinion, I wouldn't have posted in a forum

I don't allow re-rolling, and I don't like re-rolling as a player. I give my players a fallback-to-point-buy option. (I also let them start at level 1d3, when we remember to do so. That's a Dark Sun influence BTW. It has no real effect on play since levels 1-3 go so fast but it injects some random variation which I find aesthetic.)

Beyond that fallback option, if someone rolled poorly and wanted to re-roll, I'd say, "No. Finish that character and put it in your character tree, or donate it to me as an NPC. Then roll up a new character." The idea is that every character who gets rolled up is somehow "real", even if you don't want to invest time in him.

Isn't that technically just another form of re-rolling until you are happy with the result?

I agree about Cha 5, although not necessarily about Int 6. For that reason, when I have to pick a dump stat it is usually Str. If there's a second dump stat it might be Cha, but I will expect repercussions. I will probably end up playing the guy like Arnold J. Rimmer, and apologizing to the other players between sessions for his boorish behavior in-game. It could still be fun though.

I personally hate having below 8 in any of the mental stats (and prefer at least 10 in INT and CHA). I guess I want to be likable

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The way I really liked though was when everyone had to describe the character they wanted to play without using any game terms or mechanics and based on their descriptions everyone else assigned stats for their character.

That seems better than rolling or point buy to me.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Nevermind. Didn't realize I was replying to a 2 year old post.

 

[Crothian]

That seems better than rolling or point buy to me.

In practice it was okay; the campaign was pretty awesome though. One guy just wasn't great at describing his character like that so felt hampered by the process. Another player admitted afterwards he didn't really read the descriptions. I figured something was up with him when he assigned the described clumsy character a 17 dexterity. One of the women we game with didn't give anyone a charisma lower then 17 because she didn't want to adventure with any uglies. One player assigned some stats in the 20's because in the guidelines I wrote up I didn't limit what the attributes could be.