Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6406633" data-attributes="member: 15700">I've seen this creep up in various places over the past couple of days, where there is an argument being presented that players are being punished for not doing the 4d6 method of stat gen as opposed to array (or point buy).&nbsp; I don't find that a very strong argument, and hopefully I can explain why.Note:&nbsp; I didn't provide the formula for the exact odds of rolling X stat Y number of times for 6 stats.&nbsp; that's pretty darn cumbersome, and I think the sample size below can illustrate the point clearly enough and be a good enough sample size to show how things average out.&nbsp; funny enough the average stat total in this example is the same as the array at the bottom (72 points)reason #1:&nbsp; The most obvious reason why I disagree with the presented argument is that &quot;punished&quot; is being used incorrectly.&nbsp; That's not what punishment means.&nbsp; You aren't being punished by choosing to use array and the person next to you uses 4d6 and ends up with a higher stat.&nbsp; Just like you aren't being punished by investing your money in a reliable and predicable IRA when the guy next to you hits it big on a put option.reason #2:&nbsp; what seems to be overlooked in all of these arguments is that while you do have a better chance of getting a high stat (after all, any chance at 16+ is better than array since you can't get higher than 15), you also have a chance of getting lower than an 8, or more than 1 stat with a penalty.&nbsp; Also something that is impossible with array.&nbsp; See the illustration below.&nbsp; I ran 15 sets of stats at 4d6 drop lowest.&nbsp; Green cells are those that are better than you can get as opposed to array.&nbsp; Red are those that are worse than array.&nbsp; Yes, there are more green than red, but that does not mean the player who used array is being punished.&nbsp; It's all about risk assessment.&nbsp; Because in this sample size, there are PCs who are significantly worse off than if they used array.&nbsp; And it seems odd to me that if the presented argument is assumed to be true, then the player who used array with higher stats is being punished compared to the player who rolled randomly and got worse stats <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Really, this entire discussion is not about punishment.&nbsp; No one is getting punished.&nbsp; It's 100% about &quot;if you take a risk, you may end up better than a guarantee.&nbsp; Or worse.&quot;&nbsp; Any argument presented as one of punishment, IMO of course, is a disingenuous one meant to cover up sour grapes.&nbsp; And for those who have said they will suicide their PCs if they don't roll a 17 (which has happened)?&nbsp; Thank God you don't pay at my table because I would ask you to leave.&nbsp; That's behavior* I see out of toddlers, not adults.[ATTACH]64537[/ATTACH]*or as I call it, the &quot;Jimmy got a bigger piece of cake than me, not fair!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6406633, member: 15700"] I've seen this creep up in various places over the past couple of days, where there is an argument being presented that players are being punished for not doing the 4d6 method of stat gen as opposed to array (or point buy). I don't find that a very strong argument, and hopefully I can explain why. Note: I didn't provide the formula for the exact odds of rolling X stat Y number of times for 6 stats. that's pretty darn cumbersome, and I think the sample size below can illustrate the point clearly enough and be a good enough sample size to show how things average out. funny enough the average stat total in this example is the same as the array at the bottom (72 points) reason #1: The most obvious reason why I disagree with the presented argument is that "punished" is being used incorrectly. That's not what punishment means. You aren't being punished by choosing to use array and the person next to you uses 4d6 and ends up with a higher stat. Just like you aren't being punished by investing your money in a reliable and predicable IRA when the guy next to you hits it big on a put option. reason #2: what seems to be overlooked in all of these arguments is that while you do have a better chance of getting a high stat (after all, any chance at 16+ is better than array since you can't get higher than 15), you also have a chance of getting lower than an 8, or more than 1 stat with a penalty. Also something that is impossible with array. See the illustration below. I ran 15 sets of stats at 4d6 drop lowest. Green cells are those that are better than you can get as opposed to array. Red are those that are worse than array. Yes, there are more green than red, but that does not mean the player who used array is being punished. It's all about risk assessment. Because in this sample size, there are PCs who are significantly worse off than if they used array. And it seems odd to me that if the presented argument is assumed to be true, then the player who used array with higher stats is being punished compared to the player who rolled randomly and got worse stats :confused: Really, this entire discussion is not about punishment. No one is getting punished. It's 100% about "if you take a risk, you may end up better than a guarantee. Or worse." Any argument presented as one of punishment, IMO of course, is a disingenuous one meant to cover up sour grapes. And for those who have said they will suicide their PCs if they don't roll a 17 (which has happened)? Thank God you don't pay at my table because I would ask you to leave. That's behavior* I see out of toddlers, not adults. [ATTACH=CONFIG]64537._xfImport[/ATTACH] *or as I call it, the "Jimmy got a bigger piece of cake than me, not fair!" [/QUOTE]

Verification