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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spinozajack" data-source="post: 6625248" data-attributes="member: 6794198">Personally, I see rolling vs point buy to be indicative of playstyle more than anything else. It boils down to, do you look over at the muscular jock over there and think to yourself, he must be about as strong and fit as I am smart and wise. Or do you think, maybe some guys get all the luck, and maybe I'm okay with having a few points more or less overall, because it's what I do with what I'm given that matters. Sometimes the tall dark and handsome guy over there also has a high IQ and a super work ethic. Or a terrible one. And that's where you come in. Beat them by working harder. It's not like in D&D you can't easily get your highest rolled stat to 20 within a few levels anyway. In 2e you rolled and were pretty much stuck with what you got. The stakes for such an outcome in 5th are very low.When we start a new game and I'm DMing, I let people roll if they want but they must keep the character and not be obviously trying to commit suicide if they didn't roll very well. If they take point buy, however, and someone else who took the risk and got three sixteens, two eighteens, and maybe a 7, and they get jealous, then I start thinking, this person is going to be a problem player who is going to argue rules with the DM at every opportunity to gain some advantage. I generally see people who are fine with a bad roll as being more mature, more zen about things, and usually therefore more chill, and better players. I wouldn't disparage people who like point buy because they are the RRSP type investor, but I have seen quite often that the type of player who is vehemently anti-rolling probably doesn't like too many surprises or bad things happening to their characters, and therefore wouldn't be a good fit in my games anyway. I prefer players creeping around against terrible odds and sometimes failing and dying, than thinking, "I picked these stats because I have the (unwarranted) expectation that this character is going to last". Why on earth would they believe that? If you think your player is going to last, does that not imply that you know the DM is going to play the game unfairly by giving you reprieves against the wishes of the dice?If the dice have no agency at character creation, why should they have more agency when it's time to decide if your character dies?I appreciate that people play D&D to have fun, but I am not a kid any more and I don't think playing with immature players is fun. I do think it's immature for you to peek over at someone else's character sheet and say "no fair, they rolled three 18s". I wouldn't just stop playing D&D with such a person, I probably wouldn't hang around AFCs outside the game, either. Entitlement complexes to having life treat you fairly gets tiresome. Stop complaining and whining about stuff, pick up a sword, and go do something about it. I bet the best swordsman in history wasn't the strongest or even the most agile, just the best trained and skilled and determined. That's the kind of winner I enjoy playing, one who starts off as the underdog and beats the favorite. As a story trope, I find David v. Goliath far more satisfying (and interesting) a story than Goliath v. Goliath.</blockquote>

Verification