Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6405362" data-attributes="member: 4937">Not really.&nbsp; You said you were fine with bad results.&nbsp; I just wanted to see how highly you valued bad results.&nbsp; Turns out you value fairness and good results more highly.&nbsp; You don't actually want the short end of the stick.You keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it does.&nbsp;&nbsp; Random results will produce results that are inherently unfair.&nbsp; Yes, there is equal possibility of good and bad outcomes, but once those outcomes are actually realized, once they cease to be mere potentialities, they will be distributed unequally.&nbsp; One person will have a result that is bad and another will have a result that is good, and for no good reason.&nbsp;&nbsp; They didn't deserve to have a weaker character than everyone else.&nbsp; Dice aren't fair.&nbsp;&nbsp; Randomness isn't fair.&nbsp;&nbsp; Randomness is capricious.&nbsp;&nbsp; It distributes outcomes unevenly.&nbsp;&nbsp; It doesn't work out in the long run.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you got a bad character this time, it doesn't mean you'll get a good one next time or the next time or the next time.&nbsp; When I offer you a situation where there is a strong possibility you'll be the loser at the table saddled with bad stats, you don't like it.&nbsp; You don't think it is fair.&nbsp; So why should anyone at the table settle for that outcome?&nbsp; You said you were fine with bad results.&nbsp; But you aren't fine with bad results.&nbsp; You are fine with bad results until your realize they are actually going to happen.So don't use random.&nbsp; Because when you accept that random is the method, you are accepting that you actually want as a possible outcome every stat being low.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you don't want that possibility, use a method the precludes it not from happening only rarely, but entirely.&nbsp; Of course in point of actual fact, even those that do say they like random do preclude it.&nbsp; The real method they use is not 'random', but 'random, and if results &lt; expectation, proceed to complex metagame negotiations and rules evasion'This is the fundamental reason I don't give players the option of either using 4d6 take the best 3 or point buy.&nbsp; Some gamblers will take the chance on that thrill of an 18, but it never ends there if they don't get it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I know that what I'm really doing is giving players the option to play with more points than they could get with point buy.&nbsp; They'll just keep rolling until they get what they actually want.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't believe you can pull anything over on me.&nbsp; And the answer is, &quot;Lots of experience with players.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6405362, member: 4937"] Not really. You said you were fine with bad results. I just wanted to see how highly you valued bad results. Turns out you value fairness and good results more highly. You don't actually want the short end of the stick. You keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. Random results will produce results that are inherently unfair. Yes, there is equal possibility of good and bad outcomes, but once those outcomes are actually realized, once they cease to be mere potentialities, they will be distributed unequally. One person will have a result that is bad and another will have a result that is good, and for no good reason. They didn't deserve to have a weaker character than everyone else. Dice aren't fair. Randomness isn't fair. Randomness is capricious. It distributes outcomes unevenly. It doesn't work out in the long run. If you got a bad character this time, it doesn't mean you'll get a good one next time or the next time or the next time. When I offer you a situation where there is a strong possibility you'll be the loser at the table saddled with bad stats, you don't like it. You don't think it is fair. So why should anyone at the table settle for that outcome? You said you were fine with bad results. But you aren't fine with bad results. You are fine with bad results until your realize they are actually going to happen. So don't use random. Because when you accept that random is the method, you are accepting that you actually want as a possible outcome every stat being low. If you don't want that possibility, use a method the precludes it not from happening only rarely, but entirely. Of course in point of actual fact, even those that do say they like random do preclude it. The real method they use is not 'random', but 'random, and if results < expectation, proceed to complex metagame negotiations and rules evasion' This is the fundamental reason I don't give players the option of either using 4d6 take the best 3 or point buy. Some gamblers will take the chance on that thrill of an 18, but it never ends there if they don't get it. I know that what I'm really doing is giving players the option to play with more points than they could get with point buy. They'll just keep rolling until they get what they actually want. I don't believe you can pull anything over on me. And the answer is, "Lots of experience with players." [/QUOTE]

Verification