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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6406418" data-attributes="member: 4937">I am only responding to this because this is part of a misunderstanding, and it's not a misunderstanding on my part.   I know well what people are rerolling and never said they are rerolling only single bad numbers.  I've talked about the impact (or lack of impact as the case may be) of single bad numbers at great length.  I've talked about meta-game procedures at great length.  There is no excuse for your claim that I'm misunderstanding what is being performed in the meta-game procedure.  Yes, I understand bad numbers are being accepted in play.  I've wrote pages on that by this point.  But even were I misunderstanding your tables metagame procedure, it wouldn't undermine my thesis in the slightest because rerolling whole characters or rerolling only individual results both fall under the heading of metagame procedures that mitigate against randomness to a large degree.  For the purposes of the thesis, no there isn't.As I have repeatedly suggested and discussed to the point of tedium just to try to correct this repeated assertion of yours that I don't get what you are talking about, I'm well aware of the effects of single low rolls and how high rolls in the same stat array tend to more than completely compensate.  It's not like even when given choice players don't min/max and utilize dump stats.   I've had point buy players buy down to single low stats to buy up their most important stat.   If "chucking hopeless" characters consists of throwing out "one bad, no good" and keeping "one bad, but one or more good" it's still heavily skewing the average and mitigating against probably the one unique aspect of random chargen - large inherent imbalance.Hey, now we are getting somewhere. However, since I'm not writing to prove anything about you particularly, but how random chargen impacts games and social contracts generally...A single terrible number is not a bad result.  This is particularly true for 1e D&D, where all a single terrible number meant is you lost your choice over which class to be and added a character quirk to a system generally lacking in mechanical customization.   Nor is having a bad number even remotely a unique aspect of rolled stats compared to chosen stats.   During my open dungeon crawl days in 3e, a player bought a character down to two 3's - something illegal to play in 1e AD&D even with rolled stats - because he figured that his half orc needed neither intelligence nor charisma in a game that was almost solely about combat.   Even in my present on going serious campaign, one player has a caster with like 6 or 4 strength (I forget which) so as to buy up charisma.  More to the point though, go back and reread my original 'firestorm' post again regarding how people dealt with imposed imbalance at the metagame level.  This applies to players playing actual hopeless characters, and not just the "I played characters with single bad stats so this proves I like randomness" shtick you seem to be focused on, as if I hadn't also played a perfectly playable character with 5 charisma and other low scores, or would be unwilling to do so again.  (Ko-Ko the mutated gorilla in Gamma World remains one of my favorite characters.)Anyway, since you find me such a cad, I'd appreciate you not responding to me</blockquote>

Verification