Right - I understood the first time - I just don't think it's a functional way to proceed. I note how many games of all sorts, that are based around "winning" or "succeeding", have random or differential setups that are designed to gimp some players arbitrarily from the start. Noughts and crosses (what you call "tic tac toe" in the US?) is the only one that springs to mind.Yes, having random ability scores does have something to do with challenge. It's the challenge of succeeding or failing with what fate dealt you. How many timess do I have to repeat that??
Based on my ignorance of Modern Warfare 3 I'm going to stop this thread here rather than gamble on making mistakes that Imaro disapproves of.So again explain to me how playing with whatever lady luck gives you (even if it is a missfiring gun)... isn't a challenge as opposed to what you carefully optimize or pick? It seems like you're equating challenge to a very specific type of challenge (perhaps challenges Balesir approves of??) for some reason.
Gambling can be fun, because you gamble on each hand or throw of the dice. Playing with loaded dice or a stacked deck are considerably less popular - and that's the analogy, here.And you fail to see how that can be fun and challenging for some people? It seems pretty simple to me. Randomness is fun for alot of people (in the same way gambling can be). Having bad (or even good) scores can be fun and challenging because you're not playing exactly what you built to do exactly what you want in exactly the way you want.
Right - which is fun for short instances, not for life.You still don't get it. It's not about picking bad scores... randomness is not picking bad scores. It's about letting fate decide and succeding on what was given.
If I ask someone "have you always been a jerk?" that's "just asking a question". Asking a question doesn't preclude the question being a (possibly veiled) attack, even if the asker shrugs and looks innocent after asking.What ad hominem? I asked a question.
D&D has systems whereby you collect experience points, go up levels and loot dungeons/find treasure. It always has had. Levels go up to high numbers (at least 10 or so). Expecting that at least some characters should go up levels and have long, successful careers as adventurers might not be automatically valid based merely on the fact that such systems exist, but the fact that these systems have been the core of every edition so far seems to suggest that it is intended. Given such an expectation, rolling a really substandard character seems like just a hurdle or a waste of game time until they get killed - which I can't really see being a "fun" element in any game.Really? I think whaty it "bills itself as" depends a great deal on what edition of D&D we are talking about here. And since 5e is supppose to unite the editions... random character generation has been the default method more than it hasn't.