D&D 5E [D&D Next] Second Packet - initial impressions

[Scribble]

I'll say it again, too (Sam).

Hey did you know that Bogart never actually says "Play it again Sam" in Casablanca?

He says "Play it Sam" and "Again Sam" but never "Play it again Sam."



I now return you to your daily enworld endless argument.

 

[Someone]

Hey did you know that Bogart never actually says "Play it again Sam" in Casablanca?

He says "Play it Sam" and "Again Sam" but never "Play it again Sam."



I now return you to your daily enworld endless argument.

And with this, this thread is damgerously close to become a one way trip into tv tropes

 

[Balesir]

So playing in a casual manner automatically equates to not wanting a challenge...

No - rolling for attributes has nothing to do with challenge, it's just random handicapping or overpowering. That's not challenge - that's dumb luck that applies to the whole game instead of just one action or plan.

Hmmm, there's something a little off with that logic. I play MW3 casually, but I play online for the challenge more experienced players offer because I find it fun...

I have no idea what "MW3" is - some sort of FPS computer game, I guess - but playing against more skilled or experienced players is a challenge; playing with your shots randomly misfiring is just making things arbitrary and frustrating for yourself and everyone else.

Your whole argument seems to be predicated on the "fact" that rolling for attributes assures failure. that's not a fact. It's not even a fact that majority of your attributes will be low...

Of course not; it's a crapshoot. Pretty much literally. You are choosing to have the effectiveness of your character for the whole event randomly either overpowered or nerfed. Failing on one rolled-for task in an evening is fun; so is getting the randomly powerful guy for the duration. Getting saddled with the doofus for the session is not so fun, though - except maybe for your sadistic "friends".

the point is that some people find fun in the challenge of taking an underdog and having him succeed

So let them choose to have a low powered array. If that's really what it's about, then at least do it by choice, rather than by random chance. Does the guy who rolls low really get asked if he wants to be "doofus for the day"?

Is the reason it is hard for you to grasp what might be fun for others... or even what other playtyles exist because you've only experienced a very narrow range of playstyles??

There's really no need to resort to ad hominems. I have played many, many playstyles over nearly 40 years of roleplaying; that's how come I know of a few I really don't like (as well as quite a few that I do).

The style preferences are also often game specific. The style I described, for example, works quite well in Call of Cthulhu; it just fails miserably, for me, in D&D. CoC really is all about your character's descent into madness and death; D&D doesn't bill itself that way.

 

[Imaro]

No - rolling for attributes has nothing to do with challenge, it's just random handicapping or overpowering. That's not challenge - that's dumb luck that applies to the whole game instead of just one action or plan.

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??

I have no idea what "MW3" is - some sort of FPS computer game, I guess - but playing against more skilled or experienced players is a challenge; playing with your shots randomly misfiring is just making things arbitrary and frustrating for yourself and everyone else.

FYI: Modern Warfare 3

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.

Of course not; it's a crapshoot. Pretty much literally. You are choosing to have the effectiveness of your character for the whole event randomly either overpowered or nerfed. Failing on one rolled-for task in an evening is fun; so is getting the randomly powerful guy for the duration. Getting saddled with the doofus for the session is not so fun, though - except maybe for your sadistic "friends".

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.

So let them choose to have a low powered array. If that's really what it's about, then at least do it by choice, rather than by random chance. Does the guy who rolls low really get asked if he wants to be "doofus for the day"?

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.

There's really no need to resort to ad hominems. I have played many, many playstyles over nearly 40 years of roleplaying; that's how come I know of a few I really don't like (as well as quite a few that I do).

What ad hominem? I asked a question.

The style preferences are also often game specific. The style I described, for example, works quite well in Call of Cthulhu; it just fails miserably, for me, in D&D. CoC really is all about your character's descent into madness and death; D&D doesn't bill itself that way.

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.

 

[Cadfan]

EDIT 2: At least you've backed away from your "objective" argument about how rolling stats is bad for the kids. Thanks for that much.

Not repeating myself unnecessarily is not the same thing as backing away from something.

Even in this thread, ardent defenders of rolling for stats have agreed that strict adherence to stat rolls should be mitigated by "common sense." Well, that's bad news for new players who don't have the age and experience to know what sense is common to the context. Pretty simple point, not too debatable.

As for the rest, I've made my point. There's a difference between saying "X is bad" and saying "X doesn't go with Y, and is bad in the context of Y." I appreciate you keeping that straight for approximately half your post.

 

[VinylTap]

But its not going away, so why argue about it?

Someone needs to make a 'Real men roll 3d6' t-shirt already.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I hate random stats and hope that it is listed as option d or 4 and not 1 or a.

Here is why: I have players who after 4 years who still ask if we can roll stats and the best quickest way to get him to stop complaining.


I will say I got sick of one character being way better then others. 4e taught me to love pt buy.

I have seen great rp from stats that are low... I also saw a 3.5 Druid get blinded and go 4 levels of the best rp ever... But I have also scean many more disruptions. Alot of people also allow re rolls of bad stats so everyone has great, witch leads to over powering

 

[Jacob Marley]

Hi, I am Jacob Marley and I enjoy rolling for stats in D&D.

No - rolling for attributes has nothing to do with challenge, it's just random handicapping or overpowering. That's not challenge - that's dumb luck that applies to the whole game instead of just one action or plan.

The point is that some of us don't come to the table with a pre-existing idea of what our character is. The challenge is to take this random collection of numbers and make something interesting out of it. Balance between characters is not a priority amongst us.

So let them choose to have a low powered array. If that's really what it's about, then at least do it by choice, rather than by random chance. Does the guy who rolls low really get asked if he wants to be "doofus for the day"?

This misses the point. Again, the point is that we want the unknown. We want to take that unknown and watch as it becomes known. And then to mold and shape that into something special. Telling us to choose either by an array or by a point-buy system is to deny us the very point to which we are playing.

Its not about being overpowered or underpowered. Its about the whole journey of discovering who this character is.

The style preferences are also often game specific. The style I described, for example, works quite well in Call of Cthulhu; it just fails miserably, for me, in D&D. CoC really is all about your character's descent into madness and death; D&D doesn't bill itself that way.

I've played for twenty-one years across three seperate editions of D&D (1st, 3rd, and 4th) to know full-well that this style fits D&D.

Edit:

I hate random stats and hope that it is listed as option d or 4 and not 1 or a.

If people are really that concerned about one option being listed before another, well fine, put it in alphabetical order then: Array, Dice, Point-buy. Seriously, is it that big a deal?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hi, I am Jacob Marley and I enjoy rolling for stats in D&D.

I really wish I could XP this post. I'm in no mood to get into arguments myself, so I've been XPing those who are making similar points to my own mental replies. This post deserves some XP (if anyone wants to cover me). As always, play what you like

 

[drothgery]

Hi, I am Jacob Marley and I enjoy rolling for stats in D&D.

Many people do. But rolling for stats fairly and by the book often results in wildly imbalanced stats, and the extremely generous house rules for dice rolling that have been in place in every extended game with rolled stats I've ever played in (choose the best from multiple stat arrays, rerolling 1s, bonus points afterwards, ...) defeat the point of rolling.