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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9191816" data-attributes="member: 7635">Because the only time I ever hear about those "I didn't roll better than a 14" characters is when people are discussing how fair rolling is. I never see it in other discussions and never saw it in real play beyond the first campaign I ever played in. I'm not saying people are liars, I'm saying that the amount of powerful rolled characters outweighs the number of below average ones by a substantial margin, and perception bias plays into that when people discuss the merit of rolled scores.They say when people gamble, they only remember the hits, not the countless misses unless that wipes them out. You remember the $2500 you won, but not the $5000 you spent over dozens of bids to win it. People fondly remember the character who rolled 18, 16, 15, 14, 13, 10 but memory hole the characters who roll 13, 12, 10, 9, 7, 6. So they make sure they use systems that generate the former, be it alternate dice systems or fuzzy accounting. Because if I offered you a choice of the default array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) or one of the two arrays above, NOBODY is picking the lowest set. The allure of those amazing scores, along with methods to mitigate the risk, is what rolling for stats is about. Which is why I question when someone says they played that white whale "poor scores" character who somehow makes it to name or higher level. Especially in games where the DM "doesn't pull punches" or "doesn't scale their world to the PCs to encourage smart play."</blockquote>

Verification