Level Up (A5E) Do Player Characters Have Average Population Stat Distributions?

[Phoebasss]

Nope! Not even close. Saying that the PCs are exceptional members of their race, but still within the racial norms and with the same racial stat bonuses is not saying that they aren't special.

I didn't pay much attention to Saelorn's posts, but Lanefan and Dnd4vr certainly didn't say that they weren't special.

It just feels like saying “they have to adhere to a strict set of racial statistics that are the same across all games in all settings is a lot of extra effort to prevent orc wizards. And you have to admit the line between exceptional and special is getting pretty thin, especially when rolling for stats.

 

[Cadence]

I think the concept of symmetrical game design vs. asymmetrical game design is at the core of what we’re discussing here. The old-school approach treats NPCs as CPU players (where the DM acts as the computer) in a symmetrical game. The modern approach treats NPCs as game pieces controlled by the DM in an asymmetrical game.

Ironic, considering how player vs. DM mentality is generally seen as a hallmark of old-school play. But it makes sense if you assume, as is often the case in asymmetrical games, that the player in the role of DM has a different goal than the players in the roles of PCs do. In old-school play, the PCs and the NPCs are both playing with the same goal of defeating the other team. In modern play, the PCs play with the goal of defeating the DM’s units, while the DM uses their units to play with the goal of making the PCs heroes.

Was the symmetry in PC-NPC a big 3/3.5/PF thing? IIrc, both 1e and 2e only have the DM do as little as needed for the NPCs, 1e had different ability score recommendations, and both had 0-level humans.

Is there anything in the 1e, 2e, B/X rules that sets it up as a competition between the PCs and NPCs (or DM and players) in a way that's different than what 5e has? Moldvay notes that "The DM is there to see that the adventure is interesting and that everyone enjoys the game. D&D is not a contest between the DM and the players!" And I think there are admonitions in 1e about not making things too difficult for the players. It feels to me like the goal was always to get players to get characters to become the big heroes. (Either that or the amount of focus on getting followers and land and castles seems a bit misplaced in the books).

I think it is true that not nearly as many PCs made it from 1st to high levels back then. But. is someone really a hero if they're never endangered by what they're trying? Is a group of people actually endangered by what they're trying if almost none of them ever die? (Did the deaths back then mostly happen before 3rd or 4th level? How would a group of 3rd level 1e characters fare against 1st level 5e characters?).

 

[Charlaquin]

Nope! Not even close. Saying that the PCs are exceptional members of their race, but still within the racial norms and with the same racial stat bonuses is not saying that they aren't special.

I didn't pay much attention to Saelorn's posts, but Lanefan and Dnd4vr certainly didn't say that they weren't special.

Ok, Drax. Shall I explicitly point out every time I use a turn of phrase less than literally?

 

[Charlaquin]

Was the symmetry in PC-NPC a big 3/3.5/PF thing? IIrc, both 1e and 2e only have the DM do as little as needed for the NPCs, 1e had different ability score recommendations, and both had 0-level humans.

Is there anything in the 1e, 2e, B/X rules that sets it up as a competition between the PCs and NPCs (or DM and players) in a way that's different than what 5e has? Moldvay notes that "The DM is there to see that the adventure is interesting and that everyone enjoys the game. D&D is not a contest between the DM and the players!" And I think there are admonitions in 1e about not making things too difficult for the players. It feels to me like the goal was always to get players to get characters to become the big heroes. (Either that or the amount of focus on getting followers and land and castles seems a bit misplaced in the books).

I should learn not to make generalizations about editions I haven’t played. I guess by “old school play” I meant “the kind of play Lanefan and Saelorn seem to be describing,” which I just assumed was based on their preferences from past editions.

3.5 definitely had a high degree of PC/NPC symmetry. Pathfinder inherited that, though I think it may have been slightly relaxed? I’m not sure, I never played it.

 

[Cadence]

I should learn not to make generalizations about editions I haven’t played. I guess by “old school play” I meant “the kind of play Lanefan and Saelorn seem to be describing,” which I just assumed was based on their preferences from past editions.

3.5 definitely had a high degree of PC/NPC symmetry. Pathfinder inherited that, though I think it may have been slightly relaxed? I’m not sure, I never played it.

I haven't done any gaming in the OSR movement, so I'm not sure what they're looking for.

PF definitely had the high degree of symmetry. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have no idea why being a great Blacksmith comes along with a good BAB and lots of hp. It might be the single thing I like least about 3.5/PF.

 

[Phoebasss]

I haven't done any gaming in the OSR movement, so I'm not sure what they're looking for.

A number of popular OSR games are literally B/X or AD&D with better writing. As in, 100% of the same rules. So that’s a good model for what OSR gamers tend to see as good design.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, Drax. Shall I explicitly point out every time I use a turn of phrase less than literally?

When you're accusing people of doing something that they didn't do, yes.

 

[Maxperson]

It just feels like saying “they have to adhere to a strict set of racial statistics that are the same across all games in all settings is a lot of extra effort to prevent orc wizards. And you have to admit the line between exceptional and special is getting pretty thin, especially when rolling for stats.

No orc wizards have been prevented, though, especially when rolling for stats. Rolled stats means that the orc wizard can start with a 16-18 in intelligence without a bonus there. I also think that exceptional basically equals special, so I'm not really sure that there's a line there at all. Special doesn't have to mean unique.

 

[Charlaquin]

When you're accusing people of doing something that they didn't do, yes.

Accusing is a lofty way to describe it. Look, sorry if my phrasing touched a nerve. My point was, the people who purport to disagree with the statement in the OP, when you drill down to it, still seem to use stat generation methods that result in higher average stats for PCs than for NPCs. Which suggests what we actually disagree on is how much deviation is acceptable.

 

[Maxperson]

Accusing is a lofty way to describe it. Look, sorry if my phrasing touched a nerve. My point was, the people who purport to disagree with the statement in the OP, when you drill down to it, still seem to use stat generation methods that result in higher average stats for PCs than for NPCs. Which suggests what we actually disagree on is how much deviation is acceptable.

The disagreement, though, is not in whether or not PCs are special, but rather in whether or not they conform to the racial standards for their race. If orcs as a race get +2 to strength, then all PC orcs should get that same +2.