Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="David Argall" data-source="post: 890052" data-attributes="member: 4481">"why is it acceptable to absolutely suspend the randomness of game variables generation and the inherent “luck” associated with their creation in the name of “fairness”, while once the character creation process is completed, the suspension of “fairness” is willingly shelved until needed in the future creation of characters?1. After creating these “fair” characters with identical potential why do you then accept the “unfairness” of rolling dice at all? I mean instead of rolling a D20 to hit and such why not just give everyone a “to-hit” (along with skills, damage pools etc.) pool and let him or her decide how and when to “spend” these points. "     Despite the attempt to make this an argument taken to absurd lengths, the basic idea is not that unreasonable.  After all, games like chess are popular enough and so the elimination of the random factor is by no means unthinkable.  D&D5 or 6 might try such a system.     There are a number of questions that have to be answered 1st.  Just a system can become easily gross or unplayable.  As has already been noted, there may be obvious ways to job the system too.  By contrast, the flaws in using dice are known and the corrections either in place or known.  So until someone does a very large amount of work, the system is speculation.           "2. I guess the bottom line is why is one set of randomness OK and the other not?"     Well, the chief point is that one is very easily corrected and has a major chance of causing trouble, while the other requires great revisions to the game and the large number of rolls means things do tend to average out a lot more than the few times of stat rolling does.</blockquote>

Verification