D&D General Having your players roll their stats

[jmartkdr2]

Depends on the campaign. In 5e, for various campaigns, we've utilized The Matrix, Point Buy, modified Point Buy (change an 8 to a 6 for +1 to any other stat), and 4d6 drop lowest.

RE: rolling
I've had players (well, a player) get really upset about rolling two low-ish numbers and two average ones. I've had others slightly disappointed they didn't have at least one low stat. I've had players embrace a few low stats as, to them, it makes for a more interesting character. In 7+ years of DMing and playing 5e (250ish sessions?) I've yet to see this stat modifier "power imbalance" in game play that some are lamenting. The only time, at our table, that power imbalance seemed to be a problem was due to a distinct playstyle difference which really had nothing to do with stats and everything to do with making sure the players and DM are all a match for the table.

So, I ponder, at what point does this imbalance, caused by the variability of rolling for stats, take shape? When a character doesn't have any positive modifiers? When they have at least one stat that is 10% worse than any other character? 15% worse? 20% worse? When they have only one stat that is +2 or higher while others have 2 or more such stats? When a character has stats worse than a commoner NPC (i.e. all below "average")? Somewhere else?

In a cooperative game where presumably everyone is out to have a good time, create an exciting story, and share the spotlight in the course of doing so, I'm not sure where the line of imbalance exists, or if one truly exists at all. I'm sure folks are concerned with characters being "effective", but I'm of the mindset that any character, regardless of stats, can contribute in a meaningful way. Others' experiences (and/or opinions) of course may vary - I'm most interested in hearing of experiences where low stats were a tangible problem at the table that took away from fun and story for an entire group.

The imbalance is more noticeable in some editions than others - in 5e it’s very unlikely to be a thing. You kind of need both a big gap and otherwise very similar characters to really feel it. When I have seen noticeable power differences, it’s usually caused more by differences in system mastery than differences in rolls, and 5e tends to have a smaller gap there than previous editions.

On the other hand, it is possible with rolling and just not possible with standard arrays. So rolling introduces a small risk that’s still greater than zero, so I under the resistance. Especially because roll-and-arrange doesn’t seem to add anything to the game except maybe a bit of character power (getting at least one 16 is pretty likely with 4d6 drop lowest) but if that’s the goal a more generous array or point buy will do that as well.

 

[Oofta]

The imbalance is more noticeable in some editions than others - in 5e it’s very unlikely to be a thing. You kind of need both a big gap and otherwise very similar characters to really feel it. When I have seen noticeable power differences, it’s usually caused more by differences in system mastery than differences in rolls, and 5e tends to have a smaller gap there than previous editions.

On the other hand, it is possible with rolling and just not possible with standard arrays. So rolling introduces a small risk that’s still greater than zero, so I under the resistance. Especially because roll-and-arrange doesn’t seem to add anything to the game except maybe a bit of character power (getting at least one 16 is pretty likely with 4d6 drop lowest) but if that’s the goal a more generous array or point buy will do that as well.

I disagree with the "It doesn't make a difference". It may make less of a difference, but it can still be significant. A while back I wrote a program that cranked out a bunch of fights with groups that rolled for ability scores and then set up the high and low as champion fighters. The average high was significantly more likely to survive in cage matches I set up with various monsters.

I don't always min-max, but when I don't it's because I want a PC that can be more effective outside of combat than they otherwise would.

If you want to randomize, go for it. Just accept that one PC will likely be significantly more effective in and out of combat than another. Whether that matters is up to the people at the table.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I disagree with the "It doesn't make a difference". It may make less of a difference, but it can still be significant. A while back I wrote a program that cranked out a bunch of fights with groups that rolled for ability scores and then set up the high and low as champion fighters. The average high was significantly more likely to survive in cage matches I set up with various monsters.

I don't always min-max, but when I don't it's because I want a PC that can be more effective outside of combat than they otherwise would.

If you want to randomize, go for it. Just accept that one PC will likely be significantly more effective in and out of combat than another. Whether that matters is up to the people at the table.

1) how many cage matches do you put single PCs through in actual play? (this is a bit of a rhetorical question... I suspect it is none... not that your data isn't real but it is a bit reductionist and may not correlate to what happens at the table... my real point is below)
2) define "significantly more effective". Is it 5% more? 10% more? 15%? in other words, when does it becomes actually noticeable at any one session that one character is "significantly more effective" at a similar task when the d20 is so dang swingy to begin with? do folks bemoan this perceived difference to the extent that they aren't contributing and/or having fun?

 

[Oofta]

1) how many cage matches do you put single PCs through in actual play? (this is a bit of a rhetorical question... I suspect it is none... not that your data isn't real but it is a bit reductionist and may not correlate to what happens at the table... my real point is below)

I had a program that simulated combat. Rolls for initiatives, attacks, damage, etc.. That let me run through hundreds of simulations and then averaged rounds of survival.

2) define "significantly more effective". Is it 5% more? 10% more? 15%? in other words, when does it becomes actually noticeable at any one session that one character is "significantly more effective" at a similar task when the d20 is so dang swingy to begin with? do folks bemoan this perceived difference to the extent that they aren't contributing and/or having fun?

About 50-60% higher survival rate depending on the monster and levels. Obviously this didn't exactly replicate combat, but that's not what I was attempting to do. I was attempting to get a general gauge of combat effectiveness.

But ignore the numbers if it doesn't matter to you. It matters to me, just reinforces why I don't care for randomness in ability score generation.

 

[Clint_L]

Rolling a character is fun but I find it only works with veteran players who aren't too fussed about the inherent unfairness. With my younger players, I just use standard array because it's much faster with new players, and because any perceived unfairness (or cheating) can create drama.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Since I've switched 100% to Shadowdark....roll, Baby, roll!

However, depending on the group (I GM for a couple kids' groups) I sometimes use one of two optional rules:
1) If you don't have at least one 14 or higher, you may re-roll
2) You may invert all six rolls. (That is, subtract each ability score from 21.).

I'm really liking #2. It basically means you can't get stuck with an array that has a net negative modifier.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Rolling a character is fun but I find it only works with veteran players who aren't too fussed about the inherent unfairness.

I'm finding it also works with total newbies who haven't been taught otherwise.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm finding it also works with total newbies who haven't been taught otherwise.

Are they teenagers? 'Cause teenagers have a sixth sense for anything remotely unfair. As long as it effects them personally.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree with the "It doesn't make a difference". It may make less of a difference, but it can still be significant. A while back I wrote a program that cranked out a bunch of fights with groups that rolled for ability scores and then set up the high and low as champion fighters. The average high was significantly more likely to survive in cage matches I set up with various monsters.

That might be because those characters didn't have players attached who could make decisions for them e.g. the player of the low-stat PC might intentionally go for a more cautious approach, or do things differently e.g. go missile-heavy instead of melee.

Also, did these cage matches involve a whole party against the monsters or just the single character? There's a huge difference.

If you want to randomize, go for it. Just accept that one PC will likely be significantly more effective in and out of combat than another. Whether that matters is up to the people at the table.

In our 1e-variant games at least, I ran some numbers once that showed me starting stat averages really aren't a significant predictor of a character's career-length expectancy.

 

[Lanefan]

Are they teenagers? 'Cause teenagers have a sixth sense for anything remotely unfair. As long as it effects them personally.

There's a difference between unfair and unlucky, though.

Unfair would be if one player got to roll 3d6 in order while another rolled 4d6x1 and could rearrange.

Unlucky is if when using the same roll-up method one player gets 18-16-15-14-14-12 and another gets 15-12-11-11-10-7.*

* - if memory serves, those were the starting stats of my first two 3e characters. The first one did OK. The second was perhaps the best character I've ever had and lasted twice as long as the first.