D&D General Having your players roll their stats

[Oofta]

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.

But that goes back to how you create characters. If I envision Sir McStabsalot, stalwart gnomish order of the owl paladin, it's because I want someone who wades into battle and doesn't give a hoot. If I roll poorly and have to hide in the back, that concept has flown out the window.

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

If you're saying that the guy who would normally die first is shored up by more capable PCs, sure. It's not about whether or not they could survive, it's how much they can contribute. I'd have to have a simulator of a group that happened to all roll poor stats vs a group that happened to all roll good stats to do a comparison. Because the point is, how much can that individual contribute mechanically to the group.

Obviously D&D is a team game. If you and yours find it more enjoyable to roll stats, coolio. I just don't see any advantage to it and plenty of downsides for me.

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.

The guy that hides in the back and runs away at the first sign of trouble may survive longer. Doesn't mean I want to play that PC.

 

[Clint_L]

I would say it is both unlucky and unfair. The unfairness is built into that method of character creation, so that a few moments of good or bad luck significantly impact your character’s abilities in a distinctly measurable way for the rest of their existence.

I get that it is “fair” in the sense that everyone (presumably) starts with the same risk/reward system. But you try telling a teenager that the reason their buddy’s barbarian is the star of every battle for this 5 game campaign is because they were super lucky for a set of rolls back on Day 1, while their own monk barely got the minimum required to exist, them’s the breaks, kid.

It just leads to kids getting justifiably frustrated and wanting to quit or re-roll (or cheat, or suggest someone else cheated). And for what?

Starting them all off on the same footing keeps them focused on building their own character rather than worrying about what others have.

 

[TheDelphian]

We settled on rolling 4d6 drop lowest and everyone rolls at the table. Then to prevent any unfairness between characters you can use your roll or someone else's. This way if fred rolls great stats and you rolled crap you can use his.

And yes this does lead to higher than usual stats but the primary is not off the scale, MAD characters become more viable and the fighter my also be charismatic or smart without his fighting suffering. This sort of thing is noticeable more at low level as at higher levels proficiency stretches out the difference.

we still have fun

 

[Oofta]

I would say it is both unlucky and unfair. The unfairness is built into that method of character creation, so that a few moments of good or bad luck significantly impact your character’s abilities in a distinctly measurable way for the rest of their existence.

I get that it is “fair” in the sense that everyone (presumably) starts with the same risk/reward system. But you try telling a teenager that the reason their buddy’s barbarian is the star of every battle for this 5 game campaign is because they were super lucky for a set of rolls back on Day 1, while their own monk barely got the minimum required to exist, them’s the breaks, kid.

It just leads to kids getting justifiably frustrated and wanting to quit or re-roll (or cheat, or suggest someone else cheated). And for what?

Starting them all off on the same footing keeps them focused on building their own character rather than worrying about what others have.

Is rolling for ability scores fair? By one definition. Is the result equitable? No. Life is not fair because it doesn't give everyone the same opportunities. I would say a game where people roll randomly for ability scores is not fair. Players all have the same opportunity to contribute via RP, their PCs do not have the same opportunities to contribute to the success of the group.

 

[TwoSix]

But that goes back to how you create characters. If I envision Sir McStabsalot, stalwart gnomish order of the owl paladin, it's because I want someone who wades into battle and doesn't give a hoot. If I roll poorly and have to hide in the back, that concept has flown out the window.

Exactly right. Injecting a ton of randomness into character creation and starting character creation with a strong concept in mind fundamentally work at cross-purposes. If you're using a creation method with lots of randomness, it's because the expectation is the players will form concepts after the random portion happens.

There's no right or wrong, the group simply has to decide whether prioritizing randomness or prioritizing fidelity to concept is the greater goal in character creation. The only bad play is not aligning your creation method with your creation principles.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I would say it is both unlucky and unfair. The unfairness is built into that method of character creation, so that a few moments of good or bad luck significantly impact your character’s abilities in a distinctly measurable way for the rest of their existence.

I would push back on this assertion and ask that it be clarified further: To paraphrase what I asked upthread: At what point does the variation in scores significantly matter at the table during actual game play? How is it "distinctly measurable"? And who is actually keeping track of this to prove it so?

 

[Hex08]

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.

There may be a semantic difference between unlucky and unfair but I doubt many younger players, and some older, are going to look at it with that level of nuance. Player A will just see that his highest roll is a 15 and Player B has a 16 and an 18 and feel like it's unfair. In the end it is going be the eyes, and feelings, of the beholder that matter, not the arguments we make to justify our claims.

 

[Lanefan]

But that goes back to how you create characters. If I envision Sir McStabsalot, stalwart gnomish order of the owl paladin, it's because I want someone who wades into battle and doesn't give a hoot. If I roll poorly and have to hide in the back, that concept has flown out the window.

Of course it has. But the problem is neither the roll-up method nor the dice luck.

The problem is that the character concept was created before the dice were rolled. Don't do this, and this issue can't arise.

If you're saying that the guy who would normally die first is shored up by more capable PCs, sure. It's not about whether or not they could survive, it's how much they can contribute. I'd have to have a simulator of a group that happened to all roll poor stats vs a group that happened to all roll good stats to do a comparison. Because the point is, how much can that individual contribute mechanically to the group.

To me the point is how long - or whether at all - the character is likely to survive (if not suicided). If the character survives, the player will find ways to have it contribute...and-or on occasion have to admit there's nothing that character can do in a given situation except get out of the way.

If I'm running a Thief, for example, who doesn't own a magic weapon* and the fight's against foes who can only be hit by magic weapons then there's nothing I can do except get out of the way, keep a lookout for other trouble, and if necessary tend to the fallen. So be it, and that's what I do.

* - this example is a character of mine currently in play, who for quite a while didn't own (and couldn't find or steal) a magic weapon. She has one now, finally. Worth noting that while her rolled stats are about on par with the group she's tied-lowest level in the party (current range is 9-13, about to become 9-14 as the lead character's soon to bump), so she has to pick her spots for that reason also.

The guy that hides in the back and runs away at the first sign of trouble may survive longer. Doesn't mean I want to play that PC.

Some players do. In the long run, consistent survival means you slowly gain more levels (assuming individual xp division) and-or treasure than everyone else, meaning the imbalances that once worked against you starts tipping in your favour.

 

[Clint_L]

I would push back on this assertion and ask that it be clarified further: To paraphrase what I asked upthread: At what point does the variation in scores significantly matter at the table during actual game play? How is it "distinctly measurable"? And who is actually keeping track of this to prove it so?

It is distinctly measurable in better ability scores that directly help you succeed. I assure you that a 14 year old understands that +4 to hit and damage is a lot better than +1 to hit and damage. As for who is keeping track...have you met a teenager?

Yes, I understand that life is not usually equitable. I don't think that needs to be a life lesson attached to D&D, where we can control the rules and make it so that everyone starts from the exact same place, and then what they make of it is up to them. We're playing the game for fun, not to model the systemic unfairness of the real world.

It's the same reason we now let Halflings be just as strong as Goliaths, Dragons exist and can fly despite their mass, and so on: this is a fantasy game, and it is more fun that way. We're not running a reality simulator.

From a personal perspective, I am fine with any method of character generation. I am old and have been playing for more than four decades, and I appreciate Lanefan's point. Though I have to admit that it has always seemed like an inherently problematic design to give some characters permanent advantages or disadvantages based on one tiny, initial set of rolls. Those initial stakes are very asynchronous with pretty much every thing else in the game.

Edit: incidentally, though, some middle school Individuals and Societies classes (AKA Social Studies in our day) actually do role-play exercises where the kids are randomly sorted into various levels of haves and have-nots, often when studying something like the French Revolution. I can assure you that the have-not kids almost immediately hold kind of a grudge...which is the point in those lessons, but not something I want to run a whole campaign experiencing.

 

[Oofta]

Of course it has. But the problem is neither the roll-up method nor the dice luck.

The problem is that the character concept was created before the dice were rolled. Don't do this, and this issue can't arise.

To me the point is how long - or whether at all - the character is likely to survive (if not suicided). If the character survives, the player will find ways to have it contribute...and-or on occasion have to admit there's nothing that character can do in a given situation except get out of the way.

If I'm running a Thief, for example, who doesn't own a magic weapon* and the fight's against foes who can only be hit by magic weapons then there's nothing I can do except get out of the way, keep a lookout for other trouble, and if necessary tend to the fallen. So be it, and that's what I do.

* - this example is a character of mine currently in play, who for quite a while didn't own (and couldn't find or steal) a magic weapon. She has one now, finally. Worth noting that while her rolled stats are about on par with the group she's tied-lowest level in the party (current range is 9-13, about to become 9-14 as the lead character's soon to bump), so she has to pick her spots for that reason also.

Some players do. In the long run, consistent survival means you slowly gain more levels (assuming individual xp division) and-or treasure than everyone else, meaning the imbalances that once worked against you starts tipping in your favour.

If someone has crappy ability scores, they have crappy ability scores. I don't see how that plays into things. Thinking up what I want to play before the game starts is just a preference. If I want to play someone who cares more about their personal survival by hiding in the back then the PC with better ability scores is going to be more successful at that than the person with low ability scores. The guy that hides in the back may survive longer than the front line, but the PC with better ability scores will usually have better saves, more HP, in most cases better AC. Which means that no matter what role the PC plays in the group, the one with the higher ability scores will simply be better.

Differs a little bit from edition to edition and your heavily customized version of the game may not see the same impact. As far as RP and problem solving, that's not affected by ability scores of the PC one way or another so it's totally irrelevant. The player can contribute on even footing with the rest of the group. The PC can't.