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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6370152" data-attributes="member: 6681948">In both cases (char gen an combat), the random nature of the dice are producing results which are statistically abnormal, which is resulting in a character who the GM believes is having too easy a time with the game.  Not identical, I agree, but not wholly dissimilar.Here, I do not disagree.  However, it seems like this GM has been fine in the past accepting characters who are underpowered (the other players were thrilled they had "decent stats" this time).  And, again, by choosing a random stat system, he chose to allow the possibility of a character with exceptional stats, just as the players appear to have accepted the possibility (even the reality in prior games) of sub-par stats.  I also note it was the lucky player who first proposed some leveling of the results by allowing the poorer stats to be improved.The fact is that a lot of players like the random roll methods, and even accept sub-par characters as they arise, because of the possibility the random rolls will generate a similarly above standard character on occasion.  That is what random rolls do and, to me, is a big reason that other generation methods, such as stat arrays and point buy, have developed from the hobby's early days when stats were entirely random.By choosing to roll, I submit that we have chosen some level of random.  The parameters chosen are what 4d6, drop the lowest has the potential to generate.  We did not choose, for example, 3d6 6 times (lower averages, still with the potential for substandard or over-standard results) or roll 3d6 12 times and keep the best six (reduced odds of something at the very low end).  To me, if your desired parameters differ from what the basic 4d6, drop the lowest methodology produces, then choosing to use 4d6, drop the lowest is not logical.We had a game at one time where the rules would say 3d6, in order, for stats.  We took that approach, when one modification was suggested - you could buy "insurance".   I don't want to be stuck with a '3' in this stat.  OK, we decided, you can declare this up front, on any stat - rolls of 3 or 18 are both re-rolls.  Have to have at least a 6?  Reroll 16-18, as well as 3-5.  IOW, whatever you are protected from at the low end costs you access to equivalent numbers at the high end.Ultimately, my biggest issue is that the ground rules were not laid out beforehand.  I would also think it inequitable to structure the system on the basis that being unlucky means you get a substandard character, and being lucky means you get to re-roll, as we play this game with only average to substandard characters.  If that's spelled out in advance, the players know the ground rules going in.  Here, the ground rules seem to be getting changed (maybe I am just reading that in, but the delight of the other players at getting 'decent' stats suggests they have rolled poorly and played sub-standard characters before).  Ultimately, if we want the range to be more confined, use a generation system that is more confined.Fair enough - but I can also see the view of a player (not the specific one in this instance) who rolled poorly a couple of times, average a few times, and always accepted that this is the way the game works - the vagaries of chance are part of random rolls.  Then, the rolls go in his favour, he's about to get the payoff for being the "average to weak" character in prior games, and the GM says "nope, you get the downside only, not the upside".  It seems like a player having that history could easily be "really attached" to the lucky rolls that finally came his way.  To me, the answer is, again, to assess those parameters.  What range of stats is acceptable?  Is the player protected from the downside, as well as being denied the upside?  If we want all the characters to fall into a certain range, then temper the random rolls accordingly, or use a system with less potential for variation.  While the one player in this instance got pretty lucky, it's well within the range of 4d6, drop the lowest.Another peculiarity f this specific situation, of course, is that it was for a one shot game.  Assessing how much impact his 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, 13 provided over the 15, 15, 12, 12, 10, 8 average of the other players was pretty risk-free with no long-term campaign impact.  What's also unknown is how the other players felt.  We know the GM is concerned that this one character will be overpowered, and the player is pretty happy with his rolls and looking forward to playing this pretty good to great stat set.  Are the other players congratulating and high fiving him for his great rolls, or grumbling over how they all feel like comic relief sidekicks compared to SuperStats?  It's about the enjoyment of the entire group, not just one participant.  Finally, there's a clear variation in expectations, as the high roller feels his stats are reasonable, maybe a bit lucky, while the other players view their much lower arrays as unusually decent.Clearly, someone at the table isn't happy (or won't be happy).  To me, that's a matter for group discussion.  However, I come back to "random rolls have an element of chance, so don't use that method if that element of chance is not desired".  If the intent were to cap the characters at, say, 25 point stat buy, then why not let them use 25 point stat buy?  If the intent is some variance in stats, we could also have a "roll your stat points, then buy" model - maybe we get 23 - 28 stat points.  The average player looks to have 26, while the one player blew the doors off.ADDENDUM:  I find I'm typically on the side of the GM in similar discussions.  I'm not sure why this one strikes such a chord with me.  The "player gets the downside but not the upside" aspect is giving me some tunnel vision, I suspect.  Our groups have moved to point buy specifically to remove the random "someone does poorly and someone else does spectacularly well" aspect of random rolls.  We call it "random", but the laws of chance make it inevitable that someone will roll well, and someone poorly, at some point in time.  Random roll incorporates an element of chance.  The more chance is removed, the more system mastery comes to the forefront.  However, there is always a strong element of chance in d20 due to the d20 itself.  That extra +1 is a 5% improvement to the chance of success on a d20 roll.  Compared to the other array, the lucky player here has a 10% advantage on his main 2 stats (18 vs 15), and the next two are a 10% enhancement and a 5% enhancement (16 and 14 vs 12s).  5% and 10% on the last two (and that last 10% will be in the "dump stats", which we typically assign because they won't come up much.Going to fixed arrays reduces flexibility further, but there's still a mastery element in choosing where to assign each stat.  Optimization/mastery goes well beyond the stat scores, and once we get past stats (where the rules provide random and non-random choices), the only remaining random element is the hit point roll after first level, so the game certainly allows for any level of optimization.  I find that a problem only where the level of optimization varies considerably between the players, such that someone is clearl overpowering or someone else is clearly not powerful enough.</blockquote>

Verification