D&D General How Did You Generate Your Most Recent Character's Stats?

[Gorg]

I used the standard 4d6 x6 method. With re-roll 1s.

The results were remarkably close to the standard array- all were between 10 and 14, save one, and I rolled 6 sets.

so all ability modifiers were 0-+2. no penalties, but no really good scores, either. I like it.

 

[prabe]

What about the people who like to roll? Aren't they having less fun?

The campaigns I've run have been every-other week for 130+ sessions (so somewhere over five years) and PC deaths are rare. I figure A) there's more enjoyment playing a competent character that long than in rolling dice for a couple of minutes and B) actually making the choices has its own pleasures, and I'm always happy to introduce people to them.

 

[Lanefan]

For the whole 3 minutes it take to roll stats? When I hope to play the character for a year or more?

We all hope to play the character for years but that doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

 

[Lanefan]

The campaigns I've run have been every-other week for 130+ sessions (so somewhere over five years) and PC deaths are rare.

Expected lethality does have a lot to say here. I'm used to games that are - or very much can be - fairly lethal at low level, kind of like a very slow-motion DCC funnel; meaning the cream in theory will rise to the top over time. Note that I say "in theory", as in practice the initial stats seem to have little impact on character life expectancy.

B) actually making the choices has its own pleasures, and I'm always happy to introduce people to them.

Assuming one allows rearrangment of rolls, that same choice-making process is in place once you've rolled the dice, thus whatever pleasures that brings are still present.

 

[CreamCloud0]

They don't have to be equal IME but they have to have the chance of being equal. If the chance doesn't pay off this time, so be it: there's always next time.

Sorry I don’t consider ‘well you MIGHT get better character stats next time’ to be adequate compensation for having bad stats right now for this adventure.

 

[Lord Twig]

I am firmly in the point buy camp.

Any time I have played in a game where we rolled stats everyone ended up with stats well above what point buy would give you. Even if someone rolled low, the rest of the group would insist "we take pity on them" and let them re-roll. This just causes the DM to make the enemies more powerful and doesn't accomplish anything but more work.

If I was with a group that insisted on rolling I would ask for one small thing. Everyone rolls, at the end I get to swap my stats with any other player.

If it is just as fun to RP a character with low stats, then this shouldn't be a problem. If you say I might get a better roll for the next game, fine. Then it should be okay to switch and I get the higher rolls this time and will have the lower rolls next time.

If you wouldn't agree to switching stats then you are just admitting that rolling stats can frequently end up just being no fun.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Kind of unfortunate that I had to vote for the first thing, because "a variant thereof" is such an enormous catch-all that it's hard to really....call what I did actually a variant of the existing rolling rules.

But I voted what was most accurate, even though it's pretty different. (Rolling multiple slates and picking amongst them, having extra add/drop rules, rerolling 1s, etc.)

Sorry I don’t consider ‘well you MIGHT get better character stats next time’ to be adequate compensation for having bad stats right now for this adventure.

Fully agreed. Even "you definitely will eventually get better stats" isn't adequate compensation for having bad stats right now for this adventure.

 

[Umbran]

My understanding was the conversation here was in the context of D&D--and most probably in the context of newer editions thereof.

Yes, but when you start asking, "Why, or why not?" broader contexts are places you can look for wisdom.

Obviously I wouldn't roll for stats in Cypher or Fate or Blades in the Dark or ...

Every hear of the "5 Whys"? It is a technique for leading a discussion to explore what the root cause for a thing might be.

So, you wouldn't roll for stats in Cypher of Fate.
Why not?
Because they don't include random stat generation in their rules.
Why not?
...

 

[Umbran]

So one player who doesn't want to roll stats is enough to prevent the whole table from rolling?

If disparity in stats is going to be a major concern, and you actually care about having that player in the game? Probably, yeah. Imho, anyway.

Seems a bit much.

That's your prerogative to think so. Have a good day.

 

[prabe]

Yes, but when you start asking, "Why, or why not?" broader contexts are places you can look for wisdom.

Well, what I was asking was, "Why wouldn't I want people at the table to have fun?" This does not seem like a question I'm likely to find an answer to in TRPG design.

Every hear of the "5 Whys"? It is a technique for leading a discussion to explore what the root cause for a thing might be.

So, you wouldn't roll for stats in Cypher of Fate.
Why not?
Because they don't include random stat generation in their rules.
Why not?
...

Because the designers don't like random stats, or at least felt they wouldn't suit the game experience they wanted to deliver.