D&D 5E How do you handle randomly rolling for stats

[Maxperson]

No, while the prospect of rolling a 6 mathematically compensates for the scenario where you roll a 1, it doesn't compensate you for taking the risk in the first place if you dont have to.

I'm currently playing in a 3.5e game and have an 8th level wizard. I track my hit point rolls by level in case of energy drains. My hit point rolls(in front of the group) with max at 1st level are 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4. With my 16 con I'm feeling rather well compensated for rolling.

 

[Maxperson]

While you're obviously free to like what you want, the argument here is that a game set in, say, Middle-Earth is much more suited to this line of thought.

While an Elf is assumed and even expected to be plain superior to a Man in many and varied regards, this simply does not hold true for D&D.

WotC has expended considerable energy through the years at leveling the field between characters. Having one character be clearly inferior (stats-wise) to another works against all this effort.

While most if not all games inspired by Tolkien (including all editions of WFRP) make it a point to make the Elf choice clearly mechanically superior.

My advice if you allow random rolling and therefore variable ability score totals? Make it clear that the shining all-capable heroes are supposed to contribute more effort than the one's saddled with various handicaps and deficiencies.

Just like it didn't need to be said out loud that Legolas and Gimli assumed a much larger share of danger than the Hobbits in LotR.

That's why I will never play a D&D rules setting Middle Earth game. At least not the ones released so far. They don't make the elves and dwarves superior to the humans, so right out of the gate they fail to be Middle Earth.

 

[Oofta]

Well, for as long as the character lasts; which in an even moderately-lethal game might not be all that long.

Your idea of "moderately-lethal" and most people's are likely to be significantly different. Unless I'm playing an elf*, I fully expect to play that character for hundreds of hours.

If one decides to focus on that, sure. But if one instead largely ignores that and just enjoys playing the character for what it is, it stops mattering.

I'll risk saying that learning to deal with such inequities might be of benefit to them.

That's just it, though: in real life, not everyone starts from the same place; and I want the game to reflect that. Some people just simply have more going for them than do others (and I don't mean socio-economically, that's a different issue); you know, the sort who have looks and brains and physique and talent, etc., as opposed to the rest of us normal schlubs who might have one or even two of those but not all of them.

I don't care about real life, I don't care that I "could" accept I'm playing Wimpy McLoser, especially when the guy next to me is playing Sir Stud Muffin the Fabulous. It's a fantasy game with a heavy dose of wish fulfillment. I want to play a heroic figure, the protagonist of the story, at least on a regular basis. Yes, Wimpy may last longer in a campaign than Sir Stud, but if they do it's because they aren't the one being heroic. Wimpy is the guy hiding in the back, fleeing in terror at the first sign of danger. No thanks.

As with all things, it's personal preference. But from the inception of D&D, I've never cared much for random ability scores, we always had some method to ensure that we played above average. Because why not? I wanted to be the hero that was naturally good at their chosen profession, not just some schmuck trying to survive. YMMV.

*It's a curse. Any elf I have ever play (there have been several) the character dies before they hit 3rd level or the campaign ends abruptly. Last time it was both, my elf died at the end of the first session and that was also the last session for the campaign. I'm getting worried that it's escalating.

 

[Lanefan]

While you're obviously free to like what you want, the argument here is that a game set in, say, Middle-Earth is much more suited to this line of thought.

While an Elf is assumed and even expected to be plain superior to a Man in many and varied regards, this simply does not hold true for D&D.

WotC has expended considerable energy through the years at leveling the field between characters.

Far too much energy, if you ask me.

I'm not after having one specific class or species be always-on superior to another (cf your Elf-Man example); I'm more after there being greater inherent variability within species.

I also, however, want to see differences between species such that one is on average superior to another in one thing while being worse that that same other species in another thing: in 5e terms, baked-in species-based ASIs, both up and down.

My advice if you allow random rolling and therefore variable ability score totals? Make it clear that the shining all-capable heroes are supposed to contribute more effort than the one's saddled with various handicaps and deficiencies.

Sounds good in theory. In practice, I find those with lower stats tend to try to shine even when maybe the wiser course of action would be to hold off this time; and the fun part is when they in fact do shine be it by good luck, skilled play, or whatever.

One of the longest-serving characters in my current campaign started out with a set of stats that barely got over my roll-again threshold (he had one 15 and the overall average was about 10.5). The player thought the character would be dead within hours, and - ably backed by the 6 he'd put in its Wisdom - played it that way; and yet somehow it kept going for something like 18 adventures.

 

[Lanefan]

D&D is already a big game of chance(risk) with d20, and d20 is treacherous enough without randomizing what bonuses/penalties come after that d20.

take a deck of cards for poker,
point buy/standard array is the standard deck of 52 cards.

and let's say that we roll for stats and HPs,
I roll very good and you roll very bad.

Which means you got dealt a pair of aces and I got 3-8 off-suit.

Before any cards hit the table the odds are clearly in your favour, but I can still win that hand.

Next hand (i.e. the next round of characters we roll up) you might get 4-7 suited while I get a pair of jacks. And so on.

 

[Lanefan]

Your idea of "moderately-lethal" and most people's are likely to be significantly different. Unless I'm playing an elf*, I fully expect to play that character for hundreds of hours.

At low level, I'll be happy if it lasts hundreds of minutes.

But then, I tend to approach low level play the same way I approach a Rogue-like computer game: do what I can to keep it going, see how far it gets, and accept the fact that the odds are not in its favour.

I don't care about real life, I don't care that I "could" accept I'm playing Wimpy McLoser, especially when the guy next to me is playing Sir Stud Muffin the Fabulous. It's a fantasy game with a heavy dose of wish fulfillment. I want to play a heroic figure, the protagonist of the story, at least on a regular basis. Yes, Wimpy may last longer in a campaign than Sir Stud, but if they do it's because they aren't the one being heroic. Wimpy is the guy hiding in the back, fleeing in terror at the first sign of danger. No thanks.

And yet, if Wimpy consistently sticks his nose in and still outlasts Sir Stud, to me that's glorious. (never mind I've seen all too many a Sir-Stud-like character be the one hiding in the back while the Wimpies take the risks)

*It's a curse. Any elf I have ever play (there have been several) the character dies before they hit 3rd level or the campaign ends abruptly. Last time it was both, my elf died at the end of the first session and that was also the last session for the campaign. I'm getting worried that it's escalating.

You've mentioned this curse before. It's a strange pattern, to be sure.

 

[ichabod]

What you're doing is you're attempting to reduce my statements to "opinion", and that sort of anti-science stance isn't worth my time. I'm not having the "opinion" that risk is a cost, I'm telling you for a fact it is. Go check it up.

Seeing as you have clearly explained what you mean by risk is a cost, I did look it up. I googled "risk is cost." I didn't get any science though, I just got a lot of business stuff, which is kind of what I was expecting. It talks about the cost of dealing with risk, such as working to mitigate it, paying for insurance to cover losses, administrating all of this. But this is just the cost of dealing with the bad rolls: the guys you took a chance on giving a loan who didn't turn out to be able to pay you back. The thing is, this isn't anything beyond the fact that when you take risks as a business, things don't always pan out. In TTRPG terms, it isn't anything beyond rolling bad hit points occasionally. In a game there are costs with that as well. You go down more often, you need more health potions, that sort of thing.

No, what I'm talking about is that risk itself is a cost. I'm not just talking about the cost when the outcome is low. I'm talking about the variability itself.

Very crude example.

Here's the thing about your crude example: it is just talking about the cost when the outcome is low. That cost is losing the scenario. You roll low, you lose; you don't roll low, you win. There is nothing else in your example.

Which isn't so artificial after all, since having low hit points is much more of a disabler than having high hit points is a enabler. Perhaps not in all campaigns, but certainly in most.

If you only look at the cost of the outcomes, then you'd think 1d6 and 3,5 hp is equal.

Why would I think they are equal? 1d6 gives me a 67% chance of winning, and 3.5 gives me a 100% chance of winning. Those are not equal. You made an artificial situation where they aren't equal, to try to show that they aren't equal in any situation. That does not follow logically.

Furthermore, I take issue with low hit points being more of a disabler than having having high hit point is an enabler. You claim this is true in most campaigns, but what is your data for making that assertion? You don't have any. And it is certainly not true in any campaign I've played in. Five years now, I haven't seen a single character killed except by other characters. You go down, someone casts Healing Word or gives you a potion, and boom your back up again. Not that I would consider my campaign to be indicative of other campaigns. But that's the point, I don't have the data and you don't either. And without the data to back you up, you can't just throw away the math.

But when you consider that 1d6 hp represents a 33% chance of certain doom while 3,5 hp completely avoids that, you might be able to understand what I mean: risk is a cost in itself.

Not beyond rolling bad. That 33% chance of certain doom in your artificial scenario is solely from rolling bad. There is nothing causing it beyond that.

Asking regular gamers to "understand the risks" is
1) incredibly dismissive to gamers

No, it's dismissive of your argument.

2) wildly underestimates how difficult the average gamer finds making proper probability calculations

All I have asked of games is addition, division, and doing a web search. If you don't think the average gamer is capable of that, you're the one being incredibly dismissive of gamers.

3) wildly underestimates how little the average gamer even want to think about statistics, instead trusting the designer to provide him or her with reasonably weighted options

I have argued for designers to provide reasonably weighted options in this very thread. We are just disagreeing on what is "reasonably weighted."

4) incredibly dismissive to the job that is game design. Asking gamers to do the risk calculation themselves is akin to "write your own scenario" where the writer just gives you a pitch and a rough outline, and leaves all the details to the DM to fill out. That's just not worth the money you pay to have someone write an adventure for you.

If gamers cannot do risk calculation, then game design should remove all risk. And I don't see how expecting players to do that is somehow the same as not doing any game design at all.

I guess we're different you and I.

I take it for granted that a game isn't out to fleece the unwary, the ones unable to resist thrills, and the math deficient.

This part I find very interesting. You said the game was hiding the risks. I pointed out that nothing was being hidden. Now you are saying I'm fleecing people. ??? We don't play for money at my table, so I am unaware of how I am fleecing anyone. But thank you for moving the goal posts.

I would also note that this a consistent refrain from you:

Risk is a cost. Many people aren't good at realizing this.

Too many people will go with the thrilling choice of possibly getting a whole six hit points, not caring about the equal possibility of getting just one.

This makes me think you want a game where risk isn't risky. The cost of risk you were talking about in your crude example was just the cost of bad rolls. You want to be compensated for that. You are compensated for that, by the good rolls. But that is not enough for you. You want to be compensated more. It seems you want the bad rolls not to be bad. That's not a game design I will get behind.

Finally, what I see here is ad hominem attacks, hyperbole, and moving goal posts. I don't see this conversation going anywhere useful, so I am not going to participate in it any more.

 

[ezo]

Finally, what I see here is ad hominem attacks, hyperbole, and moving goal posts. I don't see this conversation going anywhere useful, so I am not going to participate in it any more.

Might I suggest if this is your feeling, you edit your post to this and nothing more?

Personally, I find it frustrating if someone replies at length, and then tells me they are bowing out of the dicussion. If that is what they wanted to do, why not just tell me and more on? I always feel like it is them simply trying to "get in the last word" and often fails to actually stopping the discussion.

Just a suggestion, nothing meant personally by it, take it or leave it as you prefer.

 

[Oofta]

At low level, I'll be happy if it lasts hundreds of minutes.

But then, I tend to approach low level play the same way I approach a Rogue-like computer game: do what I can to keep it going, see how far it gets, and accept the fact that the odds are not in its favour.

And yet, if Wimpy consistently sticks his nose in and still outlasts Sir Stud, to me that's glorious. (never mind I've seen all too many a Sir-Stud-like character be the one hiding in the back while the Wimpies take the risks)

You've mentioned this curse before. It's a strange pattern, to be sure.

What can I say? I don't want to play the sidekick to the "real" hero. The opposite is also true, I don't want to play an OP character because I won the ability score lottery, that's would also be boring. If I make an OP character I want it to be because I'm just better at character building. I kid. Mostly.

...

You've mentioned this curse before. It's a strange pattern, to be sure.

Yeah, I've played elves in every edition. They always die. I actually feel bad because I've made DMs feel so guilty about killing off my PC.


As far as different approaches, different strokes for different folks.

 

[Jaiken]

I only let players roll for stats if they so wish and if they roll bad they can use Standard Point Array or Point Buy.