If we all rolled the normal way for stats, how come he has three 18's?

[FreeTheSlaves]

Rolled in order does have a certain charm, but it can create the unviable character or a character the player doesn't want. Neither of these are really suitable results for the default system of an inclusive game.

Btw, when I'm thinking about arrays, I'm thinking of interesting sets of stats with strengths and weaknesses, but all of heroic proportions. I think the assumption should be that every character's stats is very satisfactory to the player concerned.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Rolled in order does have a certain charm, but it can create the unviable character or a character the player doesn't want.

Of course, "unviable" is qualitative. In any case, "unviable" can be addressed by throwing out a "hopeless" set of rolls, or by skewing the rolls so you get numbers within an acceptable range (e.g. 2d6+6 or whatever creates the range you're willing to consider). Or by playing the hopeless PC -- if he's truly hopeless, he'll die. Actually, I've seen some "hopeless" PCs survive and do fine; personally, I find that good play is more important than good stats, but that probably varies with the group and with the system.

I think the assumption should be that every character's stats is very satisfactory to the player concerned.

Sure; players should enjoy playing the PC. However, low stats needn't be an automatic deal-breaker for player satisfaction; it depends on your assumptions going in. As I mentioned up-thread, a good deal of the fun in rolled stats is the challenge of "playing the hand you're dealt." You see what fate gives you. You exercise your creativity to make an interesting PC from the rolls you came up with. You look at low stats as a challenge -- can you hack it?

I'm not saying it's the one true way, or that everyone would enjoy such an approach, but I think roll-in-order-and-play-it gets dismissed too casually, sometimes. It can be fun, you just need to approach it with a different attitude and set of assumptions. IMO, it works especially well for traditional dungeon play, and also for campaigns where the overall story is more important than the specific characters (similar to those big, fat, fantasy novels/series that have major characters die off and be replaced by others, while continuing the overall story).

I don't think it's an either/or dichotomy. Sometimes you want to start with a PC conception and "build" that PC, rather than going randomly (i.e. the fun is in the conception of the PC, rather than in the challenge of playing the hand you're dealt). In that case, roll-and-arrange, point-buy, or just assigning the appropriate numbers are all good approaches. That works well for games where it's all about the specific characters.

 

[Phlebas]

We discussed this thread in my usual group last night

it basically came down to approach.

The point buy advocate liked the fact he could come up with a concept and tailor the PC to exactly fit the concept (note - not powergamed but fitting the concept)

Me, I love the challenge of creating a character concept from a bunch of dice rolls, using them as the inspiration. The only time I switch them from the order i roll is when the Dm prods me with a comment that "The party don't have a MU yet, just saying" and I need to make sure i'm at least a functional spell caster.

All we agreed on was that there was room in the game for both approaches.

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

4d6 drop the lowest seven times is not the standard method, by the way.

It's not your standard. It has been mine for 20+ years. When we have a new player join the group and they roll for stats they did't bat an eye nor ask any questions over that method; they just pick up their dice and started rolling.

As I said earlier, yes, we've had super characters but we also had duds but the most important thing is that everyone was satisfied with the method and had fun which is the main purpose of gaming.

 

[Li Shenron]

There are people who cannot simply be satisfied by anything they're given to play with, unless perhaps if everyone else is given something less. Maybe the same kind of people that when they play cards, at every possible hand they're whining how unlucky they are in always getting bad cards, until they get a poker served (but at least in poker you lose something if you give up an "unviable" hand). They're not necessarily bad players, but I think they're quite universally identified as annoying at the game table.

There could be perhaps some attempt that can be done. Reading the 1996 3ed questionnaire on another thread I noticed that a question was about XP bonuses when playing a character with high stats. An alternative considered for 3e was exactly the opposite: since it's harder to play a PC with low stats, such PC could be given an XP bonus. I'm not say it would work (and certainly there is a high risk of min-maxing to get both the benefits), but it gave me something to think.

 

[Will]

In the E6 thread is the concept of point buy 'paying' for LA. So if normal point level is 35, +1 LA could be 'paid for' by only having 27 points (or something, I don't have the chart on hand).

It'd be interesting to do it that way... someone who rolled a high point value having an effective LA over those who roll low -- which removes one of my biggest objections to rolling.

 

[sjmiller]

On a related topic -
Does anyone have a list of how the various dice rolling methods equate to in points buy?
That is, if you look at the statistics, how many points do you expect from:
a) 3d6 six sets
b) 4d6 drop lowest. six sets
c) 4d6 drop lowest. seven sets, drop lowest
d) 4d6 reroll 1s, drop lowest. Six sets

OK, when you say "six sets" do you mean roll, for example, 3d6 a total of 6 times, or do you mean roll 3d6 a total of 36 times, in groups of 6? I am not familiar with using the term "set" in this way. It would help with the calculations.

 

[Urbannen]

It's not your standard. It has been mine for 20+ years.

Just to start a flame war, it is not the standard in the PHB. Therefore, it is not the standard. It's an alternate or optional or house rule method.

Edit: And I just say that because it distorts the discussion. If someone talks about how they fairly rolled their ranger with all the 18's and 17's, but used roll 4d6 x 7, then that example doesn't compare with everyone else who's talking about their results using the standard method.

 

[Driddle]

Was Chuck Norris anywhere within a 20-mile radius of the dice-rolling site? His presence alone can rub off on people nearby -- better dice rolls, immaculate conceptions, spontaneous healing, being able to find that sock you lost a month ago, etc.

I once rolled a 19 on 3d6 just by thinking about Chuck Norris.

 

[White Whale]

I've noticed this phenomenon in two groups I joined from on-line ads (one I stayed with, the other I didn't). The DMs instructed the players to roll for stats using the standard method. When I rolled each time, my highest stat was 15-16 and my lowest stat was 8-9.
Then I noticed that some players, usually those who had played with the DM in the past, had much higher stats.

In the first group, people "rolled" at home. I thought my character's stats were decent (16, 15, 14...), but they were the lowest in the group. One guy had used a computer program to roll his character. I knew because the program left the record on his sheet that he had rolled 26 times to achieve all his 18's, 17's, and 16's.

In the second group, I rolled my character's stats: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9.
After we were done, I looked at the guy next to me (he had arrived with the DM). His stats: 13, 14, 15, 18, 18, 18 (in that order).
When I expressed my disbelief, the DM said, "I saw him roll". (I suspect the guy rolled d6 24 times, and then put his rolls in groups of four and THEN dropped the lowest.)

When another player started (an old member of the group), I found out he had a 17, 18, and 20. One new guy (who had rolled honestly) had a couple of low stats, a 6 and a 7. Because he was a noble from Conan RPG, he put the decent scores in his mental stats. When play began, the DM mentioned how weak the character was. He seemed surprised, even though he was there when the stats were rolled.

And of course, no one with 18's remarked on how lucky they were to have rolled such high scores. There was never any mention, either in or out of character dialogue, about how exceptional their characters were compared to everybody else.

Why this self-deception? It seems entirely common in the D&D community. If people want super-high scores, why don't they just use a different means of stat generation? Now, if I hear people rolled for stats, I assume something shady is going on.

Rolling 4d6 drop lowest leaves you with 1.62% chance for 18. Rolling three 18s in a row has a probability of 0.0000042525, or a 1 in 235 155 chance.

So while not impossible, it is certainly very unlikely.