Point Buy vs. Die Rolling Ability Scores

[Crothian]

I did not implement it due to my players- I did it due to my concerns.

Which is great and solid reasons to do so. Some of the above coments seems to suggest that they did it to curb players they can't trust, so I was just wondering if that was the only reason they did it. Trust is such a big part of the game that many people don't realize how much it effects the way people behave and act.

 

[hong]

Which is great and solid reasons to do so. Some of the above coments seems to suggest that they did it to curb players they can't trust, so I was just wondering if that was the only reason they did it. Trust is such a big part of the game that many people don't realize how much it effects the way people behave and act.

Perhaps, but it's always good to have policy instruments that can fill the gap between "please don't do that" and "you're out of my game".

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Trust is such a big part of the game that many people don't realize how much it effects the way people behave and act.

I would agree with that- there seems to be groups that have developed a cold war of antagonism between players and dm.

I suppose I can understand how it develops, but I have found including players in the planning of campeign design and house rules tends to help fix that.

Or they could go play Hackmaster which promotes the antagonistic nature of the relationship.

SD

 

[Pax]

So, people seem to use point buy to stop the players from complaining about unfairness. Would you use dice if you had mature players who didn't complain? I know there are those who use point buy for other reasons and that's good. It's just using it because Bob always has the highest score sounds like you can't trust bob and are punishing everyone for it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IME, it's not a matter of not being able to trust "Bob", it's a matter of real, epirically-observed differences in actual LUCK with attributes, that caused problems in my games.

Back in my 2E days, I had three players for a long while -- one of them, Mike, could be -counted- on to always have stellar attributes.

And no, before you even THINK of going there -- he wasn't cheating. You see, it didn't matter WHO rolled the dice, or WHAT dice were rolled. His average woudl ALWAYS be 1 or 2 points higher than anyone else's HIGHEST STAT.

As the GM, I could sit there and roll three sets, using the same 4d6 from MY dice bag, on the same table, within the span of 3 or 4 minutes (total). Every set generated for Mike woudl come out just as high, relative to the other people. We'd have sets like 14/12/12/11/10/9 for the two "normal luck" players, then along comes Mike with 18/18/17/16/15/15.

I'm dead serious here. This happened during character generation for no less than FIVE seperate mini-campaigns.

The sad thing is, the last time, the spread of attributes was the same, despite my having rolled the sets for them all days beforehand, and having LIED to Mike; I -didn't- use 4d6-and-drop, I used 3d6-and-suck-it-up ... and he STILL get a better spread of attributes than I can roll for MYSELF, using 4d6-and-drop ... !!!

That group broke up, due in no small part to the other two getting tired of ALWAYS being the sidekick, even when they KNEW there was no cheating going on because they WATCHED every roll of every die, right in front of them, during character generation.

 

[Zeddan]

I choose Die Rolling.

Rolling the Dice adds chance and excitement to the character creation process. The increased favor in point buy might be the by-product of society. As several people have mentioned they are random in real life, in the game they want to be heroic. Bah, Its part of the general feel in society that every one is equal. Bull, every one has equal rights and equal oppurtunity, but in no way is everyone equal. I also think it smacks of a lack of responsibility in character creation. I ultimately prefer the old 3d6 in order. Roll them and suck it up.

Step off of soapbox.

There, nothing like a good rant after a long day at work.

 

[Enkhidu]

I don't necessarily have a problem with die rolling, but I have seen some fairly outrageous ranges between the lucky rollers and the unlucky rollers. In our present campaign, the low roller would have needed 29 points to buy his stats, while the high roller would need 49.

Pretty big difference.

So my question to DMs who prefer rolling for stats would be: how do you balance encounters when some characters are so inherently powerful in comparison to others?

 

[Crothian]

So my question to DMs who prefer rolling for stats would be: how do you balance encounters when some characters are so inherently powerful in comparison to others?

We haven't seen a problem with it at all. The example I like to use is our last game. The wizard would have been about 29 points ahead of my ranger. Yet, it was not like I was unable to fight or be as effective, actually more effective most of the time. It turned out as expected, as the fighter type I was better at low levels and as he got more and more powerful spells he started to outshine me. It wasn't like he was out fighting me in combat or anything close to that.

In the game we start Sunday I rolled better stats then he did. But I'm playing a Monk and he's playing a Shugenja, so I think we will see basically the same thing. I'll be better at the low levels then as he comes into his spells he will totally outshine me. Classes can over come attributes easily, as can magical items and magical ability.

 

[Pax]

We haven't seen a problem with it at all. The example I like to use is our last game. The wizard would have been about 29 points ahead of my ranger. Yet, it was not like I was unable to fight or be as effective, actually more effective most of the time. It turned out as expected, as the fighter type I was better at low levels and as he got more and more powerful spells he started to outshine me. It wasn't like he was out fighting me in combat or anything close to that.

Turn it into an apples-and-apples comparison instead.

What if you had BOTH beenplaying fighter-types? You a Ranger, him ... a Paladin, perhaps? IOW, if you had BOTH been melee types, rather than the (IMO) somewhat apples-and-oranges comparison of warrior-spellcaster pairings ...

 

[dcollins]

So my question to DMs who prefer rolling for stats would be: how do you balance encounters when some characters are so inherently powerful in comparison to others?

I think the short answer should be: one balances encounters for the team as a whole, not individual characters.

Again, this makes for a bit of a throwback to AD&D, where the emphasis was on players coming together as a team, and communally working through the strengths and weaknesses of the team as a whole.

The current play environment seems to encourage the consideration of each PC as an island-unto-himself, which removes a lot of the interesting variety possible in tactical-party-dynamics. But, at the same time, it makes the game more susceptible to the kind of independent min/max analysis which hard-core gamers find satisfying, it seems.

 

[bret]

I think the short answer should be: one balances encounters for the team as a whole, not individual characters.

When balancing for the team, you have to consider what happens if one of the characters falls.

I've seen cases of a single character becoming disporportionately powerful. In order to challenge that character, you have to throw something at the group that the other characters find extremely tough to fight. If you have both extremes in the same group, the character who rolled poorly becomes basically useless.

So how do you balance for the team when two members have the standard array, one has a 13 as his high score, and the last has nothing less than a 14 in any ability?