D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

I ... I just can't. Declaring something "even" just because you want it to be ... there's no arguing with that.

Take 10 people and give them 4d6. Then tell them that they will roll those dice and take out the lowest or stats. What's uneven about that process? Do any of them have more or less d6's than the others? Are any of them going to remove more or less dice? The answers are, nothing, no, and no. The start of the process is just as even as anything you use.

If you like people starting out with unequal ability scores, that's fine.

Your method produces no even PCs. Just admit that obvious fact.

Just admit the obvious fact. The whole point of randomizing ability scores is to have uneven results.

If I did that I'd be a blatant liar, so sorry, no can do.

 

[Oofta]

Take 10 people and give them 4d6. Then tell them that they will roll those dice and take out the lowest or stats. What's uneven about that process? Do any of them have more or less d6's than the others? Are any of them going to remove more or less dice? The answers are, nothing, no, and no. The start of the process is just as even as anything you use.


Your method produces no even PCs. Just admit that obvious fact.

If I did that I'd be a blatant liar, so sorry, no can do.

It can be argued that the generation method is "fair". I disagree but at least it's a cogent argument.

Anyway, I'm done. Have a good one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The answers are, nothing, no, and no. The start of the process is just as even as anything you use.

Yep. Fair, just with a greater potential for imbalance...

Your method produces no even PCs.

His method, point buy, produces PCs with the same point-buy total, every time. In whatever theory it's based on, that's presumably 'even,' it weights high scores more heavily than 8-13, which seems reasonable enough considering the game. Of course, the PCs won't be even, someone may play a fighter, someone else a paladin, etc... but the scores, alone, won't be a source of profound imbalance, at least.

Everyone using array, obviously, would give a more 'even' result (still not perfectly balanced, since the stats aren't perfectly balanced).

Rolling, obviously, can give more 'uneven' results. It can also, coincidentally, give identical results, just like array (unlikely, but hey). So it seems unfair inappropriate to say uneven results are /the/ reason for using random, since you might not get them. The sense of realism random delivers is undermined by arranging, too.
So I'm not sure I do see the point.

OK, sure, the point might be the same as the excitement of gambling for stakes, though - the stakes are better characters if you 'win,' against a worse one if you 'lose,' rather than winning or losing money. :shrug:

It can be argued that the generation method is "fair".

6(a), (b)(1), and 10(a/b).

I disagree but at least it's a cogent argument.

From "eye of the beholder" to "cogent argument?"

...sounds 7(a).

 

[Oofta]

Rolling, obviously, can give more 'uneven' results. It can also, coincidentally, give identical results, just like array (unlikely, but hey). So it seems unfair inappropriate to say uneven results are /the/ reason for using random, since you might not get them. The sense of realism random delivers is undermined by arranging, too.

You were so close!

6(a), (b)(1), and 10(a/b).
From "eye of the beholder" to "cogent argument?"

...sounds 7(a).

Hey, I never said I didn't understand your argument or that it was worthless. You're wrong of course We have different opinions on the best definition as it applies to the game, but that's a different story.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. Fair, just with a greater potential for imbalance...

Agreed. My only contention with @Oofta was the idea that the method was unfair, which it isn't by definition. The results will often be unequal, but the method of stat generation is fair.

His method, point buy, produces PCs with the same point-buy total, every time. In whatever theory it's based on, that's presumably 'even,' it weights high scores more heavily than 8-13, which seems reasonable enough considering the game. Of course, the PCs won't be even, someone may play a fighter, someone else a paladin, etc... but the scores, alone, won't be a source of profound imbalance, at least.

Everyone using array, obviously, would give a more 'even' result (still not perfectly balanced, since the stats aren't perfectly balanced).

That wasn't the claim, though. @Oofta claimed that he likes point buy/arrays, because he likes the players to start on an even field. Those stat generation methods don't result in an even playing field. Yes, rolling is more uneven, but an even playing field is a pipe dream.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Agreed. My only contention with @Oofta was the idea that the method was unfair, which it isn't by definition. The results will often be unequal, but the method of stat generation is fair.

Oh yeah, been on that merry-go-round... ;|

That wasn't the claim, though. @Oofta claimed that he likes point buy/arrays, because he likes the players to start on an even field. Those stat generation methods don't result in an even playing field. Yes, rolling is more uneven, but an even playing field is a pipe dream.

As far as the stats go, it's an even playing field. A tad more even, with array, esoterically less so given differences in player system-mastery with point-buy, but both more so than rolling. And, if you 'like an even playing field,' then less uneven is preferable to more. I think you're exaggerating his claim, and holding point-buy/array to an 'unfair' (...oooh, that's a risk...) standard, in order to raise an objection where no valid objection exists. It's the way proponents of imbalance assert that, since perfect balance is impossible, the game should be as imbalanced as humanly or otherwise possible, because, hey, you can't be perfect, so you might just as well utterly horrible, right? It's not like there's any middle ground, or possibility of improvement, is there? ;P

(Or, I could've just said "you're nit-picking" but that would have been succinct, and anyone who prefers succinct should be long gone from a thread like this...)

...

However, another interesting thing I noticed in reviewing the PH: Standard Array is essentially /built into standard 4d6 generation/. Think about it, folks. A player who doesn't like random generation sitting at a standard 5e table, can just take the array. Best of both worlds, in a way, really. At worst, a neat compromise.

 

[Wulffolk]

(Or, I could've just said "you're nit-picking" but that would have been succinct, and anyone who prefers succinct should be long gone from a thread like this...)
...
Best of both worlds, in a way, really. At worst, a neat compromise.

Been 35 pages since my last comment, and probably more than 100 pages since I made a comment pertaining to the point of the OP, but I still check in once in a while to see exactly how far down the Black Spiral this thread Dances. Points to whoever gets that reference.

And [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] How dare you mention that C word, compromise, on the internet! ;-)

 

[Maxperson]

As far as the stats go, it's an even playing field. A tad more even, with array, esoterically less so given differences in player system-mastery with point-buy, but both more so than rolling. And, if you 'like an even playing field,' then less uneven is preferable to more. I think you're exaggerating his claim, and holding point-buy/array to an 'unfair' (...oooh, that's a risk...) standard, in order to raise an objection where no valid objection exists. It's the way proponents of imbalance assert that, since perfect balance is impossible, the game should be as imbalanced as humanly or otherwise possible, because, hey, you can't be perfect, so you might just as well utterly horrible, right? It's not like there's any middle ground, or possibility of improvement, is there? ;P

You don't play stats, though. You play characters. As soon as someone with an array chooses a dex character and places his 15 in the god stat dex, he's leaps and bounds ahead of the guy who picked the int character.

However, another interesting thing I noticed in reviewing the PH: Standard Array is essentially /built into standard 4d6 generation/. Think about it, folks. A player who doesn't like random generation sitting at a standard 5e table, can just take the array. Best of both worlds, in a way, really. At worst, a neat compromise.

I've found that causes more contention than everyone rolling and coming up with uneven numbers. People are better about uneven numbers when everyone is gambling.

 

[Lanefan]

And [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] How dare you mention that C word, compromise, on the internet! ;-)

Next he'll be after using that other 'C' word: consensus.

At which point the world ends.

Lan-"this thread used to have interesting debates and some great number-crunching - what happened?"-efan

 

[Arial Black]

Point-buy ensures that each PC starts with stats that add up to the same build cost, so as 'even' as it can be, given the fact that not all stats are equal. The drawback is that, in a game that involves creating realistic worlds for us to explore, the idea that 'everyone is equally gifted' is absurd, detracting from the desired realism from the start. It also denies us any concept that does not add up to the point-buy total, which is a huge chunk of all possible PCs with stats from 3-18.

Rolling reflects the realism that people are not created equal, but at the likely cost of the PCs (Shock! Horror!) not being equal!

Each method has objective qualities, advantages and disadvantages. Where subjective opinion comes in is how important you deem each quality to be compared to the others. If 'PC equality' is more desirable to you than 'realism', then point-buy seems 'better' to you. If 'realism' is more desirable to you, then rolling seems 'better'.

It's okay if we have different desires in this regard. We can each extol the virtues of one method over the other, tell sad stories about how the disadvantages of either method made a game 'unfun'.

People reading our comments may take our thoughts into account when deciding which method to use in their upcoming campaign. Our comments have value.

However, it is still possible to make false statements about a method, and those should be corrected lest they lead these readers astray. For example, claiming that either method lets players 'play the concept they want' is provably false, and falsely ascribing this virtue to either method (and implying that the other method lacks this virtue) is something I felt the need to correct.