So, after all this, basically you're saying that die rollers are die rolling just for number porn? They like high numbers, so, they are die rolling characters?
They like the /chance/ of high numbers. It's a gambling thing: there's excitement in the process, because there's a clear benefit if you 'win' that's like getting something for nothing. Of course, 'winning' is relative. If you're rolling and you get the best stats of the entire party, you 'won,' even if your stats are comparable to something you could have gotten with point buy or coincidentally identical to a standard array.
The point isn't the absolute size of the numbers, but the shot at being better than the next guy, by the numbers, via luck.
See, where I'm differing here, is that I think that high numbers do have a number (heh, no pun intended) of knock on effects. A high stat character doesn't have to worry about ASI's, so, will go for feats because, well, an stat bump just isn't really a choice.
You can always bump secondary and tertiary stats.
And that rolls into characters having a fair bit of greater power at lower levels, which rolls into encounter design being that much more difficult.
Dirty little DM secret: at very low level, having some exceptional stats in the party can actually make encounter design easier, because you don't have to be quite as vigilant for potential TPKs.
It is problematic from a design perspective too. If I'm making a 5th level module (for example) should I automatically presume that the PC's have all pluses and at least one feat each by this time?
Overall, yes, if the point of the design is to create a balanced, challenging scenario. If, OTOH, the point is to create an appearance of balance and challenge, while letting the party more or less roll over everything and feel good about their 'superior player skill' or gamblers' luck or whatever they want to credit their success with, then just peg the challenge to the average, or even the baseline. Players who roll well will do well, characters that got stuck with terrible stats may die and be replaced, and you've got a system where the average is above-average.
I just think that die rolling causes far more problems than it solves.
I suspect it masks more problems than it causes.
the ability tables, especially in 5e, are worthless at the odd numbers which means that the gaming table is filled with characters sitting with 10's, 12's, 14's and so forth.
Not enough diversity exists.
I'm working on a house rule to change that and make the odd numbers count too.
I guess I look at the d20 (actually it goes all the way back to Gamma World 4th) +/- (stat-10)/2 formula and see something that's easier to remember than the bizarre tables of AD&D, and creates /more/ diversity. In 1e, for important modifiers like STR to attack/damage, DEX to AC, and the like, bonuses started at 15 and penalties at 8. So 9-14 might as well have been the same thing. Talk about lack of 'diversity.' Sure, there were fiddly little things here and there that you probably didn't care about for most characters, or that you cared about but made little difference unless you're talking a big difference in stats.
The WotC eds standardized on mods, which was good, and then tried to use preqs to keep odd stats relevant. 5e does a bit less of that, but its still there for MCing, for instance. There could be more of that, I suppose.
The other thing is that ASIs make it easy and clearly beneficial/efficient to 'even out' your odd stats, whether they're assigned by array, point-buy leftovers, or randomly rolled.
Now, I think if someone is the type of person to get jealous over what other people have there might be a problem, but that's a psychological problem, not one caused by rolling.
Ah, the blame game, we must really enjoy it, we play it so much around here...
Just once, I'd like to turn it around. Not "there's nothing wrong with the game, there must be something wrong with YOU," but, "if you're enjoying D&D, thank your DM, not the game."
