D&D 5E (2014) Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[OB1]

If I had no imagination or goals in mind, I might enjoy letting my characters fate be decided by the dice instead. (Yes, I deliberately chose to word that in a biased fashion.)

That's exactly why I sometimes like to roll Random!

 

[Lanefan]

Cool. YOU play the underdog then. I don't feel like it.

Oh...you mean I don't get a choice because we randomly generated our stats? Well, I still don't want to play the underdog just so you can feel good cheering for me on that rare occasion I get to shine. Maybe I'll just go play a game where I get to enjoy playing my character instead of being an underdog for your entertainment.

Not just my entertainment...though obviously not yours.

What a load of crap. I don't care about reflecting "real life". I'm playing a fantasy game. I want to play the hero, not the underdog.

I want to play both over time...sometimes the hero, sometimes the underdog, sometimes the one who becomes the other...as I go through different characters.

It's not an ego thing - I don't always have to be playing the biggest and baddest, though I've known players whose ego won't allow them to play anything less. I try to avoid these.

 

[Oofta]

Let me say first that if anything I've written has implied that your playing the game wrong, I apologize, as that is absolutely not my intention. Again, I use both styles depending on the group and our goals, so I get that both are fun! And I get that you like and prefer PointBuy, I'm just truly interested in why. It sounds like perhaps it's about having control of all the details of your character, is that a fair conclusion?

On the other hand, I would like to understand some of your conclusions about Random style.

For example, I don't see random rolling as creating a random PC. Random rolling can create Tormond the warrior fleeing from his pirate king father..etc...etc, it's just that the seed for that idea comes from a different place. In the case of Random generation, in my eyes the difference is that Tormond the warrior may want to confront his father and make him pay for his sins, but because he was born without his father's inherent strength, he will have to adventure for many years to gain the strength necessary to defeat him. Now, I don't have control of that narrative before I roll, it's one I come up with after the roll, whereas you may build your character to that concept.

As for Chuck the Waterboy, if I actually rolled a character with nothing but 3's, I would look at it as a unique challenge of my skills as a player, but it is extremely likely that I will have at least one stat 10 or higher after racial bonus, meaning I'm more likely playing Chuck the star offensive linemen instead of Chuck the star quarterback. Chuck the offensive linemen is still the hero of his own story, I as a player just didn't have as much control over his starting conditions and had to come up with his story as a reaction to the die rolls.

While ability scores are the lowest on my list of what makes my character my character, yes I do want to start on an even footing with the other members of the group. It's not just that I want to be as good as them, I also don't want to be significantly better them either. For some reason people keep ignoring that aspect of it. I don't want to start with multiple 18s.

Some of it is control. If I envision my character as being strong, charismatic and reckless (low wisdom) I can do that*.

So for me I like point buy because

• PCs start out on even footing, with no one significantly "gifted" compared to the others; some PCs may well be more effective, but if they are it's because of the player, not a 1 time roll. I don't want to be the guy with multiple 18s any more than I want to be the gimp of the party.
• Control over the build so I can have the strengths and weaknesses that make sense for my vision of who my character is*.
• No 18s at first level. The game seems to be better balanced and I enjoy having to choose between bumping ability scores vs taking feats. As [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] mentioned, it makes me appreciate the +1s and +2s.
• I've seen massive discrepancies in characters. One PC with multiple 18s and a low of 14. Another character high of 14, a 10 and all other numbers below. Neither person was happy.

*Within limitations of point buy of course.

 

[Caliban]

I want to play both over time...sometimes the hero, sometimes the underdog, sometimes the one who becomes the other...as I go through different characters.

Same here. But it's going to be my choice which I play. Not decided by the dice.

It's not an ego thing - I don't always have to be playing the biggest and baddest, though I've known players whose ego won't allow them to play anything less. I try to avoid these.

That's nice. Not actually relevant to the discussion at hand, but thanks for sharing.

 

[Oofta]

It adds the opportunity to cheer for the underdog. Don't underestimate this one - everyone loves an underdog winning.

It adds opportunities for internal-party roleplay, from various possible angles depending on the individual characters/players: the higher-power (HP) characters training and helping and cheering on the lower-powered (LP) ones, or the LP becoming jealous of the HP always doing better, or the LP boasting to one and all about what the HP can do and how great she is - and the HP then having to live up to it!, or whatever.

It reflects real life, where not everyone is created equal even within a small segment of the population (in this case, statistically-above-average people who become adventurers).

Etc.

Lanefan

Correction - you like cheering for the underdog. Once again, just because I don't like there being an underdog for the group doesn't mean I haven't experienced it. As far as real life, I don't give a furry rat's rump. I game to escape reality.

I don't want to hand out "good breathing" awards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know what value people think it adds to the game to have significant difference in potential based on a one time roll of the dice.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, very obviously: you might be the one to get luck on that one roll. It's the appeal of gambling.
Vegas makes billions on that impulse, it can't be too surprising it's not entirely absent among D&Ders.

Which is just the author DM putting their thumb on the scale and showing favoritism.

Favoritism would be doing that for the PC whether it needed the help into the spotlight or not. It's just pro-active/Empowered DMing.

Besides, you're referencing a novel not a game.

A novel the game has borrowed liberally from.

 

[Caliban]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, very obviously: you might be the one to get luck on that one roll. It's the appeal of gambling.
Vegas makes billions on that impulse, it can't be too surprising it's not entirely absent among D&Ders.

Absolutely. I know that is a significant part of why I don't like rolling (not all of it, but a lot). Some people remember their successes more vividly than their failures, others remember the failures more than their successes. I've been to Las Vegas and gambled. I didn't enjoy it - I remember the money I lost far more vividly than the small amount I won.

I had the same depressed, sick feeling then as the times I played D&D with random roll and got a poor set of attributes.

So I know that I personally enjoy D&D much more when I know that's not going to happen to me at the start of the campaign and put me in a poor mood at the beginning of every session when I look at my character sheet.

And I also know that those who prefer random roll simply don't understand that viewpoint.

 

[Oofta]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, very obviously: you might be the one to get luck on that one roll. It's the appeal of gambling.
Vegas makes billions on that impulse, it can't be too surprising it's not entirely absent among D&Ders.

Favoritism would be doing that for the PC whether it needed the help into the spotlight or not. It's just pro-active/Empowered DMing.

A novel the game has borrowed liberally from.

In my opinion, if the DM has to ensure that a specific PC gets benefits no one else in the party gets, it's an example of a heavy handed DM artificially putting their thumb on the scale. Giving Timmy the good breathing award because they never get any prizes. If I get a blue ribbon, I want it because I deserve it, not as a consolation prize.

If the DM has to go out of their way to balance out PCs, why not just start out with reasonably balanced characters in the first place? It's like those bad racing video games where the opponent cars teleport to catch up to you if they get too far behind. Not my style.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, and as far as the gambling, maybe that's part of why I don't like rolling. I hate gambling. It's a stupid waste of money, and I see no entertainment value whatsoever.

Of course I'm also the guy that went to Vegas (not my choice) with $200 to gamble and lost everything without ever winning one dime so I'm biased. Games of pure chance? I lose every single game. They just aren't fun.

Give me a game of skill every time. I may not win, but I generally have a better than even chance.

 

[OB1]

I, as a player, prefer to have total control over my starting conditions.

And this goes way beyond just char-gen method - my experience tells me this Lawful/Chaotic-as-player divide extends into actual play as well, and shows up as an undercurrent to many of the other major discussions in here.

Lanefan

Think you really hit on something here. Very interesting insight.

Freedom of Choice


Resigned to whatever hand fate deals you.

Lawful - Freedom of Choice - But false choice, since the results are all uniform regardless of the initial choice

Chaotic - Resigned to whatever hand fate deals you - For your starting condition, but infinite variety afterwards

Absolutely. I know that is a significant part of why I don't like rolling (not all of it, but a lot). Some people remember their successes more vividly than their failures, others remember the failures more than their successes. I've been to Las Vegas and gambled. I didn't enjoy it - I remember the money I lost far more vividly than the small amount I won.

I had the same depressed, sick feeling then as the times I played D&D with random roll and got a poor set of attributes.

So I know that I personally enjoy D&D much more when I know that's not going to happen to me at the start of the campaign and put me in a poor mood at the beginning of every session when I look at my character sheet.

And I also know that those who prefer random roll simply don't understand that viewpoint.

You keep assuming that I don't understand your viewpoint or have some problem with it. I completely understand where you are coming from and respect it.

Going back to my original post a few hours ago, the Fantasy genre in general is one that tends to be about gaining and/or asserting control. So in that sense, rules that re-enforce that concept, like point buy, are more in line with the underpinnings of the genre.

On the flip side of that is the other underpinning of D&D, which is the Fairy Tale genre, which tends towards the more chaotic and even, dare I say it, unfair, which Random roll fits into.

Law and Chaos once again.

Of course, then we consider the way Heroes get treated by the gods in Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies, and can see precisely what genre every DM thinks she's in