Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6862344" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, it does.&nbsp; Perhaps I haven't made clear why it follows, but it follows.You've agreed that the characters that are played are the ones that tend to be above average.&nbsp; The question becomes what defines 'average'.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm arguing that average is defined by the table expectation of what a 'good character' looks like, which is going to be circularly defined by being 'above average', thus creating a feedback loop.&nbsp; Suppose you are playing 3d6 straight up, then average is above an average score of 10.5.&nbsp; A character then with mostly 12's and 13's is an above average character, and players at that table will then have the expectation that a player ought to play that character rather than throwing it away or rerolling it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Suppose that group however tires of the randomness in 3d6 straight up, and decides to play 4d6 drop the lowest.&nbsp; This initially works better.&nbsp; There are fewer players with unplayable characters, fewer requests for do overs, and so forth.&nbsp; But you'll still have the problem that one guy in the group got the character with the equivalent of like 46 point buy, and you are playing a character with the equivalent of 15 point buy - perfectly normal results for something as random as 4d6 drop the lowest.&nbsp; As more and more players begin to find playing with higher stat characters normal, the ones that are left out of the goodness feel worse and worse about their substandard characters - even if a year or two before they would have been mostly content.&nbsp; That's because a year or two before, a character with no 16's was normal.&nbsp; But now, most players have the expectation of a higher stat array.So what tends to happen is when a player rolls up a new character, if his scores are now mostly 13s or less, the rest of the group (and the DM in particular) takes pity on him and says, &quot;Dude, that's just bad luck.&nbsp; Have a do over.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And the more emergency do over's you have to call for, the more the group starts thinking, &quot;Gee, this 4d6 drop the lowest method isn't working out.&quot;&nbsp; Because whenever you allow do over's in your preferred gambling method, it tends to create cognitive dissonance.&nbsp; The method no longer feels as fair, and in particular I would argue that do overs are attacking the illusionism that makes dice rolling fun for everyone.&nbsp; So they come up with a new rule that they agree is fair and everyone should live by, like say &quot;4d6, drop the lowest, but reroll the ones.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And then, the process repeats itself, because the new method generates higher averages and with it higher expectations about what a good character actually is.Looking back, I see that process either playing out or had already played out and reached some sort of extreme that produced such high results that, along with a bit of judicious cheating, no rerolls were ever asked for in just about every group I was involved with that used dice rolling.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6862344, member: 4937"] Yes, it does. Perhaps I haven't made clear why it follows, but it follows. You've agreed that the characters that are played are the ones that tend to be above average. The question becomes what defines 'average'. I'm arguing that average is defined by the table expectation of what a 'good character' looks like, which is going to be circularly defined by being 'above average', thus creating a feedback loop. Suppose you are playing 3d6 straight up, then average is above an average score of 10.5. A character then with mostly 12's and 13's is an above average character, and players at that table will then have the expectation that a player ought to play that character rather than throwing it away or rerolling it. Suppose that group however tires of the randomness in 3d6 straight up, and decides to play 4d6 drop the lowest. This initially works better. There are fewer players with unplayable characters, fewer requests for do overs, and so forth. But you'll still have the problem that one guy in the group got the character with the equivalent of like 46 point buy, and you are playing a character with the equivalent of 15 point buy - perfectly normal results for something as random as 4d6 drop the lowest. As more and more players begin to find playing with higher stat characters normal, the ones that are left out of the goodness feel worse and worse about their substandard characters - even if a year or two before they would have been mostly content. That's because a year or two before, a character with no 16's was normal. But now, most players have the expectation of a higher stat array. So what tends to happen is when a player rolls up a new character, if his scores are now mostly 13s or less, the rest of the group (and the DM in particular) takes pity on him and says, "Dude, that's just bad luck. Have a do over." And the more emergency do over's you have to call for, the more the group starts thinking, "Gee, this 4d6 drop the lowest method isn't working out." Because whenever you allow do over's in your preferred gambling method, it tends to create cognitive dissonance. The method no longer feels as fair, and in particular I would argue that do overs are attacking the illusionism that makes dice rolling fun for everyone. So they come up with a new rule that they agree is fair and everyone should live by, like say "4d6, drop the lowest, but reroll the ones." And then, the process repeats itself, because the new method generates higher averages and with it higher expectations about what a good character actually is. Looking back, I see that process either playing out or had already played out and reached some sort of extreme that produced such high results that, along with a bit of judicious cheating, no rerolls were ever asked for in just about every group I was involved with that used dice rolling. [/QUOTE]

Verification