Rolling for stats. Need some advice

[Vegepygmy]

I guess if you have to reroll your ability scores at the start of every session, it would put people on more equal footing. Odd way to go about it, though.

You're too smart to think that's what I was saying, Stream.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

You're too smart to think that's what I was saying, Stream.

That is correct, it was tongue-in-cheek. I would have found what you said to be far more sensible if that is what you meant, though.

A set of rolls you're stuck with for the life of the character is a far cry from "roll low today, roll high tomorrow." Rolling low on some attack rolls today doesn't affect your attack rolls tomorrow.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I would have found what you said to be far more sensible if that is what you meant, though.

I really appreciate how instead of just politely expressing your disagreement or stating what you believe to be a more sensible approach, you chose to insult me. Thanks.

A set of rolls you're stuck with for the life of the character is a far cry from "roll low today, roll high tomorrow." Rolling low on some attack rolls today doesn't affect your attack rolls tomorrow.

Perhaps you didn't realize that I wasn't using "today" and "tomorrow" literally. Yes, rolling high or low for your stats will affect the outcome of many other rolls over the life of the character. But it's just one character. There will be others.

For me, rolling your stats is part of the game. It's the "let's find out what I'm going to have to work with" phase, and I like the possibility that what I'm going to have to work with isn't exactly what I would have chosen. It adds to the challenge of the game for me.

Don't be a jerk just because it doesn't work that way for you.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Thanks.

You're welcome.

I really appreciate how instead of just politely expressing your disagreement or stating what you believe to be a more sensible approach, you chose to insult me.

Wasn't aware finding what you say unsensible was an insult. I'll be more careful in what I say to you from now on so as to not offend you, and shall use your sterling restraint as a guide in etiquette.

Don't be a jerk just because it doesn't work that way for you.

Nothing insulting in there, for example!

 

[Vegepygmy]

Wasn't aware finding what you say unsensible was an insult.

No, of course you weren't. My mistake. I retract what I said about you earlier.

 

[Empirate]

[MENTION=40109]Vegepygmy[/MENTION]: the longer I think about it, the less useful I find your argument for the question discussed in this thread. Now I must admit that my own examples have bee far from stellar themselves...

But your point, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be: it don't matter to me what stats I get, because I'm having fun regardless. That's a sensible approach I wish I was able to duplicate (I guess there's a little powergamer inside of me after all, whom I can't repress all the time). But most people won't be like that, as we can see from the myriad answers in this thread alone. Most people seem to like 'balanced' games, where balance refers to all people starting out with equal potential for character power - NOT equal potential for roleplaying interest.
So while rolling for stats can enhance the whole gaming experience, i.e. the aggregate of the roleplaying AND the mechanical sides of the game, it can, AT MOST, improve the former, but WILL detract from the latter.

At least that's the way I see it. It follows that I don't support your way of looking at things in a thread that's clearly about game balance, and characters' individual power, and NOT about roleplaying potential. To quote the OP:

Hey guys, I got a dilemma I need some help with l. We all know about rolling for stats 4d6 drop the lowest, but a lot of my players are not having fun due to the being restricted with their low rolls and a few suffering with negative modifiers. So I was thinking about letting the group reroll their stats. How would you guys resolve this issue by allowing the players decent stats. I was thinking when they roll 6 times their total have to be greater or equal to a certain number, or they can reroll any 1s or 2s. What do you guys think?

.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I rolled about 20 sets of arrays using 4d6dl and then ranked them into tiers. I selected the broadest tier where the bottom array is comparable to the top one and then present these to my players.

The players in turn then get the option to take one of these arrays, roll the best of 2 arrays themselves, or take 32 point buy. If the rollers roll rubbish I'll give them an array from the tier lower to what was originally offered - there has to be a penalty.

Regarding HPs, I provide a minimum default to the character of the average total for their hit dice and level. E.g. A 2nd level fighter has 10+1d10 base hps, so whatever they roll they'll get a base 15 hps. At 10th level they'll have 10+9d10, or a 59 minimum base HPs. If the 10th Level fighter already had rolled 60 hps at 9th level and then rolled a 1 when going 10th, they'd be stuck with it.

This gives a significant boost at early levels but the safety net tapers away as levels accrue.

 

[Vegepygmy]

But your point, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be: it don't matter to me what stats I get, because I'm having fun regardless.

Not exactly. I'm saying the stats don't matter as much to me as they do to most people, for several reasons, one of them being that I enjoy the challenge of accomplishing goals while "handicapped."

This certainly seems to be a minority position, for reasons I suspect would make for a fascinating sociological study, but the really interesting thing I've observed here is the antipathy the mere idea I've expressed has aroused. It reminds me of the Edition Wars, where neither side was content to play and let play, but rather insisted that the other side's preference was badwrongfun.

In any case, I don't see any point in discussing it further.

 

[billd91]

But your point, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be: it don't matter to me what stats I get, because I'm having fun regardless. That's a sensible approach I wish I was able to duplicate (I guess there's a little powergamer inside of me after all, whom I can't repress all the time). But most people won't be like that, as we can see from the myriad answers in this thread alone. Most people seem to like 'balanced' games, where balance refers to all people starting out with equal potential for character power - NOT equal potential for roleplaying interest.
So while rolling for stats can enhance the whole gaming experience, i.e. the aggregate of the roleplaying AND the mechanical sides of the game, it can, AT MOST, improve the former, but WILL detract from the latter.

I disagree. If the majority of players are interested in balance, they should be rolling stats. I find it does a better job of balancing single-attribute classes with multiple-attribute classes, hard-core optimizers with non-optimizers, and skilled players with less skilled players.

 

[Empirate]

Care to elaborate on that statement? Because at face value it seems untenable to me. Unless you're saying that chance is the great leveller or something like that. I don't get it.