Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5147631" data-attributes="member: 32740">Well, not really, as in either of those systems a 10 gives you no bonus or penalty.  However, what a 15 means would be radically different.  In 2E you START to get bonuses around that point, whereas in 3E you're well into bonuses.Well, not by the RULES it isn't but it sure seems to be the case when you look at polls and posts about stat generation.  By the 4E rules random generation is one of three options.  I think people attach excessive significance to the fact that array and point-buy are listed first.  I think it's actually worth noting that the third option of rolling appears on the next page instead of the same page.  It gets overlooked and DISCOUNTED even further as an accidental result.  The text in the 4E PHB notes that rolling has its drawbacks but does not otherwise suggest that any method it presents is preferred.  Non-random methods have only been options since 2E's Players Option rules (but of course people were using them in their own games well before they got official). The reasons WHY people seem to be gravitating towards point-buy in particular I think are fairly complex in that there are several factors which are not necesarily connected to each other.  The editions ARE changing what the scores actually mean by altering the thresholds for bonuses/penalties and the impact of those bonuses/penalties.  There was need/desire for higher scores in 1E/2E because you had to have 15's or better just to GET bonuses.  3E was designed by intent to both make it easier to have bonuses by changing the threshold for them but then further emphasized the importance of getting the highest bonuses possible with the concept of "rules mastery".  They intended that the game change to make character creation and planning a major chunk of the fun for players.  That, in turn, made it a problem for a lot of the younger players who were being brought into the hobby.  When one player got better scores than the other rather than seeing it as the other being fortunate he now saw it as HIMSELF being screwed. Repeatedly during the 3E era when people were extolling the virtues of point-buy they hammered on the idea of it enforcing a level playing field as well as preventing players from actually CHEATING at character creation.  Part of the rules restructuring took control of the game out of the hands of the DM and placed it into the hands of the players.  That too contributed to changing ideas of what was a good method of generating stats and what wasn't. Pretty much would have to agree with this but it needs expanding on.  The way people were now playing the game had definitely changed.  It's clear in reading and playing older editions that the rules are expecting a fairly high rate of character turnover.  I believe they thought that players would churn fairly regularly through characters but eventually by hook or crook they'd get one that survived to higher levels at which point the character was much less likely to die.  But then olde-tyme players also expected high turnover of characters.  They didn't need to invest ANYWHERE near as much time in their creation and found part of the fun of the game in seeing what they could do with whatever it was that they got from the random rolls.  They rolled and THEN made characters instead of deciding on playing a specific character and then rolling, expecting the results to FIT.  That's a significant change in paradigm - and yet not everyone followed the latest paradigm. Some people were still playing one-shot games week after week.  Some were playing campaigns that lasted decades where others only expected a campaign to last a few months.  Some were taking the rules as gospel and others were treating them as nothing more than bad suggestions.  Any given method of generating stats simply did not work the same way for the same reasons across the board. But it's not a new idea.  Didn't you mention that 1E says a character really needs two 15's or better?  But again, regardless of edition, what's "playable" is going to vary from one game to another, one player to another. 3rd edition provided only one in the PH but also notes quite clearly and specifically to check with the DM because the DM may have decided that some other system would be used - such as one of the EIGHT others in the DMG.  For 3E the choice of what method would be used was still in the hands of the DM, not the player. People keep forgetting (or maybe just don't know) that the 1st Edition rules were published over three years.  In fact, the first book published was actually the MM in 1977.  About a year later the PH was published (77/78).  Then a year later the DMG (79).  What you have then is a situation where the game is STILL BEING WRITTEN/ASSEMBLED even after the PH is available.  One of the things Gary was doing was collating rules from other sources and not just typing up his own.  I don't know who would be credited with the various methods in the DMG but again, the DM was the one deciding what method players would use, and even if he weren't there were a LOT of things in the DMG that would have been better to put in the PH.  Just because they were in the DMG may only have meant they were not collated in time to be published in the PH. Okay there is probably a fair amount of truth to that.  In fact, I have to admit that I've had this Post-It note attached to my monitor for about 6 months now.  It says: "4E: Play how WE want you to play - not how you're used to playing." I think there's a lot of outright bunk being spouted about rolling for stats as if people have found the One True Way to play D&D.  I think there's more than one reason that the Old School Revival/Renaissance has made the gains that it has, but one of them was phrased best by Mr. Spock: "After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."</blockquote>

Verification