Unpopular opinions go here

[Scribe]

Disagree all you want, but some of the things I'm talking about have no common-usage terms and are, in fact, vastly counter-intuitive for those not familiar with them. They bump up against parts of physics that sound like complete nonsense if you don't have the proper background.

Fair, probably not applicable to elf games, but fair.

 

[Cadence]

Fair, probably not applicable to elf games, but fair.

I'd like to agree with you. But I've seem some of the threads about things I thought were obvious...

 

[overgeeked]

Or maybe one of those less-optimal characters catches on and goes somewhere. I've seen this both as DM and with a few of my own as player, and it's great when it happens.

I've also found in my games - and have the numbers to back it up - that starting stats really don't have much if any effect on a character's eventual career length, measured in adventures. What makes a much bigger difference is making it to your third adventure, regardless of your stats, because the numbers show that if you get to your third the odds of you having a long career jump dramatically.

My educated guess as to why this is, not supported by any hard numbers, is that by the time a character's got to its third adventure three things have happened:

1 - it's acquired some useful gear and magic that helps it survive
2 - it's gained a level or two, which helps it survive
3 - it's become an integral member of the party, thus is more likely to be revived (and thus be able to continue its career) if it dies.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. It is worth pointing out you're using AD&D, this is much more pronounced in 5E. My problem is the players won't do that. They will suicide every character with less than amazing stats until they luck into a character with amazing stats. Effectively stopping the game until they get what they want, optimal stats. So, instead of fighting that fight for the hundredth time, or booting players until someone is finally reasonable, just skip the headache and go with a standard array.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do you think any problem that might crop up in RPGs needs to be too complicated to explain in plain language?

Do you think that's at all relevant to the over-generalization I was responding to?

 

[Lanefan]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. It is worth pointing out you're using AD&D, this is much more pronounced in 5E. My problem is the players won't do that. They will suicide every character with less than amazing stats until they luck into a character with amazing stats. Effectively stopping the game until they get what they want, optimal stats. So, instead of fighting that fight for the hundredth time, or booting players until someone is finally reasonable, just skip the headache and go with a standard array.

Why not just let 'em die? Those who survive will eventually gain levels etc. while those who don't are constantly starting over at whatever level (be it fixed or floating) you use as a start point.

Oh, and replacement characters should never come in at the same level as the existing characters except when everyone is still at 1st.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why have dice if you're not going to use them?

The fact I want to use them in the game doesn't mean I want to use them setting up characters.

Less facetiously, I've never bought into the attitude of "my character concept overrides everything", especially when it forces the DM to include or add things to the setting that weren't otherwise going to be there and-or that she didn't want to have there (e.g. a player insisting on playing a Dragonborn in a setting where they don't exist).

These are not in the least related to being saddled with what the dice will give you. I've run games for nearly a half century now that didn't use random character generation, and I never had a problem setting the proper borders of what characters in the campaign was about. So this is either irrelevant or a straw man, and I'm not going to try and guess which.

Also, I see characters as being largely representative of their population.

Yeah, but that's you. In many cases, in many games, they're supposed to be anything but that.

 

[WightKing]

WotC attempt to "cancel" legacy D&D and tossing woke sauce over everything they touch is despicable.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps there's a common wrong idea, and the "problem" person is the only who sees the wrongness.

Never the smart way to bet. That's the mindset that leads to all kinds of people who think they're the lone investigator who's seen the true situation. Go through life with that approach and the chances are what you've found is a fast track to being seen as a crank--because most likely you are.

When everyone else sees it different, the first person you should be examining is always you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair, probably not applicable to elf games, but fair.

Sure. But it wasn't specifically referencing RPGs in the post I responded to, so...

 

[overgeeked]

Why not just let 'em die? Those who survive will eventually gain levels etc. while those who don't are constantly starting over at whatever level (be it fixed or floating) you use as a start point.

Oh, and replacement characters should never come in at the same level as the existing characters except when everyone is still at 1st.

You're skipping over the Monty Python levels of absurdity this inevitably entails. The game can't progress while the players keep killing themselves. I don't want to sit there and wait while the min-maxers find inventive ways to kill off their own characters so they get to roll another set of stats. Lather, rinse, repeat until they land on a set that's acceptable to them...20-30 minutes later.

Or, have them all roll characters in the session 0 and let them just keep rolling until they get what they want. At that point, why bother?

Just skip it. Give them a standard array and wash your hands of the whole thing.