What is the standard ability score set? Are most games playing too high?

[Aus_Snow]

At that point, why not just say:

"Everyone assign ability points to your character based on your background/what you want to play".

Perhaps they prefer randomly generated ability scores?

No, I know what you mean though. It's actually related closely to one of my pet peeves - when DMs claim they are using a rolling system of whatever kind, then go bending or in fact breaking the rules of that system whenever things 'don't go right' for one character, or whatever. Gah.

Why not use a system that actually works for the group in the first place (like Jin_Kataki's, for instance). That would be straightforward and well. . . honest.

 

[Jin_Kataki]

At that point, why not just say:

"Everyone assign ability points to your character based on your background/what you want to play".

If you have players with restraint, I think it could work fine.

I have seen many players who seem to think having a modifier of zero or negative one in an ability means they need to play their character as dumb if it is in intelligence or completely helpless if it is in strength or any other number of ridiculous extremes. I am of the mind set that these are heros and as such should be HIGH above the norm. I am playing in a game right now where if I had wanted to I could have a modifier of zero in 5 abilities and then one with a modifier of 6 in another. Eventhough my system is generous in giving good and maybe even excellent scores in all 6 abilities it still will cap their highest chance at a modifier of 4 before any racial benifits. And while I don't allow multiple negative modifiers that is only before racial adjustments as well so with those you could feasibly wind up having more than one negative. Also with the randomness of dice who is to say someone wont roll bad and wind up with everything being a modifier of zero.

All of this being said I suppose my biggest reason for diliking point buy is the fact that I have always had really good luck in rolling my abilities when playing. So my theory is why as a DM would I do something to my players that I as a player hate so much. As far as your suggestion of just letting them assighn their own ability scores based on what they feel they should get based on their background. I think most of the people I have played with would abuse this. Now perhaps having them write up a backstory and leaving it to the DM to decide could be an alternative, but then you will get the person who felt their backstory warranted this or that and by you not giving it to them you must be screwing them.

Another system I have seen used that I felt was pretty good. Was giving everyone a 9 and an 18 then rolling 4 six siders for the others with the same re roll any ones and nothing else negative rule. This wasn't a bad way my only qualm with it is the fact that I was forced to take a negative in an ability score when I have NEVER rolled a negative ability.

 

[Delta]

This can be fun as one shots, but I don't buy it over the stretch of 20 levels. Its one thing to purposefully gimp yourself with a point buy, because you buy into the weaknesses when you place the points, but its quite another to just roll badly. While this may be fun to explore on the short term, over the long term its annoying, especially session after session you are constantly being shown up by Highrollers.

My players and I will simply have to agree to disagree with you.

 

[Glyfair]

That is pretty interesting actually. Funnily enough, I've seen more than a few PC's with stats on the high end of that curve.

I think it comes down to one basic principle. Many players tend not to play stats they feel are too low. A significant group of players either ignore the character (often when players roll up PCs at home), badger the DM to let them reroll or modify the character, suicide the character, or drop out of the game (often because the DM is "unreasonable.")

I think what I call the "jackpot" syndrome is more common than many here admit. By this I mean players who prefer the random generation methods because they expect to beat the average. They want the characters with 4 stats above 15, and are willing to roll the dice to get them. Many (if not most) of these players expect they'll be able to avoid the subpar results in some fashion. They are rolling the dice to "hit the jackpot."

 

[Hussar]

I think it comes down to one basic principle. Many players tend not to play stats they feel are too low. A significant group of players either ignore the character (often when players roll up PCs at home), badger the DM to let them reroll or modify the character, suicide the character, or drop out of the game (often because the DM is "unreasonable.")

I think what I call the "jackpot" syndrome is more common than many here admit. By this I mean players who prefer the random generation methods because they expect to beat the average. They want the characters with 4 stats above 15, and are willing to roll the dice to get them. Many (if not most) of these players expect they'll be able to avoid the subpar results in some fashion. They are rolling the dice to "hit the jackpot."

That's certainly been my experience. It's even funnier when players get all huffy when questioned about the, ummm, honesty of their die rolling methods when you look a the sheet and there isn't a roll below 14.

 

[Reynard]

That's certainly been my experience. It's even funnier when players get all huffy when questioned about the, ummm, honesty of their die rolling methods when you look a the sheet and there isn't a roll below 14.

Well, if you are going to require random rolls, you might as well require the players do them in front of you.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, I get little enough time to play as it is. Wasting a session waiting for Bob to figure out whether to have a 12 or 13 strength is not my idea of a fun day.

 

[molonel]

That's certainly been my experience. It's even funnier when players get all huffy when questioned about the, ummm, honesty of their die rolling methods when you look a the sheet and there isn't a roll below 14.

I don't ever question player honesty. But one of my houserules is that if I didn't see the roll, then it didn't happen. None of those tiny little hematite dice with numbers the size of a pencil tip, either.

 

[Desdichado]

I was re-reading d20 Modern a bit the other night--just flipping through it, really, and I remember being surprised by a little chart in the Gamemastering section of the book where it says, essentially that 15-point buy is "regular", 25-point buy is "heroic" and 32-point buy is "super heroic."

In any case, I find the semantic quibbling somewhat pointless and tiresome myself. Yes, I understand Crothian's point that "heroic" comes from doing heroic things, regardless of what your stats are, but clearly that is not the sense in which the word is being used, so it's a bit of a non sequiter to bring it up. Communication is not enhanced or enabled by sticking to your guns about using a different definition of a word that clearly is not the one referenced in the conversation by everyone else. It's a bit as if my GM tells me he's starting up a new D&D campaign and I keep trying to play a Runequest character.

Heroic, in this sense, means capable of doing things that normal people are not capable of, i.e., higher stats. I like the idea of the... what was it called again? The Stormwind Fallacy? I agree that interesting characters are usually completely decoupled from their stats in terms of how interesting they are or aren't. However, just being interesting isn't the only factor in terms of how fun they are to play; a character that is unable to do basic tasks required of an adventurer probably isn't going to be very fun to play in a standard D&D type game; he'll probably be really frustrating, actually.

And that goes back to the other question above; can you play a 15 point buy character from 1-20th level? Absolutely. One of my pet peeves for the d20 version of the game is that folks are now so completely reliant on the CR and EL system; all you need is to make sure as a DM that you are aware of the capabilities of your PC and construct challenges accordingly, and you can play any type or mix of characters you want. We used to be able to judge that all the time without much in the way of mechanical guidelines; I don't know why it's such a challenge now to look at a particular monster or encounter and say, "y'know what? Even though that CR is spot on, my group won't be able to handle this because they lack the appropriate spell, etc."

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I agree that you can play a 15 point character from 1st to 20th. As a Dm, you likely can't use too many modules in that party though. Or, you'd at the very least have to figure that the party is working about 1 level down or so and adjust from there.

That's been my point all the way through this. It's not that one method is better than another. It's not. What is true is that high stats mean that the party is operating at about a level, possibly two, higher than what the level says on their character sheet. A low stat party is probably 1 level down.

And, if you adjust the difficulty to reflect that, then you aren't really changing the game at all. The high stat guys just fight somewhat tougher monsters and the low stat guys get weaker monsters. At the end of the day, it's a wash.

Where the difference really shows though is in feat selection. A 15 point character doesn't qualify for a large number of feats. A 40 point character can choose pretty much any feat that fits his fancy.

The only problem really comes when there is a large spread within a given party. It's not that 15 point characters are inneffective, it's that they are less effective compared to their compatriots. How much less will be reflected by the spread of stats.