Wow, do I hate rolling for stats!

[billd91]

What a wonderful attitude. i should tell all my players to "shove it" when they're not having fun! that's bound to make them want to keep playing!

I'm not sure Jester's attitude is worse than this - by the way, it helps to think of this being said by a stereotypical antebellum southern belle - "Oh, but I can't just play my concept because of the guidelines that everybody else is playing with. Can I please be given special treatment to make little ole me happy?"

There really is a middle ground here. Sometimes the solution is giving the player a mulligan. Sometimes, however, it is the player adjusting their expectations and playing the game as best they can within fairly chosen guidelines.

 

[Nifft]

The difference here is that you're talking about a competitive zero-sum game when the difference between two PCs, one with a +1 and one without, is not. You're also setting the terms of the number of coin flips. If I had the choice of whether to continue after each flip, as a gambler would have in a casino, I might well take up the offer even with this arrangement, hoping for a streak and a chance to stop before losses caught up. That's why games with even worse payoffs for the player can still work in a casino environment.

They certainly do work -- for the casino.

The difference between the stats of two PCs is the difference between two different zero-sum combat games. The PC with lower stats gets hit more often (lower defenses), has fewer HP, and his fight takes longer to win because he hits less often and deals less damage when he hits.

In 3.x, it's worse than that, because of the geometric nature of power by level. If your Con is 4 lower than mine at 1st level, that's only +2 HP difference. By 20th level, it's a difference of +40 HP. Now, that +2 HP is nothing to sneeze at because you have them for every single fight, but the +40 HP is staggering.

Same deal with 3.x spells. Sure, +1 to attacks and +1 (or +1.5) damage is nice, but the real power of higher stats is more high-level spell slots each of which has a higher save DC (so you're at least +2 more likely to "hit", and your spell deals more damage or imposes a worse condition than a lower-level spell could... AND you get to keep the lower-level spell just in case this one didn't work).

But at any particular snapshot in time throughout those 1000 die throws, would an observer be able to easily tell you have an edge over me based on the piles of money we've amassed? That's really what the question of statistical significance is about. What + do you have to have for the observer, looking at our money piles, to be confident he's correctly identifying which of us has the better odds of making the money.

I think you're saying that if a player has such a poor attention span that he can't recall how well a fight has gone so far, then the effect of a +1 bonus tends to be lost on him. If you're saying something else, you should re-phrase, because your scenario is irrelevant to any game I've seen.

The players aren't outside observers with anterograde amnesia. They get to watch everyone's history of success and failure play out. They can see that one guy hits on a 9 and the other guy misses on a 10.

In the end, the +1 is a nice benefit, but it's not a game breaker. Missing one or two +1s in character development compared to your peers isn't likely to make a huge difference in any particular encounter. Each +1 is likely make the difference between success and failure for only 5% of the rolls. If you happen to roll the (success number-1) a lot in a fight, then the +1 is a huge benefit. But that's not likely to happen. It's far more likely for any single roll, given 19 other numbers on the die, that the +1 has no effect whatsoever.

In my experience, players are aware of the effect of their exact bonuses 10% of the time: when they hit by one, and when they miss by one.

Here's a trick: never tell your players the AC of a monster, and see how long it takes them to figure it out amongst themselves. In my experience, it's about 2-3 rounds of attacks before they've got it. (This is a mini-game one of my players enjoys, so I got to observe this process.)

That's the exact same information as would be required to know who is better than whom. So you've got 2-3 rounds of "statistical equality" in life before reality sets in and everyone knows how much you suck.

Cheers, -- N

 

[billd91]

I think you're saying that if a player has such a poor attention span that he can't recall how well a fight has gone so far, then the effect of a +1 bonus tends to be lost on him. If you're saying something else, you should re-phrase, because your scenario is irrelevant to any game I've seen.

The players aren't outside observers with anterograde amnesia. They get to watch everyone's history of success and failure play out. They can see that one guy hits on a 9 and the other guy misses on a 10.

Suppose two characters fight a dragon, each makes 10 attacks and hits with 5. Which one has the better attack bonus? You can't tell. And with any single combat encounter, being unable to tell the difference between the character with a +12 to hit and a +13 based on how the combat went is going to happen more often than not. Will they notice a difference over a longer term? Maybe, maybe not. In fact, I'm inclined to say probably not if you get in a couple fights a session and sessions happen weekly or less frequently. It's not really a poor attention span if the players fail to notice that the character with +13 hits one more attack in 20 attempts than the one with +12. Or even if a character with +14 hits once more often in 10 attempts over the character's lifetime over the character with +12.

That's the exact same information as would be required to know who is better than whom. So you've got 2-3 rounds of "statistical equality" in life before reality sets in and everyone knows how much you suck.

Players are only going to be able to recognize a difference, once they know the target number, when you roll the exact number that yields a miss for you but would enable your peer with an extra +1 to hit. And, as I said, if the difference is only by +1, you've got 19 in 20 chances of getting something else. A large random factor disguises small differences in bonuses fairly well.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A large random factor disguises small differences in bonuses fairly well.

First, a d20 is not big enough to disguise a +1, as Nifft pointed out.

Second, ironically, what actually provides the best camouflage in d20 games is the non-random ... the other modifiers, which stack up very high, pretty fast.

Third, the original claim wasn't about a +1 ... it was about a +5. Which would go unnoticed (by any player or GM paying attention) for about ten seconds.

 

[Sunseeker]

Notice that I was speaking to the player, not the dm.

But if someone is in a game that involves dice, and they cannot handle living with the roll of the dice... they might not be suitable for the game. Now, that's not a hard and fast rule- but in a table with a culture of "Let the dice fall where they may" a player that gets upset when the dice go against them is... probably not a good fit.

But this game isn't a game of chance. A game of chance is something like roulette, or slots. D&D is a mix of chance and strategy. Leaving the "strategic choices", such as forcing the fighter to take a low con and low strength, means you're going to perform poorly.

Likewise, if you're rolling stats in the first place, if you want to have some form of "hopeless character = re-roll" rule, by all means, do so- but rolling for stats is meaningless if you just keep rolling until you get the perfect results.

IMHO and YMMV, of course.

Well of course you don't want to set up a "perfect stats" situation, but likewise, you don't want your character so defined by chance as to create the opposite situation.

See, here's one of the things about rolling for stats... you're better off rolling before you set your heart on a specific character concept (especially if you're rolling in order!).

While that's great, again, this can lead to parties full of mages, or rangers, which while interesting, lack overall group functionality.

I'm not sure Jester's attitude is worse than this - by the way, it helps to think of this being said by a stereotypical antebellum southern belle - "Oh, but I can't just play my concept because of the guidelines that everybody else is playing with. Can I please be given special treatment to make little ole me happy?"

There really is a middle ground here. Sometimes the solution is giving the player a mulligan. Sometimes, however, it is the player adjusting their expectations and playing the game as best they can within fairly chosen guidelines.

Exactly, the solution needs to come from both sides. Which is why the 4d6, drop lowest, point-buy, arrays, and mixed systems exist. They are a compromise between the hard-ball, uncompromising reality of random chance, and the softer methods.

Anyone that starts a game out with the attitude that "I'm the DM, do what I say or GTFO" is going to be in for the hard realization that this is a group game that requires a modicum of group consensus to function. Dictatorships fail for ignoring this very simple logic, including dictatorships of the majority.

 

[Nifft]

Suppose two characters fight a dragon, each makes 10 attacks and hits with 5. Which one has the better attack bonus? You can't tell.

You have a good chance if you know what the rolls were, as all players and DMs tend to do.

Well, perhaps we play differently. In my experience, the player does not simply announce "I HIT". Rather, we see what he rolled, he announces his total, and then the GM tells him if he hits or not. That's a lot of information you're eliding.

Players are only going to be able to recognize a difference, once they know the target number, when you roll the exact number that yields a miss for you but would enable your peer with an extra +1 to hit. And, as I said, if the difference is only by +1, you've got 19 in 20 chances of getting something else. A large random factor disguises small differences in bonuses fairly well.

Three things.

First off, studies have been done to determine if people can detect stuff like this, and it turns out we mostly can. IIRC: 2% maybe not, 5% mostly yes. Take a look at perceptual psychophysics as it relates to gaming. Someone has already quantified a lot of this stuff.

Secondly, if you only differ from a "good" character by 2 points in a single stat, you haven't rolled all that poorly on your stats. The problem under discussion is usually more than a mere 5% -- even if I assert that 5% is noticeable, what's under discussion is usually worse than a single 5% difference.

Thirdly, attacks and skill checks aren't the only things you do with stats. Qualifying for feats (like in 4e) or getting bonus spells (like in 3.x) can have a more-than-linear impact on your power. If you use the same stat to attack and defend -- like you might in 4e, particularly if you attack with Dex or Int -- then that bonus is also a defensive boost, and that grants you a geometric advantage in combat. Same deal with hit points in 3.x (geometric with level).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Lanefan]

What character creation system is better for a game where...

...your first point of contact with the system is not character creation

Where "contact" is taken to mean actual play, as opposed to reading rules and-or sitting in on a session, in reality how often does this happen?

The only case I can think of is tournament or con. games where pre-gens are provided - which, come to think of it, could certainly be first point of contact with a system if the system is brand new. And in this particular case, where the characters are intended to be specific to the module, character creation is likely to be arbitrary and not use random roll *or* point buy. Fighter needs Str. 17? Fine, it's got Str. 17.

Lanefan

 

[LostSoul]

Where "contact" is taken to mean actual play, as opposed to reading rules and-or sitting in on a session, in reality how often does this happen?

It happens in games where there are rules for creating the setting, and everyone takes part in that stage of the game. Burning Empires is one such game. It uses a point-buy system.

This could probably include informal setting creation where aspects of the rule system are already known... something like setting up an area where there are lots of goblins and kobolds since you plan on playing a fighter and you want to take advantage of your sweep attack. Or suggesting a big drow empire because you want to play a Ranger with Favoured Enemy: Drow.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you're so concerned about your low-Str Fighter, play a low-Str other class that optimizers claim can replace a Fighter- use your spells, feats and what have you to buff yourself into a Fighter substitute.

 

[AllisterH]

Again, it should be noted that this is highly CLASS dependent.

A wizard with only 15 INT is prefectly serviceable when compared to a 19 INT wizard since his class abilities (a.k.a. spells) allow him to compensate.

Look at just the 0th and 1st level spells that don't depend on the DC (and it's not just NONCOMBAT spells..spells like Grease, Shield and Obscuring Mist) and hell, I would argue that even a 13 INT mage is playable.

And this basically extends to any spellcaster (divine or arcane). The only spellcaster I think that would NEED a high INT would be an Enchanter specialist.

Spellcasting doesn't interact with the d20 system and thus stats play a lesser effect for spellcasting.

Contrast that with any of the non-spellcasting classes. EVERY interaction they have with the game involves the d20 roll. You will quickly start to notice your lack of effectiveness especially if someone from the same class is also in your party.