Wow, do I hate rolling for stats!

[El Mahdi]

...I'll just make this observation: in fiction, the hero isn't always the guy who was the best of the best, but rather is an Average Joe who rises above expectations to succeed. You see this in LotR, Westworld, and currently in Terriers.

...and in Rudy!


"You've got a lot of heart kid. Not an ounce of talent, but a lot of heart."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Do you hate rolling, or do you just hate rolling when you roll under the average of the group?

I'm on-record in many threads about hating rolling for stats. It's true that in this case my enthusiasm wouldn't have been so severely dampened if I'd rolled half-decent scores, but I'm against random ability scores, regardless.

(I recognize the one good argument in favor of random rolls, which you describe, but it's just not worth the ridiculous gap in effectiveness that usually results when a group rolls. Speaking for myself, I actually don't need random help to create and play fun concepts.)

Oh, and effectively I actually rolled 7 points. 15, 13, 13, 10, 9, 9. The 9, 9 might as well be 8, 8, and the 13, 13 might as well be 12, 12; none of them will ever be "evened out." If I survive, all of my stat-bumps will have to go to the 15 (which becomes a 13 because of my desired concept).

 

[Diamond Cross]

I actually like rolling randomly more than point buy. At least with randomly rolling, you can have a chance to roll exceptional stats, but you also have to deal with poor stats.

With point buy, however, sometimes there's never enough points to get what you want. At least for D&D. For example, I hate having 9s in my stats because of the minus one so the bare minimum I'll have in all my stats is a 10. Doing this, you really can't have an 18 and usually evens out at about 14 for the stats.

But when it comes to games like White Wolf's d10 system or Mutants And Masterminds, it is a different story. But sometimes it's a pain when you have to sacrifice some points for a different level in one power or skill.

Essentially I like to have higher than average stats.

However, I have really weird luck when I roll dice.

 

[Piratecat]

Stuck with those scores, I'd make my PC the anti-hero, tremendously jealous and obsessively hero-worshipping of the PC with amazing scores. I'd ape him at every opportunity and dress like him. Done in such a way that it makes the game more fun for the other players instead of just being jerky, this would totally amuse me until my hero eventually bit it.

I had something similar happen in my 2e game when a player rolled thoroughly mediocrely. I gave her the chance to re-roll; instead, she made her hero a 12-year old boy, the hero-worshiping younger brother of a well-liked NPC. Turned out to be the most fun character in the group because she was an instigator and was always proactive. The game never gets slow when you have a PC willing to do the death-defying, ludicrous action that ends up being coolest.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The most recent rolled-stat PC I played was 15, 15, 13, 11, 8, 7, and he- a 3.5Ed version of a 2Ed Ftr/Th- worked out just fine. The low stats went to Wis and Cha. He was a thug, a bully and a hot-head who took unnecessary risks, and sullenly didn't understand why he wasn't more popular, given his cotribution to party successes.

 

[Umbran]

Now, see, I feel the exact opposite about 3e (and PF).

Agreed. 4e's implicit dependence on the concept of Roles seems to give the game less ability to adapt to the randomness. 3e has more fiddly-bits, but it flexes better when you need it to.

I don't like for char-gen to be a major part of the game.

I don't like the mechanics of chargen to be a huge deal most of the time. However, I want character creation (more than just the mechanics - I'm talking concept and backstory too) to be big if the players enjoy that sort of thing. The paladin player I mentioned above spent many hours reading up on learning disabilities as part of creating his character, and it was cool to discuss it with him as GM. I like my games to be open to that sort of thing.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think it is because on a D20 to have a truly "significant" difference the difference has to be 6 or greater. A difference of 5 or less is not of mathematically significance.

This is so wrong I'm not even sure what could possibly be said to illustrate its wrongness to someone who believes it.

The average d20 roll is 10.5. The idea that there is no "mathematically significant" difference between 5.5 and 10.5, or 10.5 and 15.5, or 19.5 and 24.5 is ... very, very, very incorrect.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Oh, and effectively I actually rolled 7 points. 15, 13, 13, 10, 9, 9. The 9, 9 might as well be 8, 8, and the 13, 13 might as well be 12, 12; none of them will ever be "evened out." If I survive, all of my stat-bumps will have to go to the 15 (which becomes a 13 because of my desired concept).

13s are often handy for feat prereqs, if nothing else.

Honestly, that bunch of stats doesn't look too bad. To me, anyway.

And you truly had to make the 15 a 13? And that's also part of why you're not happy with them? Um.

So... what *is* the concept that demanded you do that?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

"You've got a lot of heart kid. Not an ounce of talent, but a lot of heart."[/I]

"Last practice of the season and this ******* thinks it's the Super Bowl!"

"You just summed up your entire sorry career here in one sentence! If you had a tenth of the heart of Ruettiger, you'd have made All-American by now!"

Sure the DM should be aware of large gaps between the rolled scores of one PC and another. Random rolls ARE random, both low and high and any DM who uses a random method for generating PC scores should be willing to take steps as necessary to reduce that gap. It's something as simple as establishing a re-roll threshold.

However, there is DEFINITELY something to be said for, "Man up and at least try it." D&D is not a competition, not against the DM or between players, and if rolE-playing is a consideration over rolL-playing for a game then we should at least THINK ABOUT playing the underdog instead of the overdog on occasion

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yea, I am in the same boat. I usually get crappy stats when rolling. We moved at my suggestion to the "Everybody sucks equally rule' which has been kind of mentioned already. One set of numbers for everyone.

However, if you were really motivated, playing average joe farmer who is somehow caught up and forced into this epic adventure with really professional and awe inspiring adventurers could be an interesting role playing experience. Hell, even your most likely eventual death could be something tales could be told of.

I feel your pain. Good luck!

Go for it. Ask your DM if you can take NPC levels then take a level of commoner to represent being a farmer and a level in warrior to represent time in the village militia. Make your character a bit older than the other characters, the proverbial cranky old farmer, and see how long you live.