And again, we are back to the same pre-Tasha’s issue with ASI tied to race that WotC wanted to get away from
Mmmm, I wouldn't call it *exactly* the same issue...
Well pretty dang close. So now instead of choosing a race that had the right ASI you’re picking the background that has the right ASI. Sure you get a choice of three ability scores to increase instead of two (3 for half elf that is no more) but now you’re looking for the right ASI range and feat you want and you can’t always have both (unlike when you could do Vhuman or Custom Lineage)
The implications of tying ASIs to backgrounds (nurture) is very different from the implications of tying them to species (nature)
Who said anything about implications? I’m talking mechanics.
Mechanics were not the only reason they made the change
I never said it was the only reason, or I guess I should have been more clear. Just one of the reasons. They said as much in the UA video. And we are pretty much back to making choices (for background) based on what works best for a given class mechanically, instead of narrative.
So, the best option is to stop using DnD Beyond? That's fantastic. Money wasted and lesson learned.
Not using Beyond doesn’t change the rules
A DM with even but a morsel of creativity can change the rules of the game as he or she so wishes. Many of us have been tinkering with the rules of the game—not to mention hacking them to produce others—for decades. An online tool that tethers people to unwanted mechanics that could effortlessly be changed at their tables is a tool that is useless to them if that is what they want to do.
The online tool was created so that players could build characters that follow the official rules. And once the DMG is released we very well might have the option to customize “officially” that works better than some of the workarounds posted in this thread.
And the homebrew tools are there for all the “tinkering with the rules” like you mentioned. But they should keep the official rules (and don’t give me “the rulebook says we can homebrew so it is official”. I understand that) separate from the homebrew ones. To avoid confusion especially among new players.
So, the best option is to stop using DnD Beyond? That's fantastic. Money wasted and lesson learned.
Not using Beyond doesn’t change the rules
A DM with even but a morsel of creativity can change the rules of the game as he or she so wishes. Many of us have been tinkering with the rules of the game—not to mention hacking them to produce others—for decades. An online tool that tethers people to unwanted mechanics that could effortlessly be changed at their tables is a tool that is useless to them if that is what they want to do.
The online tool was created so that players could build characters that follow the official rules. And once the DMG is released we very well might have the option to customize “officially” that works better than some of the workarounds posted in this thread.
And the homebrew tools are there for all the “tinkering with the rules” like you mentioned. But they should keep the official rules (and don’t give me “the rulebook says we can homebrew so it is official”. I understand that) separate from the homebrew ones. To avoid confusion especially among new players.
I would not expect them to have anything but the official rules be the default on the website.
My points were:
(1) if someone does not use D&D Beyond what are or are not the rules is much more fluid. Which I said because someone was implying if someone chooses not to use Beyond because they are not satisfied with the rules as written they will find the rules unchanged. In the books? Sure. But the ease with which we can change them at our tables makes that meaningless.
(2) if the tool isn't going to function as smoothly as some would like they will use others or return to pen and paper.
it all breaks down to "I cant make a perfectly min maxed character based on these rules."
This counterclaim is truly bizarre to me because the opposite is true. Players are encouraged to sacrifice interesting character backgrounds in order to optimise their mechanical builds.
Imagine back in 2014 you decided you wanted to play a Barbarian with a Sailor background. You could do so with minimal mechanical impact aside from a couple of skill choices - and then roll on multiple tables to simply help flesh out their attitudes and goals. It worked well to encourage creativity with a low mechanical consequence.
Now, in 2024, you have to consider that should you choose a Sailor background, your Barbarian will be sub-optimal in their core Ability score because the Background doesn’t provide a STR bonus, which means all the core Class feats based on Strength will be weakened. You may well say, ‘well, you are only interested in min-maxing’ but it is the rules-as-written that are thrusting the min-maxing element into the forefront.
it all breaks down to "I cant make a perfectly min maxed character based on these rules."
This counterclaim is truly bizarre to me because the opposite is true. Players are encouraged to sacrifice interesting character backgrounds in order to optimise their mechanical builds.
Imagine back in 2014 you decided you wanted to play a Barbarian with a Sailor background. You could do so with minimal mechanical impact aside from a couple of skill choices - and then roll on multiple tables to simply help flesh out their attitudes and goals. It worked well to encourage creativity with a low mechanical consequence.
Now, in 2024, you have to consider that should you choose a Sailor background, your Barbarian will be sub-optimal in their core Ability score because the Background doesn’t provide a STR bonus, which means all the core Class feats based on Strength will be weakened. You may well say, ‘well, you are only interested in min-maxing’ but it is the rules-as-written that are thrusting the min-maxing element into the forefront.
Exactly this. Most players using the 2024 ruleset will choose their characters' backgrounds purely for mechanical purposes. They will choose them because they want to boost attributes that will favor their chosen classes. The game becomes less and less a roleplaying game in which characterization mattered more. Now it's more about how powerful and practically invulnerable your "character" can be. And people wonder why it gets compared to a computer game.
it all breaks down to "I cant make a perfectly min maxed character based on these rules."
This counterclaim is truly bizarre to me because the opposite is true. Players are encouraged to sacrifice interesting character backgrounds in order to optimise their mechanical builds.
Imagine back in 2014 you decided you wanted to play a Barbarian with a Sailor background. You could do so with minimal mechanical impact aside from a couple of skill choices - and then roll on multiple tables to simply help flesh out their attitudes and goals. It worked well to encourage creativity with a low mechanical consequence.
Now, in 2024, you have to consider that should you choose a Sailor background, your Barbarian will be sub-optimal in their core Ability score because the Background doesn’t provide a STR bonus, which means all the core Class feats based on Strength will be weakened. You may well say, ‘well, you are only interested in min-maxing’ but it is the rules-as-written that are thrusting the min-maxing element into the forefront.
I think you are both describing two sides of the same coin. The fact is that the rules don't allow you to both choose the background you want and min-max. So you are both right and both wrong.
No, the game doesn't make min-maxing impossible. Yes, it makes it impossible to min-max if you choose you want to roleplay a specific background.
No, the game doesn't force you to min-max. Yes, choosing a specific background is necessary if you choose you want to min-max.
As for the 2014/2024 comparison: In 2014 you had the same problem with races. It wasn't until 2020 that they released variant rules that allowed you to shift your ability scores around willy-nilly, and you are still free to adapt those 2020 variant rules to 2024.
it all breaks down to "I cant make a perfectly min maxed character based on these rules."
This counterclaim is truly bizarre to me because the opposite is true. Players are encouraged to sacrifice interesting character backgrounds in order to optimise their mechanical builds.
Imagine back in 2014 you decided you wanted to play a Barbarian with a Sailor background. You could do so with minimal mechanical impact aside from a couple of skill choices - and then roll on multiple tables to simply help flesh out their attitudes and goals. It worked well to encourage creativity with a low mechanical consequence.
Now, in 2024, you have to consider that should you choose a Sailor background, your Barbarian will be sub-optimal in their core Ability score because the Background doesn’t provide a STR bonus, which means all the core Class feats based on Strength will be weakened. You may well say, ‘well, you are only interested in min-maxing’ but it is the rules-as-written that are thrusting the min-maxing element into the forefront.
I think you are both describing two sides of the same coin. The fact is that the rules don't allow you to both choose the background you want and min-max. So you are both right and both wrong.
No, the game doesn't make min-maxing impossible. Yes, it makes it impossible to min-max if you choose you want to roleplay a specific background.
No, the game doesn't force you to min-max. Yes, choosing a specific background is necessary if you choose you want to min-max.
As for the 2014/2024 comparison: In 2014 you had the same problem with races. It wasn't until 2020 that they released variant rules that allowed you to shift your ability scores around willy-nilly, and you are still free to adapt those 2020 variant rules to 2024.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
But Backgrounds now carry way more weight now than races ever did so it's even worse now.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
As someone who still uses 3d6 down the line to generate ability scores I do not see it as "a problem" that it frustrates people if they cannot treat D&D like a video game and character creation as little more than an exercise in "building" the most powerful and practically invulnerable of "characters." When this is given priority over actualcharacterization it is no longer a proper table-top role-playing game as far as I'm concerned. It's a vapid trend and one of the reasons some sub-communities within the hobby have little to no interest in modern D&D and instead play older editions or clones of them.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
As someone who still uses 3d6 down the line to generate ability scores I do not see it as "a problem" that it frustrates people if they cannot treat D&D like a video game and character creation as little more than an exercise in "building" the most powerful and practically invulnerable of "characters." When this is given priority over actualcharacterization it is no longer a proper table-top role-playing game as far as I'm concerned. It's a vapid trend and one of the reasons some sub-communities within the hobby have little to no interest in modern D&D and instead play older editions or clones of them.
I actually completely agree with you, and that was my point. We have now one side who complains that in order to "build" their min-maxed character they have to choose the proper background, and on the other side characters who say they are "punished" for choosing the background they want to play.
That's why I'm personally a big fan of the change. Unlike 2020-2023 (variant) rules where you can min-max your build regardless of your choices, the core 2024 still give you mechanic consequences to your roleplaying choices. I was only describing it as a "problem" from the point of view of min-maxers who are complaining about it in this thread, and I was pointing out that for them at least with backgrounds (2024) it's less of a problem than with race (2014).
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
As someone who still uses 3d6 down the line to generate ability scores I do not see it as "a problem" that it frustrates people if they cannot treat D&D like a video game and character creation as little more than an exercise in "building" the most powerful and practically invulnerable of "characters." When this is given priority over actualcharacterization it is no longer a proper table-top role-playing game as far as I'm concerned. It's a vapid trend and one of the reasons some sub-communities within the hobby have little to no interest in modern D&D and instead play older editions or clones of them.
3d6 was awful in 1986, and it's awful now. I never even saw a table that played with that horrible rule, and frankly, we just kept re-rolling with the 4d6 variant until we got an array we wanted to play.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
3d6 was awful in 1986, and it's awful now. I never even saw a table that played with that horrible rule, and frankly, we just kept re-rolling with the 4d6 variant until we got an array we wanted to play.
We did. It's what the book said to do, so we did it.
It's terrible for role-playing, because it reduces investment in the character. You're not playing the character you wanted, you're playing "the best class for your stats", or, if you rolled poorly "a fighter, I guess". (But then, the basic box didn't really introduce the concept of role-playing. It was much more in the "character as game piece" mode.)
The book gave options. Maybe 1e was 3d6 in order only, but 2e was certainly not and NOBODY wanted to use that and end up with a terrible character. I never got to actually play 1e, so my experience doesnt go back that far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
1E actually gave you four official options for rolling up, and then UA gave another. Noneof them have a player roll only 3d6 6 times.
The "3d6" only originated, I think, with Basic. But the 1E DMG provides four canon ways to roll characters up, one of which is the perennial favorite of rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest, repeating five more times, and arranging as you want.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
As someone who still uses 3d6 down the line to generate ability scores I do not see it as "a problem" that it frustrates people if they cannot treat D&D like a video game and character creation as little more than an exercise in "building" the most powerful and practically invulnerable of "characters." When this is given priority over actualcharacterization it is no longer a proper table-top role-playing game as far as I'm concerned. It's a vapid trend and one of the reasons some sub-communities within the hobby have little to no interest in modern D&D and instead play older editions or clones of them.
I actually completely agree with you, and that was my point. We have now one side who complains that in order to "build" their min-maxed character they have to choose the proper background, and on the other side characters who say they are "punished" for choosing the background they want to play.
That's why I'm personally a big fan of the change. Unlike 2020-2023 (variant) rules where you can min-max your build regardless of your choices, the core 2024 still give you mechanic consequences to your roleplaying choices. I was only describing it as a "problem" from the point of view of min-maxers who are complaining about it in this thread, and I was pointing out that for them at least with backgrounds (2024) it's less of a problem than with race (2014).
There are more than two sides to this. There are those who make these choices and not see it "as punishment" whatever they choose just because what they choose doesn't boost certain attributes.
I don't think you do "completely agree" with me. Because if you did you would plainly see how how the 2024 ruleset handles this is far worse. It encourages min-maxing.
2014: Players choose their race because that is the race they want to play. Players could then choose any background and so would do so for purposes of characterization.
2024: Players choose their race because that is the race they want to play. Background becomes nothing more than a choice to be made by most to gain attribute boosts.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
As someone who still uses 3d6 down the line to generate ability scores I do not see it as "a problem" that it frustrates people if they cannot treat D&D like a video game and character creation as little more than an exercise in "building" the most powerful and practically invulnerable of "characters." When this is given priority over actualcharacterization it is no longer a proper table-top role-playing game as far as I'm concerned. It's a vapid trend and one of the reasons some sub-communities within the hobby have little to no interest in modern D&D and instead play older editions or clones of them.
3d6 was awful in 1986, and it's awful now. I never even saw a table that played with that horrible rule, and frankly, we just kept re-rolling with the 4d6 variant until we got an array we wanted to play.
I have played in a three-year long campaign that was essentially 5th. Edition with added innovations from a number of OSR games. We used 3d6 down the line. No one complained. It isn't "awful" just because you say so and you want characters who are "perfect." Allowing players to basically roll and re-roll until they get an array of numbers they want and then just assign attributes wherever they wish means every character of any given class has exactly the same strong attributes and rarely if ever even a single weak one. Does that model make for strong "characters"? Sure. But it makes for weak storytelling. It is as bland as bland can be.
3d6 was awful in 1986, and it's awful now. I never even saw a table that played with that horrible rule, and frankly, we just kept re-rolling with the 4d6 variant until we got an array we wanted to play.
We did. It's what the book said to do, so we did it.
It's terrible for role-playing, because it reduces investment in the character. You're not playing the character you wanted, you're playing "the best class for your stats", or, if you rolled poorly "a fighter, I guess". (But then, the basic box didn't really introduce the concept of role-playing. It was much more in the "character as game piece" mode.)
The opposite is true. 3d6 down the line encourages actual roleplaying. You roll. You see what the numbers make possible. Then you are required to get creative and conceive of a character based on where the dice land and play that character. Not just play something prescripted. Most other methods result in characters with either just one mildly less than average attribute or all attributes being average or above average and above. And almost always the class's Quick Build suggestions in terms of attributes afforded the two highest numbers. It homogenizes characters.
3d6 down the line avoids such homogenization. A player who has gone with a fighter because the highest attribute is STR but also rolls a rather high INT and then gives thought to why it is this fighter is so educated and adds this to the character's story is creating an infinitely more interesting character than a fighter with attributes assigned in the most predictable manner. A player who is happy to have a wizard with an extremely low DEX and give thought to perhaps whether the character suffers from some impediment or is corpulent or is just extraordinarily clumsy is creating an infinitely more interesting character than one with zero imperfections. When characters of any given class are pretty much identical in every game because their players just go with what most do the game becomes dull and repetitive.
What you say about "character investment" is projection.
Like I said:
I have played in a three-year long campaign that was essentially 5th. Edition with added innovations from a number of OSR games. We used 3d6 down the line. No one complained.
I have been playing for decades and the characters I had in that campaign have ranked among the most memorable I have ever had and of whom I have been fond.
Just because many players today can't bear to think their characters might not be "perfect" doesn't mean we are all like that.
It's not as if an entire movement within the hobby has returned to a more old-school approach.
The book gave options. Maybe 1e was 3d6 in order only, but 2e was certainly not and NOBODY wanted to use that and end up with a terrible character. I never got to actually play 1e, so my experience doesnt go back that far.
We used 3d6 for a while but I believe 1e, which is what we played, did give optional rolling rules, maybe in the DMG. One was the 4d6, but I think there was even one where you rolled 3d6 in line enough for several sets of stats and you chose a set. I will have to pull out my old books to see what it was.
I never said it was the only reason, or I guess I should have been more clear. Just one of the reasons. They said as much in the UA video. And we are pretty much back to making choices (for background) based on what works best for a given class mechanically, instead of narrative.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The online tool was created so that players could build characters that follow the official rules. And once the DMG is released we very well might have the option to customize “officially” that works better than some of the workarounds posted in this thread.
And the homebrew tools are there for all the “tinkering with the rules” like you mentioned. But they should keep the official rules (and don’t give me “the rulebook says we can homebrew so it is official”. I understand that) separate from the homebrew ones. To avoid confusion especially among new players.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I would not expect them to have anything but the official rules be the default on the website.
My points were:
(1) if someone does not use D&D Beyond what are or are not the rules is much more fluid. Which I said because someone was implying if someone chooses not to use Beyond because they are not satisfied with the rules as written they will find the rules unchanged. In the books? Sure. But the ease with which we can change them at our tables makes that meaningless.
(2) if the tool isn't going to function as smoothly as some would like they will use others or return to pen and paper.
This counterclaim is truly bizarre to me because the opposite is true. Players are encouraged to sacrifice interesting character backgrounds in order to optimise their mechanical builds.
Imagine back in 2014 you decided you wanted to play a Barbarian with a Sailor background. You could do so with minimal mechanical impact aside from a couple of skill choices - and then roll on multiple tables to simply help flesh out their attitudes and goals. It worked well to encourage creativity with a low mechanical consequence.
Now, in 2024, you have to consider that should you choose a Sailor background, your Barbarian will be sub-optimal in their core Ability score because the Background doesn’t provide a STR bonus, which means all the core Class feats based on Strength will be weakened. You may well say, ‘well, you are only interested in min-maxing’ but it is the rules-as-written that are thrusting the min-maxing element into the forefront.
Exactly this. Most players using the 2024 ruleset will choose their characters' backgrounds purely for mechanical purposes. They will choose them because they want to boost attributes that will favor their chosen classes. The game becomes less and less a roleplaying game in which characterization mattered more. Now it's more about how powerful and practically invulnerable your "character" can be. And people wonder why it gets compared to a computer game.
I think you are both describing two sides of the same coin. The fact is that the rules don't allow you to both choose the background you want and min-max. So you are both right and both wrong.
No, the game doesn't make min-maxing impossible. Yes, it makes it impossible to min-max if you choose you want to roleplay a specific background.
No, the game doesn't force you to min-max. Yes, choosing a specific background is necessary if you choose you want to min-max.
As for the 2014/2024 comparison: In 2014 you had the same problem with races. It wasn't until 2020 that they released variant rules that allowed you to shift your ability scores around willy-nilly, and you are still free to adapt those 2020 variant rules to 2024.
That is simply not true. Players tend to make much more conscious choices when it comes to what races their characters will be because it is a choice that is going to play no small part in determining how their characters are going to look. Among other things.
Backgrounds for many if not even most players are all but forgotten because class and what it provides takes precedence.
It's still the same problem, but on a different scale. With races it was more problematic because min-maxers were even more frustrated when they couldn't play the race they wanted to play. With Backgrounds it's less of an issue, since, as you said, most players don't care that much about it.
But Backgrounds now carry way more weight now than races ever did so it's even worse now.
As someone who still uses 3d6 down the line to generate ability scores I do not see it as "a problem" that it frustrates people if they cannot treat D&D like a video game and character creation as little more than an exercise in "building" the most powerful and practically invulnerable of "characters." When this is given priority over actual characterization it is no longer a proper table-top role-playing game as far as I'm concerned. It's a vapid trend and one of the reasons some sub-communities within the hobby have little to no interest in modern D&D and instead play older editions or clones of them.
I actually completely agree with you, and that was my point. We have now one side who complains that in order to "build" their min-maxed character they have to choose the proper background, and on the other side characters who say they are "punished" for choosing the background they want to play.
That's why I'm personally a big fan of the change. Unlike 2020-2023 (variant) rules where you can min-max your build regardless of your choices, the core 2024 still give you mechanic consequences to your roleplaying choices. I was only describing it as a "problem" from the point of view of min-maxers who are complaining about it in this thread, and I was pointing out that for them at least with backgrounds (2024) it's less of a problem than with race (2014).
3d6 was awful in 1986, and it's awful now. I never even saw a table that played with that horrible rule, and frankly, we just kept re-rolling with the 4d6 variant until we got an array we wanted to play.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
We did. It's what the book said to do, so we did it.
It's terrible for role-playing, because it reduces investment in the character. You're not playing the character you wanted, you're playing "the best class for your stats", or, if you rolled poorly "a fighter, I guess". (But then, the basic box didn't really introduce the concept of role-playing. It was much more in the "character as game piece" mode.)
The book gave options. Maybe 1e was 3d6 in order only, but 2e was certainly not and NOBODY wanted to use that and end up with a terrible character. I never got to actually play 1e, so my experience doesnt go back that far.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
1E actually gave you four official options for rolling up, and then UA gave another. None of them have a player roll only 3d6 6 times.
The "3d6" only originated, I think, with Basic. But the 1E DMG provides four canon ways to roll characters up, one of which is the perennial favorite of rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest, repeating five more times, and arranging as you want.
There are more than two sides to this. There are those who make these choices and not see it "as punishment" whatever they choose just because what they choose doesn't boost certain attributes.
I don't think you do "completely agree" with me. Because if you did you would plainly see how how the 2024 ruleset handles this is far worse. It encourages min-maxing.
2014: Players choose their race because that is the race they want to play. Players could then choose any background and so would do so for purposes of characterization.
2024: Players choose their race because that is the race they want to play. Background becomes nothing more than a choice to be made by most to gain attribute boosts.
I have played in a three-year long campaign that was essentially 5th. Edition with added innovations from a number of OSR games. We used 3d6 down the line. No one complained. It isn't "awful" just because you say so and you want characters who are "perfect." Allowing players to basically roll and re-roll until they get an array of numbers they want and then just assign attributes wherever they wish means every character of any given class has exactly the same strong attributes and rarely if ever even a single weak one. Does that model make for strong "characters"? Sure. But it makes for weak storytelling. It is as bland as bland can be.
The opposite is true. 3d6 down the line encourages actual roleplaying. You roll. You see what the numbers make possible. Then you are required to get creative and conceive of a character based on where the dice land and play that character. Not just play something prescripted. Most other methods result in characters with either just one mildly less than average attribute or all attributes being average or above average and above. And almost always the class's Quick Build suggestions in terms of attributes afforded the two highest numbers. It homogenizes characters.
3d6 down the line avoids such homogenization. A player who has gone with a fighter because the highest attribute is STR but also rolls a rather high INT and then gives thought to why it is this fighter is so educated and adds this to the character's story is creating an infinitely more interesting character than a fighter with attributes assigned in the most predictable manner. A player who is happy to have a wizard with an extremely low DEX and give thought to perhaps whether the character suffers from some impediment or is corpulent or is just extraordinarily clumsy is creating an infinitely more interesting character than one with zero imperfections. When characters of any given class are pretty much identical in every game because their players just go with what most do the game becomes dull and repetitive.
What you say about "character investment" is projection.
Like I said:
I have played in a three-year long campaign that was essentially 5th. Edition with added innovations from a number of OSR games. We used 3d6 down the line. No one complained.
I have been playing for decades and the characters I had in that campaign have ranked among the most memorable I have ever had and of whom I have been fond.
Just because many players today can't bear to think their characters might not be "perfect" doesn't mean we are all like that.
It's not as if an entire movement within the hobby has returned to a more old-school approach.
We used 3d6 for a while but I believe 1e, which is what we played, did give optional rolling rules, maybe in the DMG. One was the 4d6, but I think there was even one where you rolled 3d6 in line enough for several sets of stats and you chose a set. I will have to pull out my old books to see what it was.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
As I recall Basic D&D did have 3d6 down the line, but AD&D didn't (it had three options, one of which was the 4k3 we are used to).