And that tends to encourage a character-as-gamepiece stance, which reduces investment in the character, and works against the roleplaying aspect of the game.
My experience is that new characters, regardless of generation method, don't feel particularly invested, that comes from playing the character for a while. I don't like the sheer power variance you see from rolling dice for ability scores so I prefer not to use it, but a more fair random character creation system can be fun (it's hard to do with D&D because some stats wind up way more valuable than others).
Yeah, the high variance is the biggest problem with any random-roll scheme. (Though if you play in 5e's functional generation range of 8-15, it's probably better than the full range.)
Standard array, randomly place the top two would probably work pretty well for letting the dice decide what you play, while letting you customize to shore it up. Or pick the highest, randomly place the others. There are all sorts of options if that's the way you wanna pick a character.
Edit: It's not my jam, though. I prefer to build from concept, and even with DMing, it'll be hard to run out of ideas. (Those ideas can derail; I'm currently playing a monk who was obviously going to be a caster-type.)
Every time I see someone try to equate someone being against or for something refereed to as an optimizer or powergamer, I recognize that they are just trying to belittle someone else's playstyle by trying to infer that they are inferior or illegitimate. This happens all the time in politics. I hate it when I see it here. A lot of people get joy out of synergizing builds. It doesn't mean they throw out all background role-playing for the character. As a matter of fact some of the best backgrounds are forged to encompass synergistic choices. People need to stop trying to demonize others by affixing a stigma that they then try to equate as being something undesirable.
Imagine two players wanting to play fighters in the same game. The DM allows the players to choose how attributes are to be determined. One takes the option most conducive to getting what they want and assigns his fighter an exceptional STR and an exceptional CON because the player is thinking primarily about how often that fighter will hit and how hard and how resilient it will be and yes gives consideration to who the character is and where the character comes from but also practically maps out the character's advancement. The player will take this and that at this and that level. And so on. The other player rolls 3d6 in order and does not particularly care their fighter will have barely above average STR because the player is more than happy to play the role of a fighter who is the physically weaker of two in a party of adventurers. Its uncharacteristically high INT the player figures can be explained because the fighter is someone who might be a bit bookish and perhaps even had contemplated a future in the academy but something happened that forced the character to fight and it proved itself in that regard. A fighter with high INT. It would be great for the city watch! And maybe circumstances will arise and it will make sense for it to multi-class as a wizard. Maybe. Anything could happen. Now imagine the first of these players complaining because the second player hasn't made "the right choices" to also produce a fighter that is going to be as capable as theirs in combat. Complaining because the player has armed their fighter with a weapon that isn't the most optimal choice and was chosen for purposes of character. Or complaining about how the second player should just play a wizard. This is the difference between how someone who is powergaming treats character creation and someone who wants to play more than they want to play what they want. Or what others want. The former cares more about how strong the character and in turn the party is and is the sort of player who can't stand to miss and so assigns their fighter pretty much the exact same numbers their last fighter had. While the other is interpreting what they have rolled to conceive of a character they can make work and clearly cares more about characterization and story and the value of these things than how mechanically effective their character is going to be in combat. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong." But the player who is powergaming typically isn't only thinking of what they can get our of their own character. They will frequently tell other players what choices they too "should" make because they also want to get the most out of theirs. They can be some of the most disruptive players at our tables because they have a tendency even during play to tell others what they "should" do. What would be the "best" thing to do. For mechanical purposes. To them how another player might wish to play their own character matters less than what's "best."
It's not like the dice aren't time to time going to humiliate the "perfect build" or going to grant the weaker of the two some of the campaign's best moments.
Like I said: Infinite stories that might be fun and interesting stories to tell at our tables are thrown away in favor of just being the next [insert class] who has to have the highest this or the highest that and who must never be "outclassed" by another character in the party belonging to a different class because they have what is an uncharacteristically high attribute for their class ...
I played in a campaign in which my character had the highest STR. And he was the party's thief. A gentle giant who didn't particularly care for violence. Except when it was absolutely necessary. I think it's sad that in so many games a character like this could only ever possibly be an NPC. The irony of NPCs being more fun and interesting than many player characters because many player characters are near identical in terms of mental and physical prowess to every other character their players have ever played who have belonged to the same class because these players keep prioritizing choices made for mechanical purposes more so than ones made for purposes of character is hilarious. It's a formula that is going to dry up the moment players have played more than their fair share of any given class and doing so again just begins to feel too same-y.
EDIT: If you like this "build" approach you are welcome to it. It has become increasingly more and more popular since the arrival of 3rd. Edition. And it has only gained traction. You won't have any trouble finding others who find it as enjoyable as you do. But many are the tables who still consider that sort of player a problem player. I think I have explained why.
Huh? Why is player 1 complaining about player 2 in this scenario? I don't get it, it's not his character. What does it matter to player 1 what player 2 does? You're assuming because player 1 wants to be the ultimate tank, he can't handle another player not doing the same? That's absurd. If anything player 1 should be happy about player 2 because it makes them different in their personality, play style, customization, and probably background. I think you have it wrong about what it means to be an optimizer or synergist. You are doing exactly what I mentioned in my original post by demonizing them and painting false narratives to stigmatize an identity of playstyle. Why didn't you talk about player 2 and paint a narrative where he puts player 1 down for being basic?
I have been at tables where this has occurred.
It is absurd. But I have seen min maxers get stroppy because other players are not making "optimal" decisions for their own characters. When one thinks in terms of "tanks" and whatnot and wants to build the "perfect party" it's often not enough for such a player to get what they want.
It ain't for nothing that min maxing has a history of being disallowed at many tables. Go read the Wikipedia entry on it. It is far from flattering. Personally as someone who has been playing since he first cracked open the Mentzer red box and remembers too well how many players became disillusioned with official D&D with the arrival of 3rd. Edition because we saw an increase in this mindset I find it bizarre that people cannot understand why others disapprove of it.
When one's approach to the game is How do we build the strongest party in the universe so we can "win? one has missed the point of a game whose reach can be infinite and in which one does not "win." It's not a board game or a video game.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
Your experience is valid. My experience is that every person I've played with could do both, and did either or both as they preferred.
Can players who optimize devote just as much mental energy to role-playing? Sure
That statement, right there, is exactly what the fallacy is stating. It is demonstrably false to say that no-one can do both, or that the two things are fundamentally opposed.
The fallacy in and of itself germinates in fallacious thinking.
No one says those who like to min max do not and can not role-play.
It's about priority. And the reason many a table disallows it is because those of this mindset are often problem players who will make choices for their characters that make no sense narratively. They are prepared to undermine characterization and story just to get what is "optimal."
The entire premise of the fallacy is little more than straw man b*ll*cks erected by those who enjoy min max and who don't want to engage with others' actual criticisms of it.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
I'm just commenting on mechanics that come to my attention, and I really only comment much when it's something like somebody arguing that some of the worst design elements of old D&D, the ones that D&D itself has long been moving away from, are good actually. ((Like 3d6 in order, which 1e AD&D ditched.) I half-expect to see an impassioned defense of upside-down AC at some point.
Your first point completely ignores the actual point being made. Making choices because of how effective they will be is not inherently bad. When the player is prepared to undermine character or story in order to make such choices they have then also chosen where their priorities lie. Do you think min maxing is disallowed at many tables just for kicks? It's because some DMs and their players want to prioritize character and story. They want players to make choices they make sense narratively more than they do mechanically.
Your second point is derived from pure fancy. You keep talking about what could never possibly work. When people made it work. As another poster said: That would actually make a perfectly useable fighter. Not for you. But that's you and not how "bad" the game system is.
Your third and fourth points miss mine. Popularity does not equate to how great something is. Wizards would be fools to change the name of the game. If they did that tomorrow its popularity would see considerable decline.
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
AD&D did not "ditch" 3d6 in order. We have been through this: It remains among the four suggested methods. Only with the player rolling multiple potential characters and choosing from them. Much like players do when they play a game that still uses this method. Much like many of us did when we played B/X or BECMI D&D back in the day and many who played OD&D before us did. You can assign your attributes if you wish. Make every fighter you ever play practically the same character except for whatever fluff you attach to it. Play how you like. I think it is nothing short of sad that someone could get so upset at the thought of their having to play fighter with a weak constitution. As if such a thing does not exist in literature or film.
A 1st-level fighter who is strong (STR 14) but who is perhaps sickly for some reason (CON 6) is a fighter with a story a tell. Not unlike Wolverine in Logan. Still a strong bugger but coming to terms with aging.
Why would it be so wrong for a player to want to play such a fighter? Or an aged barbarian? Must all characters be in their prime?
Again you are proving my point perfectly about how the min max mindset undermines opportunities for characterization and story. It prioritizes mechanics over these. The mere rules that are only there to inform a DM's decisions. Given he or she can change them at will.
However you spin it you have strong opinions of games you have never played. Of styles of gameplay you have never tried. You could play D&D for centuries and you will never have gained the experience of many players who over the years tried many different systems because they loved the hobby and not a brand.
Yeah, the high variance is the biggest problem with any random-roll scheme.
There are ways of doing random with lower variance. For example, on point build, just roll a d6 to decide what stat to put points into.
That's likely to end up very flat unless you do it in big chunks. Something like 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1 would probably work. (also wouldn't require rolling as many dice)
And also, 3d6 in order is an extremely bad method of character generation, and prevents people from making the characters they want to play.
The point of 3d6 in order (and, more generally, rolling stats at all) is that you don't come in with preconceived notions of the character you want to play; instead, you roll attributes and make a character that fits those rolls.
And that tends to encourage a character-as-gamepiece stance, which reduces investment in the character, and works against the roleplaying aspect of the game.
(Doesn't prevent it, of course, but it definitely makes it harder, especially for people who are new to the genre.)
Edit: also, randomly choosing your stats can be done in ways that don't also have the variance issues of 3d6.
Go speak with players who rolled 3d6 in order to produce characters they played throughout campaigns that lasted years. Go speak with those who rolled 3d6 in order to produce 0-Level characters who would survive a funnel and go on to rank among their most beloved characters of all time. It only encourages what you say among those who approach the game like you do. Those who practically throw themselves on the floor and bang their fists on it if they can't start the game with characters looking as if they have already reached Level 10.
Do you think min maxing is disallowed at many tables just for kicks?
I don't think it's actually possible to disallow min maxing unless you don't let the player make any decisions; 'disallow min maxing' is usually either 'disallow specific builds that are perceived as min-maxing' or 'require pretending that you aren't min-maxing'
I like powerful characters and reject the notion that weak/flawed/whatever are inherently more fun for everyone involved. Some people like those type, but that isnt why I play an RPG...I want to escape reality, not be further frustrated by it. That said, I also like rolling dice, so rolling 4d6 and dropping lowest is reasonable, having more points to spend freely than the standard 28 is also good. I played the original way, and several varients over 4 decades. I have my preferences, and accept others have theirs.
As Professor DM said just recently THAC0 was nothing more than a "shortcut." It simplified what had come before. Which in itself was hardly complicated. Reading OLD-SCHOOL ESSENTIALS Classic Fantasy recently in which those "to hit" tables for different classes mirror those found in B/X has been a real nostalgia trip! But I am also reminded how a mere ten-year-old me had no trouble figuring it out. Math can be hard for some.
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
I think that's overdoing it. It's basic competence in design.
Advantage/disadvantage are elegant. Still flawed, but a really solid idea. I'm not sure I've seen anything resembling beautiful design in D&D except 4e. Still flawed, but they really thought about it.
(I may have high standards, I admit, but I've seen truly beautiful RPG design. Just not in D&D. It's usually to be found in games that try to do a single thing well.)
But that's beside the point. Descending AC is an example of objectively bad design. I feel completely safe in judging it so, even if I'm not actually familiar with the specifics of the D&D-derived system using it.
AD&D did not "ditch" 3d6 in order. We have been through this: It remains among the four suggested methods. Only with the player rolling multiple potential characters and choosing from them.
Rolling 3d6 in order twelve times and picking one is a fundamentally different generation method from doing it once and living with it, which is the one you've been defending.
However you spin it you have strong opinions of games you have never played. Of styles of gameplay you have never tried. You could play D&D for centuries and you will never have gained the experience of many players who over the years tried many different systems because they loved the hobby and not a brand.
Dude, I've played so many games outside of the D&D penumbra that I can't even keep count. That isn't a boast -- I assume you've played plenty, too. It's the nature of the hobby. But I'm not coming at this from the parochial viewpoint you want to tar me with. (Although, frankly, if I'd played nothing but D&D, I'd still be qualified to say "no, those old D&D mechanics were bad".)
Do you think min maxing is disallowed at many tables just for kicks?
I don't think it's actually possible to disallow min maxing unless you don't let the player make any decisions; 'disallow min maxing' is usually either 'disallow specific builds that are perceived as min-maxing' or 'require pretending that you aren't min-maxing'
It is if you have players randomly roll their attributes instead of their bringing to the table a prescripted character that would require very specific distribution of any attributes.
You might not roll up what would be an "optimal" fighter. But there is nothing stopping you from playing one just as long as your STR or DEX is adequate enough for you to adequately handle a weapon.
At the more extreme end I have played in games where even race and background were randomly rolled.
Does this take away some degree of player agency?
It does.
But it is an approach that is much more conducive to introducing newcomers to the hobby. Not everyone has time enough to read rules tomes. I run games for kids I teach as well as for friends. I would not expect my every student for whom I've run games to know the PHB back to front.
Some of the best games I have ever played in saw the DM tinker with the system enough until it was unrecognizable. The unpredictability that came with playing the game was half the charm. Instead of knowing what this or that class would get at this or that level it was new and unfamiliar.
Playing D&D once felt that way. When we played at tables at which only the DM owned the books.
It is if you have players randomly roll their attributes instead of their bringing to the table a prescripted character that would require very specific distribution of any attributes.
That's not disallowing min-maxing. That's disallowing particular types of min-maxing. Disallowing min-maxing is things like "okay, you have a Strength of 16 and Int of 7. Now, let's roll for class... oh, you're a wizard! Congratulations!"
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
I think that's overdoing it. It's basic competence in design.
Advantage/disadvantage are elegant. Still flawed, but a really solid idea. I'm not sure I've seen anything resembling beautiful design in D&D except 4e. Still flawed, but they really thought about it.
(I may have high standards, I admit, but I've seen truly beautiful RPG design. Just not in D&D. It's usually to be found in games that try to do a single thing well.)
But that's beside the point. Descending AC is an example of objectively bad design. I feel completely safe in judging it so, even if I'm not actually familiar with the specifics of the D&D-derived system using it.
AD&D did not "ditch" 3d6 in order. We have been through this: It remains among the four suggested methods. Only with the player rolling multiple potential characters and choosing from them.
Rolling 3d6 in order twelve times and picking one is a fundamentally different generation method from doing it once and living with it, which is the one you've been defending.
However you spin it you have strong opinions of games you have never played. Of styles of gameplay you have never tried. You could play D&D for centuries and you will never have gained the experience of many players who over the years tried many different systems because they loved the hobby and not a brand.
Dude, I've played so many games outside of the D&D penumbra that I can't even keep count. That isn't a boast -- I assume you've played plenty, too. It's the nature of the hobby. But I'm not coming at this from the parochial viewpoint you want to tar me with. (Although, frankly, if I'd played nothing but D&D, I'd still be qualified to say "no, those old D&D mechanics were bad".)
What you call "objectively bad design" some prefer. Not me personally. But some do. Many still play earlier editions or variations on them that use descending AC. Because they prefer this. Short of your showing us your game design credentials you aren't going to convince me yours is a head wiser than those who first developed the game least of all than those of those whose who prefer it. Your subjective view is not objective reality.
And as someone else pointed out: The math was simple. I was 10 when I first started playing D&D. And did not have the slightest trouble figuring out those tables. And with the arrival of 2nd. Edition THAC0 only made it simpler. The charm of how it used to be done is not how intuitive it was—because it was nowhere near as intuitive as ascending AC—but how different classes grew at different rates in their capacity to hit things. Being a fighter actually meant something. Fighters felt as if they were better trained for combat. Which they would be. Now even a wizard is as proficient as wielding a staff as a fighter. They get the same bonus. It's absurd.
I have not been defending rolling 3d6 in order "once and only once." I stated early on that I have my players roll four sets of numbers and choose from these. I mentioned a system that has players roll 3d6 in order but re-roll if no number is equal to or greater than 14. The only time I defended rolling a single set other than a player rolling a single set and being satisfied with it was when you did and complained about how "unplayable" that set was:
I—as well as someone else—said it was a perfectly playable fighter. The problem isn't the method. It's a difference in attitude towards attributes and what they mean. Like I said: a fighter with a high STR but a low CON could be a fun and interesting character to play. A aging warrior. A veteran.
It is if you have players randomly roll their attributes instead of their bringing to the table a prescripted character that would require very specific distribution of any attributes.
That's not disallowing min-maxing. That's disallowing particular types of min-maxing. Disallowing min-maxing is things like "okay, you have a Strength of 16 and Int of 7. Now, let's roll for class... oh, you're a wizard! Congratulations!"
That is not what disallowing min maxing looks like at all. It doesn't mean class is rolled and you must go with what you rolled regardless of what attributes you rolled. That is absurd. Particularly given so much of this discussion has veered into talking about 3d6 in order and how the standard approach used in editions or variations on them in which that is used is to choose one's class after the numbers have been rolled. The keyword here being choose.
You know what most tables who disallow min maxing do?
It begins with players not being allowed to "roll" their attributes out of person. They must do so in person. In the presence of the other players and that of the DM. Because too many players who approach the game with that mindset will just fudge numbers to get what they want.
It means during the process of character creation players are building the story of their characters and doing so as they go. They are justifying certain choices. It's not just I am going to pick that weapon because it will deliver the most damage. It's With a background in soldiering and provided what soldiers are equipped with in this world the fighter likely has this or that in its arsenal. It means giving some thought to low attributes. What they mean. Instead of having none. Unless of course the player has just poured the lowest into a "dump stat" because it won't be mechanically advantageous.
It means at a level-up a choice makes narrative sense. Not just mechanical sense.
You can enjoy min maxing. You don't have to like the alternative. But there is no need to pretend disallowing min maxing means players have to roll everything randomly because you can't provide a sound enough response to why many tables don't allow it or why that is.
You can enjoy min maxing. You don't have to like the alternative. But there is no need to pretend disallowing min maxing means players have to roll everything randomly because you can't provide a sound enough response to why many tables don't allow it or why that is.
I'm not pretending. Min-maxing isn't one thing, it's the entire process of character optimization. Any time you make any decision because it's better than the alternative, you're min-maxing.
You can enjoy min maxing. You don't have to like the alternative. But there is no need to pretend disallowing min maxing means players have to roll everything randomly because you can't provide a sound enough response to why many tables don't allow it or why that is.
I'm not pretending. Min-maxing isn't one thing, it's the entire process of character optimization. Any time you make any decision because it's better than the alternative, you're min-maxing.
Choosing to play a class for which a randomly rolled ability score might make sense is not an example of "min maxing." It is if anything the opposite of min maxing. It is a player coming to the table without any preconceptions about what he or she will play rolling a random set of numbers and conceiving of a character and its story from those numbers. This prioritizes character and story over just getting to play what you want. No min or maxing has even taken place. Because the player has not been permitted to put low numbers in "dump stats" and assign others wherever they wish.
If you believe a player rolling the set that has come up in this discussion with just a single above average number (STR 14) and choosing to play a fighter even though it is going to have a have a CON of 6 is "min maxing" you obviously don't understand what it means to be a min maxer.
It has never been defined as something so innocuous as choosing one's class. It is a defined playstyle. One that sees players' almost every decision made for mechanical and not narrative purposes.
Min maxing is known as min maxing because it is "the practice of maximizing desirable or "powerful" traits while minimizing underpowered or less useful traits."
I don't see any mention in there of how terrible it was of Allan to go with a wizard because he randomly rolled a 16 INT! Because no one seriously considers that an example of min maxing. At least no one who knows what it means.
Allan can't "[maximize] desirable or "powerful" traits" and "[minimize] underpowered or less useful traits" because he can't assign the numbers however he pleases which would have allowed him to put any low numbers into "dump stats" (i.e. min) and any high numbers into what would be mechanically optimal stats (i.e. max).
Imagine if that wizard also boasted a STR of 18. Allan might have gone with a fighter. But he wants to play a wizard. Allan must now wonder to himself why someone so strong chose a life of wizardry. Sounds like a seed for a character with a fun and interesting backstory to me.
A player min maxing would swap out that 16 for the 18. Or they would probably go with a fighter and assign those numbers as predictably as we all have come to expect: STR 18 and CON 16.
You don't just get to make up what it means to min max because you—like I said—"can't provide a sound enough response to why many tables don't allow it or why that is."
isn't the whole issue the preconceptions people have?
There are people who come with a already fleshed out concept in their head to the table, they don't want random roles or rigid backgrounds to interfere with it. (i.e. i want to play a high elf wizard that had a lived for a long time on a sailing ship, but the sailor background is bad for that)
On the other hand, other people come to the table with no concept yet in mind, and let the random roles and the rigid backgrounds guide them and form it. (i.e i rolled a 16 for intelligence and a 15 for dexterity, the scribe background has the right ASI for that, so perhaps i play a wizard as that fits into the scribing with their spellbook, making it High elf to enforce the idea of a magician with the extra cantrip and innate detect magic)
From the discussion here it seems a lot of people went with the pre-planned concept instead of the session zero concept, thus their dissatisfaction with the backgrounds. On the other hand people who use the method to create a concept at the table are fine or love the changes to backgrounds.
This is also reflected in the use of point buy/standard array versus random rolls.
No method is wrong, but they clash with each other. Point buy/Standard array is predeterministic, you can do it all the time without insight or guidance by other players/DMs as these numbers are verified in themselves. Rolling by its very nature of randomness requires that other players/DMs are present to verify the numbers. And since we are a community of terminally online people who probably spend way too much time thinking about D&D, the predeterministic way is often seen as "the correct one" because it can be verified by itself. People in general have a aversion to trust the random results of other they have not seen, thus discussion about characters with randomly generated rolls are rare compared to the "build" discussion we see, which can be verified at any time, as there is no randomness to account for.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread I am currently playing in a couple of 5th. Edition games and in one of these my character is a barbarian.
I have already mentioned how the character's weapon of choice was chosen not so the character would deliver optimal damage but for purposes of character.
How did we generate ability scores in this game?
4d6. Drop the lowest. Assign numbers however we wish. But each of the four players rolled twice. Then the lowest number and the highest number were eliminated. Leaving us with an array to be used by everyone that everyone at the table was perfectly satisfied with. Nothing "too low." But not an 18 in sight either. So no player could just pour additional points into it and start with a 20. At Level 1. Something rare in the early days of the hobby when characters were supposed to grow into becoming heroes.
The highest of remaining numbers rolled went to my character's CON. Not for mechanical purposes. But because in the character's backstory she had fought a marauding force and its chieftain and had done so while with child and survived the seemingly unsurvivable.
I did not assign the next highest of the remaining numbers to STR but to DEX. Because I like the idea of playing a barbarian character with panther-like reflexes more than one who is all about brute force. Like a Pict from the works of REH. This has inadvertently awarded the character a good AC. Nothing spectacular. But the "trade off" for that has been making a character that is more about character than it is about numbers. And no the weapon of choice is not a Finesse weapon either. I just don't care about doing maximum damage. I have played a barbarian like that. Once was enough. The sameness that comes with approaching every game trying to "build" the "best" [insert class] is about as exciting as dishwashing to me.
The character's STR is a 12. I couldn't care less. I find it funny that so many players get so tied up in knots just imagining having to play a character of any given class who isn't practically a carbon copy of every other one "built" for reasons of "optimal performance" and this usually just in combat. Another reason min and maxing is not welcome at all tables. It produces characters "built" for what is but one aspect of the game. Even rogues and wizards and whatnot. For the min-maxer it is all about how effective will they be in a fight. Because their players care for little else. Much is the overlap between those who love the approach and those who get bored and can't wait for the next fight. And then they wonder why others might consider them to be problem players. Me I don't care how others play. But I find all this min and maxing so limiting as far as the imagination goes. It means players simply can't conceive of a character that might be outside of the box in terms of its physical or mental prowess. For a game that is all about imagination and how limitless it can be that's more than a little ironic.
Yeah, the high variance is the biggest problem with any random-roll scheme. (Though if you play in 5e's functional generation range of 8-15, it's probably better than the full range.)
Standard array, randomly place the top two would probably work pretty well for letting the dice decide what you play, while letting you customize to shore it up. Or pick the highest, randomly place the others. There are all sorts of options if that's the way you wanna pick a character.
Edit: It's not my jam, though. I prefer to build from concept, and even with DMing, it'll be hard to run out of ideas. (Those ideas can derail; I'm currently playing a monk who was obviously going to be a caster-type.)
I have been at tables where this has occurred.
It is absurd. But I have seen min maxers get stroppy because other players are not making "optimal" decisions for their own characters. When one thinks in terms of "tanks" and whatnot and wants to build the "perfect party" it's often not enough for such a player to get what they want.
It ain't for nothing that min maxing has a history of being disallowed at many tables. Go read the Wikipedia entry on it. It is far from flattering. Personally as someone who has been playing since he first cracked open the Mentzer red box and remembers too well how many players became disillusioned with official D&D with the arrival of 3rd. Edition because we saw an increase in this mindset I find it bizarre that people cannot understand why others disapprove of it.
When one's approach to the game is How do we build the strongest party in the universe so we can "win? one has missed the point of a game whose reach can be infinite and in which one does not "win." It's not a board game or a video game.
The fallacy in and of itself germinates in fallacious thinking.
No one says those who like to min max do not and can not role-play.
It's about priority. And the reason many a table disallows it is because those of this mindset are often problem players who will make choices for their characters that make no sense narratively. They are prepared to undermine characterization and story just to get what is "optimal."
The entire premise of the fallacy is little more than straw man b*ll*cks erected by those who enjoy min max and who don't want to engage with others' actual criticisms of it.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
There are ways of doing random with lower variance. For example, on point build, just roll a d6 to decide what stat to put points into.
Your first point completely ignores the actual point being made. Making choices because of how effective they will be is not inherently bad. When the player is prepared to undermine character or story in order to make such choices they have then also chosen where their priorities lie. Do you think min maxing is disallowed at many tables just for kicks? It's because some DMs and their players want to prioritize character and story. They want players to make choices they make sense narratively more than they do mechanically.
Your second point is derived from pure fancy. You keep talking about what could never possibly work. When people made it work. As another poster said: That would actually make a perfectly useable fighter. Not for you. But that's you and not how "bad" the game system is.
Your third and fourth points miss mine. Popularity does not equate to how great something is. Wizards would be fools to change the name of the game. If they did that tomorrow its popularity would see considerable decline.
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
AD&D did not "ditch" 3d6 in order. We have been through this: It remains among the four suggested methods. Only with the player rolling multiple potential characters and choosing from them. Much like players do when they play a game that still uses this method. Much like many of us did when we played B/X or BECMI D&D back in the day and many who played OD&D before us did. You can assign your attributes if you wish. Make every fighter you ever play practically the same character except for whatever fluff you attach to it. Play how you like. I think it is nothing short of sad that someone could get so upset at the thought of their having to play fighter with a weak constitution. As if such a thing does not exist in literature or film.
A 1st-level fighter who is strong (STR 14) but who is perhaps sickly for some reason (CON 6) is a fighter with a story a tell. Not unlike Wolverine in Logan. Still a strong bugger but coming to terms with aging.
Why would it be so wrong for a player to want to play such a fighter? Or an aged barbarian? Must all characters be in their prime?
Again you are proving my point perfectly about how the min max mindset undermines opportunities for characterization and story. It prioritizes mechanics over these. The mere rules that are only there to inform a DM's decisions. Given he or she can change them at will.
However you spin it you have strong opinions of games you have never played. Of styles of gameplay you have never tried. You could play D&D for centuries and you will never have gained the experience of many players who over the years tried many different systems because they loved the hobby and not a brand.
That's likely to end up very flat unless you do it in big chunks. Something like 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1 would probably work. (also wouldn't require rolling as many dice)
Go speak with players who rolled 3d6 in order to produce characters they played throughout campaigns that lasted years. Go speak with those who rolled 3d6 in order to produce 0-Level characters who would survive a funnel and go on to rank among their most beloved characters of all time. It only encourages what you say among those who approach the game like you do. Those who practically throw themselves on the floor and bang their fists on it if they can't start the game with characters looking as if they have already reached Level 10.
I don't think it's actually possible to disallow min maxing unless you don't let the player make any decisions; 'disallow min maxing' is usually either 'disallow specific builds that are perceived as min-maxing' or 'require pretending that you aren't min-maxing'
I like powerful characters and reject the notion that weak/flawed/whatever are inherently more fun for everyone involved. Some people like those type, but that isnt why I play an RPG...I want to escape reality, not be further frustrated by it. That said, I also like rolling dice, so rolling 4d6 and dropping lowest is reasonable, having more points to spend freely than the standard 28 is also good. I played the original way, and several varients over 4 decades. I have my preferences, and accept others have theirs.
As Professor DM said just recently THAC0 was nothing more than a "shortcut." It simplified what had come before. Which in itself was hardly complicated. Reading OLD-SCHOOL ESSENTIALS Classic Fantasy recently in which those "to hit" tables for different classes mirror those found in B/X has been a real nostalgia trip! But I am also reminded how a mere ten-year-old me had no trouble figuring it out. Math can be hard for some.
I think that's overdoing it. It's basic competence in design.
Advantage/disadvantage are elegant. Still flawed, but a really solid idea. I'm not sure I've seen anything resembling beautiful design in D&D except 4e. Still flawed, but they really thought about it.
(I may have high standards, I admit, but I've seen truly beautiful RPG design. Just not in D&D. It's usually to be found in games that try to do a single thing well.)
But that's beside the point. Descending AC is an example of objectively bad design. I feel completely safe in judging it so, even if I'm not actually familiar with the specifics of the D&D-derived system using it.
Rolling 3d6 in order twelve times and picking one is a fundamentally different generation method from doing it once and living with it, which is the one you've been defending.
Dude, I've played so many games outside of the D&D penumbra that I can't even keep count. That isn't a boast -- I assume you've played plenty, too. It's the nature of the hobby. But I'm not coming at this from the parochial viewpoint you want to tar me with. (Although, frankly, if I'd played nothing but D&D, I'd still be qualified to say "no, those old D&D mechanics were bad".)
It is if you have players randomly roll their attributes instead of their bringing to the table a prescripted character that would require very specific distribution of any attributes.
You might not roll up what would be an "optimal" fighter. But there is nothing stopping you from playing one just as long as your STR or DEX is adequate enough for you to adequately handle a weapon.
At the more extreme end I have played in games where even race and background were randomly rolled.
Does this take away some degree of player agency?
It does.
But it is an approach that is much more conducive to introducing newcomers to the hobby. Not everyone has time enough to read rules tomes. I run games for kids I teach as well as for friends. I would not expect my every student for whom I've run games to know the PHB back to front.
Some of the best games I have ever played in saw the DM tinker with the system enough until it was unrecognizable. The unpredictability that came with playing the game was half the charm. Instead of knowing what this or that class would get at this or that level it was new and unfamiliar.
Playing D&D once felt that way. When we played at tables at which only the DM owned the books.
That's not disallowing min-maxing. That's disallowing particular types of min-maxing. Disallowing min-maxing is things like "okay, you have a Strength of 16 and Int of 7. Now, let's roll for class... oh, you're a wizard! Congratulations!"
What you call "objectively bad design" some prefer. Not me personally. But some do. Many still play earlier editions or variations on them that use descending AC. Because they prefer this. Short of your showing us your game design credentials you aren't going to convince me yours is a head wiser than those who first developed the game least of all than those of those whose who prefer it. Your subjective view is not objective reality.
And as someone else pointed out: The math was simple. I was 10 when I first started playing D&D. And did not have the slightest trouble figuring out those tables. And with the arrival of 2nd. Edition THAC0 only made it simpler. The charm of how it used to be done is not how intuitive it was—because it was nowhere near as intuitive as ascending AC—but how different classes grew at different rates in their capacity to hit things. Being a fighter actually meant something. Fighters felt as if they were better trained for combat. Which they would be. Now even a wizard is as proficient as wielding a staff as a fighter. They get the same bonus. It's absurd.
I have not been defending rolling 3d6 in order "once and only once." I stated early on that I have my players roll four sets of numbers and choose from these. I mentioned a system that has players roll 3d6 in order but re-roll if no number is equal to or greater than 14. The only time I defended rolling a single set other than a player rolling a single set and being satisfied with it was when you did and complained about how "unplayable" that set was:
I—as well as someone else—said it was a perfectly playable fighter. The problem isn't the method. It's a difference in attitude towards attributes and what they mean. Like I said: a fighter with a high STR but a low CON could be a fun and interesting character to play. A aging warrior. A veteran.
That is not what disallowing min maxing looks like at all. It doesn't mean class is rolled and you must go with what you rolled regardless of what attributes you rolled. That is absurd. Particularly given so much of this discussion has veered into talking about 3d6 in order and how the standard approach used in editions or variations on them in which that is used is to choose one's class after the numbers have been rolled. The keyword here being choose.
You know what most tables who disallow min maxing do?
It begins with players not being allowed to "roll" their attributes out of person. They must do so in person. In the presence of the other players and that of the DM. Because too many players who approach the game with that mindset will just fudge numbers to get what they want.
It means during the process of character creation players are building the story of their characters and doing so as they go. They are justifying certain choices. It's not just I am going to pick that weapon because it will deliver the most damage. It's With a background in soldiering and provided what soldiers are equipped with in this world the fighter likely has this or that in its arsenal. It means giving some thought to low attributes. What they mean. Instead of having none. Unless of course the player has just poured the lowest into a "dump stat" because it won't be mechanically advantageous.
It means at a level-up a choice makes narrative sense. Not just mechanical sense.
You can enjoy min maxing. You don't have to like the alternative. But there is no need to pretend disallowing min maxing means players have to roll everything randomly because you can't provide a sound enough response to why many tables don't allow it or why that is.
Choosing to play a character that fits your ability scores is min maxing.
I'm not pretending. Min-maxing isn't one thing, it's the entire process of character optimization. Any time you make any decision because it's better than the alternative, you're min-maxing.
Choosing to play a class for which a randomly rolled ability score might make sense is not an example of "min maxing." It is if anything the opposite of min maxing. It is a player coming to the table without any preconceptions about what he or she will play rolling a random set of numbers and conceiving of a character and its story from those numbers. This prioritizes character and story over just getting to play what you want. No min or maxing has even taken place. Because the player has not been permitted to put low numbers in "dump stats" and assign others wherever they wish.
If you believe a player rolling the set that has come up in this discussion with just a single above average number (STR 14) and choosing to play a fighter even though it is going to have a have a CON of 6 is "min maxing" you obviously don't understand what it means to be a min maxer.
It has never been defined as something so innocuous as choosing one's class. It is a defined playstyle. One that sees players' almost every decision made for mechanical and not narrative purposes.
Min maxing is known as min maxing because it is "the practice of maximizing desirable or "powerful" traits while minimizing underpowered or less useful traits."
I don't see any mention in there of how terrible it was of Allan to go with a wizard because he randomly rolled a 16 INT! Because no one seriously considers that an example of min maxing. At least no one who knows what it means.
Allan can't "[maximize] desirable or "powerful" traits" and "[minimize] underpowered or less useful traits" because he can't assign the numbers however he pleases which would have allowed him to put any low numbers into "dump stats" (i.e. min) and any high numbers into what would be mechanically optimal stats (i.e. max).
Imagine if that wizard also boasted a STR of 18. Allan might have gone with a fighter. But he wants to play a wizard. Allan must now wonder to himself why someone so strong chose a life of wizardry. Sounds like a seed for a character with a fun and interesting backstory to me.
A player min maxing would swap out that 16 for the 18. Or they would probably go with a fighter and assign those numbers as predictably as we all have come to expect: STR 18 and CON 16.
You don't just get to make up what it means to min max because you—like I said—"can't provide a sound enough response to why many tables don't allow it or why that is."
isn't the whole issue the preconceptions people have?
There are people who come with a already fleshed out concept in their head to the table, they don't want random roles or rigid backgrounds to interfere with it. (i.e. i want to play a high elf wizard that had a lived for a long time on a sailing ship, but the sailor background is bad for that)
On the other hand, other people come to the table with no concept yet in mind, and let the random roles and the rigid backgrounds guide them and form it. (i.e i rolled a 16 for intelligence and a 15 for dexterity, the scribe background has the right ASI for that, so perhaps i play a wizard as that fits into the scribing with their spellbook, making it High elf to enforce the idea of a magician with the extra cantrip and innate detect magic)
From the discussion here it seems a lot of people went with the pre-planned concept instead of the session zero concept, thus their dissatisfaction with the backgrounds. On the other hand people who use the method to create a concept at the table are fine or love the changes to backgrounds.
This is also reflected in the use of point buy/standard array versus random rolls.
No method is wrong, but they clash with each other. Point buy/Standard array is predeterministic, you can do it all the time without insight or guidance by other players/DMs as these numbers are verified in themselves. Rolling by its very nature of randomness requires that other players/DMs are present to verify the numbers. And since we are a community of terminally online people who probably spend way too much time thinking about D&D, the predeterministic way is often seen as "the correct one" because it can be verified by itself. People in general have a aversion to trust the random results of other they have not seen, thus discussion about characters with randomly generated rolls are rare compared to the "build" discussion we see, which can be verified at any time, as there is no randomness to account for.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread I am currently playing in a couple of 5th. Edition games and in one of these my character is a barbarian.
I have already mentioned how the character's weapon of choice was chosen not so the character would deliver optimal damage but for purposes of character.
How did we generate ability scores in this game?
4d6. Drop the lowest. Assign numbers however we wish. But each of the four players rolled twice. Then the lowest number and the highest number were eliminated. Leaving us with an array to be used by everyone that everyone at the table was perfectly satisfied with. Nothing "too low." But not an 18 in sight either. So no player could just pour additional points into it and start with a 20. At Level 1. Something rare in the early days of the hobby when characters were supposed to grow into becoming heroes.
The highest of remaining numbers rolled went to my character's CON. Not for mechanical purposes. But because in the character's backstory she had fought a marauding force and its chieftain and had done so while with child and survived the seemingly unsurvivable.
I did not assign the next highest of the remaining numbers to STR but to DEX. Because I like the idea of playing a barbarian character with panther-like reflexes more than one who is all about brute force. Like a Pict from the works of REH. This has inadvertently awarded the character a good AC. Nothing spectacular. But the "trade off" for that has been making a character that is more about character than it is about numbers. And no the weapon of choice is not a Finesse weapon either. I just don't care about doing maximum damage. I have played a barbarian like that. Once was enough. The sameness that comes with approaching every game trying to "build" the "best" [insert class] is about as exciting as dishwashing to me.
The character's STR is a 12. I couldn't care less. I find it funny that so many players get so tied up in knots just imagining having to play a character of any given class who isn't practically a carbon copy of every other one "built" for reasons of "optimal performance" and this usually just in combat. Another reason min and maxing is not welcome at all tables. It produces characters "built" for what is but one aspect of the game. Even rogues and wizards and whatnot. For the min-maxer it is all about how effective will they be in a fight. Because their players care for little else. Much is the overlap between those who love the approach and those who get bored and can't wait for the next fight. And then they wonder why others might consider them to be problem players. Me I don't care how others play. But I find all this min and maxing so limiting as far as the imagination goes. It means players simply can't conceive of a character that might be outside of the box in terms of its physical or mental prowess. For a game that is all about imagination and how limitless it can be that's more than a little ironic.