Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
So make everyone play the exact same race, class and background so that everyone is completely equal, if not then you must be indifferent to all other forms of inequality. People complain constantly about how one class is weaker compared to another.
So make everyone play the exact same race, class and background so that everyone is completely equal, if not then you must be indifferent to all other forms of inequality. People complain constantly about how one class is weaker compared to another.
Well, I don't use stat rolling. My point is, stat rolling is a much bigger source of balance problems than a lot of other things people complain about (such as races).
Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
I’m with sposta, but I also come from the 3d6 in order days (when cheating was about the only way to be a paladin, but that’s off topic).
Equal would only matter if the players were working against each other, not with each other. When everyone is on the same team, one person being a little better sometimes doesn’t hurt anything. Not to mention that one extra good score is a lot of the time balanced out by a pretty bad score.
Do you think the rest of the Chicago Bulls were upset they were on the same team as Michael Jordan? They still won, and they all contributed, even if one person was an all star, the rest were still exceptionally good.
So make everyone play the exact same race, class and background so that everyone is completely equal, if not then you must be indifferent to all other forms of inequality. People complain constantly about how one class is weaker compared to another.
Well, I don't use stat rolling. My point is, stat rolling is a much bigger source of balance problems than a lot of other things people complain about (such as races).
Then maybe in the future refrain from making accusations such as "You must be indifferent to all other forms of inequality."
Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
I’m with sposta, but I also come from the 3d6 in order days (when cheating was about the only way to be a paladin, but that’s off topic).
Equal would only matter if the players were working against each other, not with each other. When everyone is on the same team, one person being a little better sometimes doesn’t hurt anything. Not to mention that one extra good score is a lot of the time balanced out by a pretty bad score.
Do you think the rest of the Chicago Bulls were upset they were on the same team as Michael Jordan? They still won, and they all contributed, even if one person was an all star, the rest were still exceptionally good.
Have you seen the Michael Jordan documentary? They were very much upset yet honored to play with him...it was a huge mixed bag for them and honestly is a good comparison. In my opinion DnD should not have a clear #1 when it comes to the PCs. The fact Michael was so much better than them was apparent and do you really want that for your players? I for one do not want them to feel they are a bit player in that PCs story. Everyone remembers MJ...hardly anyone remembers his teammates.
Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
I’m with sposta, but I also come from the 3d6 in order days (when cheating was about the only way to be a paladin, but that’s off topic).
Equal would only matter if the players were working against each other, not with each other. When everyone is on the same team, one person being a little better sometimes doesn’t hurt anything. Not to mention that one extra good score is a lot of the time balanced out by a pretty bad score.
Do you think the rest of the Chicago Bulls were upset they were on the same team as Michael Jordan? They still won, and they all contributed, even if one person was an all star, the rest were still exceptionally good.
Have you seen the Michael Jordan documentary? They were very much upset yet honored to play with him...it was a huge mixed bag for them and honestly is a good comparison. In my opinion DnD should not have a clear #1 when it comes to the PCs. The fact Michael was so much better than them was apparent and do you really want that for your players? I for one do not want them to feel they are a bit player in that PCs story. Everyone remembers MJ...hardly anyone remembers his teammates.
Yes, there's actually a whole field of sports psychology contending with professional (in themselves elite) players with a superstar on board. They don't get to distinguish themselves from the superstar who literally dominates the game. Also, not just in terms of game time or time on the ball, the teams resources are spent more to maintain the superstar, so the other players don't get the same player development a more level playing field team would have.
In D&D, since we're talking about powers that can exceed even the elite ends of human performance, I'd say the problem is one of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Everyone becomes a follower or just gets out of the way so the miracle worker can do their work.
That said, a nimble DM with the right amount of investment in the players can cater the game so that everyone gets their moments, maybe not every session, but accommodating (and I'm not saying pandering) to every players and every characters talents (which are separate things) makes for a happy table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
I’m with sposta, but I also come from the 3d6 in order days (when cheating was about the only way to be a paladin, but that’s off topic).
Equal would only matter if the players were working against each other, not with each other. When everyone is on the same team, one person being a little better sometimes doesn’t hurt anything. Not to mention that one extra good score is a lot of the time balanced out by a pretty bad score.
Do you think the rest of the Chicago Bulls were upset they were on the same team as Michael Jordan? They still won, and they all contributed, even if one person was an all star, the rest were still exceptionally good.
Have you seen the Michael Jordan documentary? They were very much upset yet honored to play with him...it was a huge mixed bag for them and honestly is a good comparison. In my opinion DnD should not have a clear #1 when it comes to the PCs. The fact Michael was so much better than them was apparent and do you really want that for your players? I for one do not want them to feel they are a bit player in that PCs story. Everyone remembers MJ...hardly anyone remembers his teammates.
Yes, there's actually a whole field of sports psychology contending with professional (in themselves elite) players with a superstar on board. They don't get to distinguish themselves from the superstar who literally dominates the game. Also, not just in terms of game time or time on the ball, the teams resources are spent more to maintain the superstar, so the other players don't get the same player development a more level playing field team would have.
In D&D, since we're talking about powers that can exceed even the elite ends of human performance, I'd say the problem is one of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Everyone becomes a follower or just gets out of the way so the miracle worker can do their work.
That said, a nimble DM with the right amount of investment in the players can cater the game so that everyone gets their moments, maybe not every session, but accommodating (and I'm not saying pandering) to every players and every characters talents (which are separate things) makes for a happy table.
Thats fair and I can see a table with players who really trust in the DM doing this. I think its doable but is generally (as in 90% of the time) a bad idea to start a game.
Honestly how it relates back to the system as a whole is based on Pantagruel666's point....the stat imbalance creates FAR FAR more cases of "broken" characters than class features, races, or subclasses.
Starting on an uneven playing field is of course going to cause imbalance. One should never balance something with stat rolling as an option as it just creates inherently imbalanced scenarios.
So when someone says their fighter is "broken" and its then revealed that the fighter rolled three 18's for stats...yeah they are likely going to be broken. The game system does not assume people will be starting with their stats maxed so balance around feat selection, class abilities and the like are going to be thrown off significantly.
However to each their own but I would honestly never even consider a game where 3d6 down the line was the option. That just sounds outright terrible.
That’s actually my favorite way to play. You did that first, then picked Race and Class based on what you were already good at. It wasn’t about “builds” back then, it was about characters. You didn’t decide what you wanted to be and then put the stats where they suit that best. You figured out what you were good at, and then built the character around that. It was actually more like reality that way.
However to each their own but I would honestly never even consider a game where 3d6 down the line was the option. That just sounds outright terrible.
That’s actually my favorite way to play. You did that first, then picked Race and Class based on what you were already good at. It wasn’t about “builds” back then, it was about characters. You didn’t decide what you wanted to be and then put the stats where they suit that best. You figured out what you were good at, and then built the character around that. It was actually more like reality that way.
I guess thats where we differ...
I prefer a game as a way to escape reality rather than imitate it. I want full control of my character including what their strengths/weaknesses are and do not want stats dictating what I can and can't play.
Yeah overall I think it's good that they're looking at creating a more complex system. It does fill a niche that I think is certain percentage of players want to see.
I also agree I doubt they'll ever go it is the primary route.
My guess will be the next edition willactually be even more simple than this edition
Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
I absolutely considered balance when designing or critiquing class/race features, official or homebrew. I try to make the most balanced homebrews I can. And if someone asks for feedback on their homebrews, I will speak to balanced design since that is usually what they are asking for. I speak towards game balance when discussing WotC’s designs because that’s their flippin’ job.
But my friend, out of all of the vast array of many, many things you have ever actually seen me “complain” about, when has it ever been an iniquity between PCs within the party?
I most certainly have complained about how some class features make players feel unsatisfied with their characters. I have complained about poorly designed mechanics. I have complained about munchkinism. I have complained about you-know-what being represented by Spellcasting. I have complained about Jeremy Crawford’s stupid haircut. I have complained about many, many things. But when has the balance between PCs ever been that thing?
I prefer when my players roll Ability Scores, as I have stated above.
I prefer Non-Milestone XP, specifically because I do not award all PCs the same amount. I specifically give bonus XP for various things in 25 XP increments in situ, mid session in front of the table. I stated that multiple times, most recently here:
I have stated that I use “DM shenanigans” such as which Magic Items I include in a campaign to effectively overcome various imbalances between party members, most recently here:
I homebrew out the yin-yang, and advertise it in my sigline. For most people, homebrew is by default “broken” and they will not accept it in their games. I have never DMed a single session that I can recall without something homebrewed in it, even if it was just swapping the sword that a skeleton wields.
My personal motto is to make most combat encounters “Deadly,” and then dial them up to 11.
If any of that gave anyone the impression that “balance” was a priority for me, then I must not have explained myself properly.
This is the only kind of “balance” I am concerned about at my table:
My theory at least, is that a good RPG, a good group, and a good campaign must all stand on the same three legs:
The Narrative
The Game
The Table (the people there, not the physical table itself)
Go set up a tripod and make one leg twice as long as the other two. What happens?
That doesn’t meant that narrative, game, and table all need to be in perfect exact rigid balance. It just means that the three of them have to be close enough in balance to keep the thing from falling over. As long as it’s still standing, you’re good.
So the game has to be good. If the rules suck, the game sucks. That’s no fun. I don’t care how great the setting, story and the friends at the table are, if the game sucks it’s practically unplayable.
The narrative has to be good. An interesting setting with vibrant NPCs and realistic devices. Because if verisimilitude is broken, that is no fun either. Because I don’t care how great the rules, mechanics, and the friends at the table are, if the narrative sucks it’s practically unplayable.
The group has to be good. Because if the people sitting around the table together can’t stand each other, then that’s no fun. And even if they are all friends, if they want different things out of the game, then someone will not be having fun. So I don’t care how great the setting, story, rules, and mechanics are, if the group dynamic sucks it’s practically unplayable.
Ahh, but you see, I don’t care about equal/unequal stats. That is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest priority I can assign something and 1 is the lowest, I give “equal stats” a 0.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
I’m with sposta, but I also come from the 3d6 in order days (when cheating was about the only way to be a paladin, but that’s off topic).
Equal would only matter if the players were working against each other, not with each other. When everyone is on the same team, one person being a little better sometimes doesn’t hurt anything. Not to mention that one extra good score is a lot of the time balanced out by a pretty bad score.
Do you think the rest of the Chicago Bulls were upset they were on the same team as Michael Jordan? They still won, and they all contributed, even if one person was an all star, the rest were still exceptionally good.
Have you seen the Michael Jordan documentary? They were very much upset yet honored to play with him...it was a huge mixed bag for them and honestly is a good comparison. In my opinion DnD should not have a clear #1 when it comes to the PCs. The fact Michael was so much better than them was apparent and do you really want that for your players? I for one do not want them to feel they are a bit player in that PCs story. Everyone remembers MJ...hardly anyone remembers his teammates.
I have not seen that, maybe I should check it out. But I think my point still stands. Maybe they were annoyed, but they all still have those championship rings.
And in D&D terms, I think we'd all agree that if people are having fun, that's what matters. I'd like to think the people I play with can still have fun if someone else has a mechanically "better" character. And a mechanically better character is only a part of the puzzle. People can make interesting characters that are fun to play even if the person across the table has an extra +2 bonus somewhere. I've been the guy with the better character, and the guy with the worse character. Either way, it was still fun to hang out with my friends, drink some beer and roll some dice. IME, the most memorable (and in a lot of ways "better") characters tended to have a well developed personality -- nothing to do with ability score generation.
I personally enjoy the variation that rolling stats creates and it is my preferred way to make characters as a player. When I roll up a new character, I start with the dice, look at the random set of numbers that they provide and begin to build a concept around those numbers. It is part of the fun for me.
I have not seen that, maybe I should check it out. But I think my point still stands. Maybe they were annoyed, but they all still have those championship rings.
And in D&D terms, I think we'd all agree that if people are having fun, that's what matters. I'd like to think the people I play with can still have fun if someone else has a mechanically "better" character.
The actual key currency in RPGs is the amount of time you spend in the spotlight doing something you like being in the spotlight for. Most people are fond of the spotlight of "Watch me be awesome", and more powerful characters typically get more opportunities at that (at least, assuming the power is in something actually relevant to what the party is doing; the awesomely optimized fighter may still not have a lot of opportunities to show off in a social game, and the social monster may not have a lot of chances to show off in a dungeon crawl).
This is most often a problem when two characters have the same general role, but one of them is just better than the other. The DM can fairly easily balance the combat monster and the social monster by adjusting the amount of time the game spends in each sort of activity, but if you have two fighters, one of whom has an 18 strength and the other has a 14 strength (and no significant counterbalancing benefits), the one with 18 strength is just going to get more opportunities.
I personally enjoy the variation that rolling stats creates and it is my preferred way to make characters as a player. When I roll up a new character, I start with the dice, look at the random set of numbers that they provide and begin to build a concept around those numbers. It is part of the fun for me.
Dice that can be rearranged (standard stat rolling) don't give me ideas. Dice that can't be rearranged (roll stats in order, no swapping) might give inspiration (why does this guy have 15 strength and intelligence? Guess fate wants me to be a Eldritch Knight) but are prone to being unplayable.
I personally enjoy the variation that rolling stats creates and it is my preferred way to make characters as a player. When I roll up a new character, I start with the dice, look at the random set of numbers that they provide and begin to build a concept around those numbers. It is part of the fun for me.
Dice that can be rearranged (standard stat rolling) don't give me ideas. Dice that can't be rearranged (roll stats in order, no swapping) might give inspiration (why does this guy have 15 strength and intelligence? Guess fate wants me to be a Eldritch Knight) but are prone to being unplayable.
People enjoy different things from one another all the time. Luckily for you and I, there are many tables out there for both of us to enjoy what we like.
People enjoy different things from one another all the time. Luckily for you and I, there are many tables out there for both of us to enjoy what we like.
I don't actually understand how a rearrangable array could give someone ideas, so I'm a bit curious if you can give me an example of how it gives you inspiration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In that case you should also be heavily indifferent to all other forms of inequality, as very few of the imbalances people complain about are more relevant than what you get from random stats.
So make everyone play the exact same race, class and background so that everyone is completely equal, if not then you must be indifferent to all other forms of inequality. People complain constantly about how one class is weaker compared to another.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Well, I don't use stat rolling. My point is, stat rolling is a much bigger source of balance problems than a lot of other things people complain about (such as races).
I’m with sposta, but I also come from the 3d6 in order days (when cheating was about the only way to be a paladin, but that’s off topic).
Equal would only matter if the players were working against each other, not with each other. When everyone is on the same team, one person being a little better sometimes doesn’t hurt anything. Not to mention that one extra good score is a lot of the time balanced out by a pretty bad score.
Do you think the rest of the Chicago Bulls were upset they were on the same team as Michael Jordan? They still won, and they all contributed, even if one person was an all star, the rest were still exceptionally good.
Then maybe in the future refrain from making accusations such as "You must be indifferent to all other forms of inequality."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I said "should" not "must". 'Should' is not an accusation (an accusation has to be descriptive, and should is prescriptive).
Have you seen the Michael Jordan documentary? They were very much upset yet honored to play with him...it was a huge mixed bag for them and honestly is a good comparison. In my opinion DnD should not have a clear #1 when it comes to the PCs. The fact Michael was so much better than them was apparent and do you really want that for your players? I for one do not want them to feel they are a bit player in that PCs story. Everyone remembers MJ...hardly anyone remembers his teammates.
Yes, there's actually a whole field of sports psychology contending with professional (in themselves elite) players with a superstar on board. They don't get to distinguish themselves from the superstar who literally dominates the game. Also, not just in terms of game time or time on the ball, the teams resources are spent more to maintain the superstar, so the other players don't get the same player development a more level playing field team would have.
In D&D, since we're talking about powers that can exceed even the elite ends of human performance, I'd say the problem is one of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Everyone becomes a follower or just gets out of the way so the miracle worker can do their work.
That said, a nimble DM with the right amount of investment in the players can cater the game so that everyone gets their moments, maybe not every session, but accommodating (and I'm not saying pandering) to every players and every characters talents (which are separate things) makes for a happy table.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I apologies for misquoting you since you apparently did not make your statement to be antagonizing or unduly rude in an attempt to make a point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Thats fair and I can see a table with players who really trust in the DM doing this. I think its doable but is generally (as in 90% of the time) a bad idea to start a game.
Honestly how it relates back to the system as a whole is based on Pantagruel666's point....the stat imbalance creates FAR FAR more cases of "broken" characters than class features, races, or subclasses.
Starting on an uneven playing field is of course going to cause imbalance. One should never balance something with stat rolling as an option as it just creates inherently imbalanced scenarios.
So when someone says their fighter is "broken" and its then revealed that the fighter rolled three 18's for stats...yeah they are likely going to be broken. The game system does not assume people will be starting with their stats maxed so balance around feat selection, class abilities and the like are going to be thrown off significantly.
That’s actually my favorite way to play. You did that first, then picked Race and Class based on what you were already good at. It wasn’t about “builds” back then, it was about characters. You didn’t decide what you wanted to be and then put the stats where they suit that best. You figured out what you were good at, and then built the character around that. It was actually more like reality that way.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I guess thats where we differ...
I prefer a game as a way to escape reality rather than imitate it. I want full control of my character including what their strengths/weaknesses are and do not want stats dictating what I can and can't play.
Yeah overall I think it's good that they're looking at creating a more complex system. It does fill a niche that I think is certain percentage of players want to see.
I also agree I doubt they'll ever go it is the primary route.
My guess will be the next edition willactually be even more simple than this edition
I absolutely considered balance when designing or critiquing class/race features, official or homebrew. I try to make the most balanced homebrews I can. And if someone asks for feedback on their homebrews, I will speak to balanced design since that is usually what they are asking for. I speak towards game balance when discussing WotC’s designs because that’s their flippin’ job.
But my friend, out of all of the vast array of many, many things you have ever actually seen me “complain” about, when has it ever been an iniquity between PCs within the party?
I most certainly have complained about how some class features make players feel unsatisfied with their characters. I have complained about poorly designed mechanics. I have complained about munchkinism. I have complained about you-know-what being represented by Spellcasting. I have complained about Jeremy Crawford’s stupid haircut. I have complained about many, many things. But when has the balance between PCs ever been that thing?
I prefer when my players roll Ability Scores, as I have stated above.
I prefer Non-Milestone XP, specifically because I do not award all PCs the same amount. I specifically give bonus XP for various things in 25 XP increments in situ, mid session in front of the table. I stated that multiple times, most recently here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/82162-non-combat-experience-points?comment=8
I have stated that I use “DM shenanigans” such as which Magic Items I include in a campaign to effectively overcome various imbalances between party members, most recently here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/82190-magic-items-how-do-you-choose-rewards?comment=22
I homebrew out the yin-yang, and advertise it in my sigline. For most people, homebrew is by default “broken” and they will not accept it in their games. I have never DMed a single session that I can recall without something homebrewed in it, even if it was just swapping the sword that a skeleton wields.
My personal motto is to make most combat encounters “Deadly,” and then dial them up to 11.
If any of that gave anyone the impression that “balance” was a priority for me, then I must not have explained myself properly.
This is the only kind of “balance” I am concerned about at my table:
My theory at least, is that a good RPG, a good group, and a good campaign must all stand on the same three legs:
Go set up a tripod and make one leg twice as long as the other two. What happens?
That doesn’t meant that narrative, game, and table all need to be in perfect exact rigid balance. It just means that the three of them have to be close enough in balance to keep the thing from falling over. As long as it’s still standing, you’re good.
So the game has to be good. If the rules suck, the game sucks. That’s no fun. I don’t care how great the setting, story and the friends at the table are, if the game sucks it’s practically unplayable.
The narrative has to be good. An interesting setting with vibrant NPCs and realistic devices. Because if verisimilitude is broken, that is no fun either. Because I don’t care how great the rules, mechanics, and the friends at the table are, if the narrative sucks it’s practically unplayable.
The group has to be good. Because if the people sitting around the table together can’t stand each other, then that’s no fun. And even if they are all friends, if they want different things out of the game, then someone will not be having fun. So I don’t care how great the setting, story, rules, and mechanics are, if the group dynamic sucks it’s practically unplayable.
That’s the balance I care about.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have not seen that, maybe I should check it out. But I think my point still stands. Maybe they were annoyed, but they all still have those championship rings.
And in D&D terms, I think we'd all agree that if people are having fun, that's what matters. I'd like to think the people I play with can still have fun if someone else has a mechanically "better" character. And a mechanically better character is only a part of the puzzle. People can make interesting characters that are fun to play even if the person across the table has an extra +2 bonus somewhere. I've been the guy with the better character, and the guy with the worse character. Either way, it was still fun to hang out with my friends, drink some beer and roll some dice. IME, the most memorable (and in a lot of ways "better") characters tended to have a well developed personality -- nothing to do with ability score generation.
I personally enjoy the variation that rolling stats creates and it is my preferred way to make characters as a player. When I roll up a new character, I start with the dice, look at the random set of numbers that they provide and begin to build a concept around those numbers. It is part of the fun for me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The actual key currency in RPGs is the amount of time you spend in the spotlight doing something you like being in the spotlight for. Most people are fond of the spotlight of "Watch me be awesome", and more powerful characters typically get more opportunities at that (at least, assuming the power is in something actually relevant to what the party is doing; the awesomely optimized fighter may still not have a lot of opportunities to show off in a social game, and the social monster may not have a lot of chances to show off in a dungeon crawl).
This is most often a problem when two characters have the same general role, but one of them is just better than the other. The DM can fairly easily balance the combat monster and the social monster by adjusting the amount of time the game spends in each sort of activity, but if you have two fighters, one of whom has an 18 strength and the other has a 14 strength (and no significant counterbalancing benefits), the one with 18 strength is just going to get more opportunities.
Dice that can be rearranged (standard stat rolling) don't give me ideas. Dice that can't be rearranged (roll stats in order, no swapping) might give inspiration (why does this guy have 15 strength and intelligence? Guess fate wants me to be a Eldritch Knight) but are prone to being unplayable.
People enjoy different things from one another all the time. Luckily for you and I, there are many tables out there for both of us to enjoy what we like.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't actually understand how a rearrangable array could give someone ideas, so I'm a bit curious if you can give me an example of how it gives you inspiration.