I am actually grateful for this thread, in that its made me think about things in a way I wouldn't have otherwise. To me rolling was never about power gaming, it was just the way I make characters because its always the way I've made characters since the red box, and as I said back in the very early pages of this thread, it's what feels like D&D to me. I hadn't considered that it could be used for evil :) But there's been a lot of good and interesting takes on it, which I'm glad I read. I can understand now why, in general, power gamers will like to roll, which isn't really something I'd thought about before.
But I think the logic puzzle/ven diagram version of the statement might be: All power gamers roll, but not all rollers power game. I think that's really where we roller-types are getting hung up. Because we like rolling, others are making negative assumptions about our playstyle that range from something like, you are all character optimizers who cry to you DM if your stat array is less than exceptional, to something like, surely you don't understand what your doing, because math tells us rolling will be unfair to a theoretical person at a theoretical table.
Can we maybe just get the benefit of the doubt that we aren't solely doing this to powergame, and we fully understand what we're getting into, and we just like it because its what's fun for us?
I am actually grateful for this thread, in that its made me think about things in a way I wouldn't have otherwise. To me rolling was never about power gaming, it was just the way I make characters because its always the way I've made characters since the red box, and as I said back in the very early pages of this thread, it's what feels like D&D to me. I hadn't considered that it could be used for evil :) But there's been a lot of good and interesting takes on it, which I'm glad I read. I can understand now why, in general, power gamers will like to roll, which isn't really something I'd thought about before.
But I think the logic puzzle/ven diagram version of the statement might be: All power gamers roll, but not all rollers power game. I think that's really where we roller-types are getting hung up. Because we like rolling, others are making negative assumptions about our playstyle that range from something like, you are all character optimizers who cry to you DM if your stat array is less than exceptional, to something like, surely you don't understand what your doing, because math tells us rolling will be unfair to a theoretical person at a theoretical table.
Can we maybe just get the benefit of the doubt that we aren't solely doing this to powergame, and we fully understand what we're getting into, and we just like it because its what's fun for us?
Can we maybe just get the benefit of the doubt that we aren't solely doing this to powergame, and we fully understand what we're getting into, and we just like it because its what's fun for us?
There are people like that, but my experience is that people's sense of 'rolling for stats is fun' suddenly dies when they roll badly. Not everyone is that way, but I don't think I've seen a group of players where there weren't at least a couple of people like that.
I use 4d6 drop lowest, and that is what I use at my tables. It isnt really for powergaming, its because that's what we have done since we started. Its fun to have it be random, with the chance for good or ill. I have had super strong characters and super weak ones, so have most of my players. In my current campaign, one of my players started with 3 negative modifiers, while another started with a total of 85-ish. There are some people that use it for higher stats. Most people just use it because its fun to bring in some randomness. There is the chance for a super low stat as well as a super high one. Both are fun. You cant get a true dump stat with point buy/standard array, since an 8 is in no way debilitating.
I actually rolled a 16, a 17, and four 15s once, so 4d6kh does have problems, but almost all Ability Score Generation methods do.
That is patently untrue. The 27 point Buy system does not allow crazy stats. The Standard Array I guess is moot in this case, since stats are not really generated in that case. But that is why the 27 point buy or SA are the only methods that are balanced and ALWAYS fair.
I'm not saying that the problem is always the stat difference. I'm saying that there is no Perfect System of stat generation.
This is really where the focus should be....the point buy is problematic for some due to it creating similar characters and its limitation on stat maximum.
So I would talk to the group and say:
"Point buy will ensure we are all on the same power level but you will likely see that it produces similar characters to an extent. Also you will not be able to start with a stat higher than 17. This does mean everyone will have the same opportunity to create characters that should, at least at baseline, be fairly equal"
"Rolling can be fun due to the unknown. You can get stats as high as 20 if you roll well enough which means we will require more ingame changes to accomidate to provide an appropriate challenge. One caveat is that this method can, with a resonable amount of regularity, create significant stat imbalances between players. If we want to use this method I can discuss with you all how to address this. "
Or something of this nature.....takes little to no time and is honest about the caveats of the different approaches without ignoring the negative aspects of either.
I support this and I consider this to be true statements.
Also, tell me more about how I need to change my playstyle to have more fun with my group. What exactly do you think went well in our last session and what do you think went poorly? What do you think about my wife's decision at the start of the game and how do you think it impacted everything going forward for the rest of the game?
Ok. Now you are just actively being hostile by jumping to something like this
"Just be honest with the pros/cons of each method and you will have a lot better time with your group."
This statement directly implies that our group needs to change to make it better.
Then just give them the choice between 4d6, 3d6, ability point buy or standard array and ask it be a group decision so whatever the group agrees with in a majority decision is the one they ALL use and make it clear its decided.
Then just give them the choice between 4d6, 3d6, ability point buy or standard array and ask it be a group decision so whatever the group agrees with in a majority decision is the one they ALL use and make it clear its decided.
Now can we move on?
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
Many players will choose the 4d6 method , because it seems "fun", and will continually roll until they get stats they like. It is the DM who then has to deal with the aftermath of having chars with wildly different starting power levels (and yes, high stats = higher power levels.) It is nuts for any DM to leave such a decision in the hands of the players. Creating a campaign that challenges the players without killing them off is hard enough. Tacking on 4d6 variations is insane.
I will turn this around: How many players would be thrilled if the DM says "I am gearing the difficulty of the game to challenge the player with the char with the highest stats. If the rest of your chars can't keep up, oh well."? Of course, in those cases, the weaker chars end up dying, or not any fun to play, and the players with such chars end up rolling new ones. The process continues until they roll a char with high stats.
That is the same as initially rolling 4d6's until a player gets a high set to start with. It just takes much longer as chars die or are retired.
Those attributes are not the be all you're suggesting.
There's no "I" in team after all, so unless they work as a group it doesn't matter if one player turns with a character with all 18's because when it comes to roleplay its ROLEPLAY not ROLLPLAY.
Unless you have an entire group of power gamers it will take a bit of time before that sinks in.
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Input is one thing. Final decision is yours, and yours alone.
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Input is one thing. Final decision is yours, and yours alone.
So? If nobody wants to use a given method, why would I foist it on them anyway? If I'm taking input, that means they get to weigh in on the decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
4d6 take top three scores for each Characteristic. The after all that total up score to see if you get 72 or above. Then if you get 71 or below, re roll everything, 72 and above stays. Afterword, drop the lowest roll and replace it with an 18. That's how me and my group have been doing it for 20+ years since rolling for stats was introduced. We are playing a fantasy game, we should get 1 max stat in our characters stat proficiency.
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Input is one thing. Final decision is yours, and yours alone.
So? If nobody wants to use a given method, why would I foist it on them anyway? If I'm taking input, that means they get to weigh in on the decision.
If nobody wanted to use 27 point buy, then they would walk to find other tables that used a system them liked, if they could get a seat at that table. If I did not have enough players for a quorum, I would not run a game.Thanks to me losing 3 players to Covid (not dead, just afraid to go out) that is actually what has happened with my primary game I run. I am building a 2nd campaign geared to run with 3 players. 2 of the players that have committed, are both DM's. One runs a 37 point buy in their game. The 2nd one runs an Eberron setting with extra Feats. Neither said boo about the 27 point buy, but we did negotiate to start at 3rd or 4th level instead of 1st as I wanted. Oh, and I also told them PHB and XGTE only for char creation. Once again, not a word of complaint.
Rule 0 is actually the DM MUST have fun. Rule 0.5 is the DM sets the rules for their table. Do I want to create a campaign that challenges the players and they have fun? Of course. Being a DM is a labour of love, and having someone appreciate your efforts is all part of the reason to DM. But no DM should sacrifice their principles to cater to someone whining "But I don't have an 18 in my starting stat block".
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Input is one thing. Final decision is yours, and yours alone.
So? If nobody wants to use a given method, why would I foist it on them anyway? If I'm taking input, that means they get to weigh in on the decision.
If nobody wanted to use 27 point buy, then they would walk to find other tables that used a system them liked, if they could get a seat at that table. If I did not have enough players for a quorum, I would not run a game.Thanks to me losing 3 players to Covid (not dead, just afraid to go out) that is actually what has happened with my primary game I run. I am building a 2nd campaign geared to run with 3 players. 2 of the players that have committed, are both DM's. One runs a 37 point buy in their game. The 2nd one runs an Eberron setting with extra Feats. Neither said boo about the 27 point buy, but we did negotiate to start at 3rd or 4th level instead of 1st as I wanted. Oh, and I also told them PHB and XGTE only for char creation. Once again, not a word of complaint.
Rule 0 is actually the DM MUST have fun. Rule 0.5 is the DM sets the rules for their table. Do I want to create a campaign that challenges the players and they have fun? Of course. Being a DM is a labour of love, and having someone appreciate your efforts is all part of the reason to DM. But no DM should sacrifice their principles to cater to someone whining "But I don't have an 18 in my starting stat block".
Taking input is not the same as caving to someone whining about stats. You compromised on starting level, so clearly there is room for the players to shape the campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Input is one thing. Final decision is yours, and yours alone.
So? If nobody wants to use a given method, why would I foist it on them anyway? If I'm taking input, that means they get to weigh in on the decision.
If nobody wanted to use 27 point buy, then they would walk to find other tables that used a system them liked, if they could get a seat at that table. If I did not have enough players for a quorum, I would not run a game.Thanks to me losing 3 players to Covid (not dead, just afraid to go out) that is actually what has happened with my primary game I run. I am building a 2nd campaign geared to run with 3 players. 2 of the players that have committed, are both DM's. One runs a 37 point buy in their game. The 2nd one runs an Eberron setting with extra Feats. Neither said boo about the 27 point buy, but we did negotiate to start at 3rd or 4th level instead of 1st as I wanted. Oh, and I also told them PHB and XGTE only for char creation. Once again, not a word of complaint.
Rule 0 is actually the DM MUST have fun. Rule 0.5 is the DM sets the rules for their table. Do I want to create a campaign that challenges the players and they have fun? Of course. Being a DM is a labour of love, and having someone appreciate your efforts is all part of the reason to DM. But no DM should sacrifice their principles to cater to someone whining "But I don't have an 18 in my starting stat block".
Taking input is not the same as caving to someone whining about stats. You compromised on starting level, so clearly there is room for the players to shape the campaign.
I included my comment about negotiating starting level because I don't consider that a deal-breaker. Stat/char generation was. Another player wanted to play an Artificer. I explained my reasons as to why the answer was "No". That player has decided not to play. That is totally fair.
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Input is one thing. Final decision is yours, and yours alone.
So? If nobody wants to use a given method, why would I foist it on them anyway? If I'm taking input, that means they get to weigh in on the decision.
If nobody wanted to use 27 point buy, then they would walk to find other tables that used a system them liked, if they could get a seat at that table. If I did not have enough players for a quorum, I would not run a game.Thanks to me losing 3 players to Covid (not dead, just afraid to go out) that is actually what has happened with my primary game I run. I am building a 2nd campaign geared to run with 3 players. 2 of the players that have committed, are both DM's. One runs a 37 point buy in their game. The 2nd one runs an Eberron setting with extra Feats. Neither said boo about the 27 point buy, but we did negotiate to start at 3rd or 4th level instead of 1st as I wanted. Oh, and I also told them PHB and XGTE only for char creation. Once again, not a word of complaint.
Rule 0 is actually the DM MUST have fun. Rule 0.5 is the DM sets the rules for their table. Do I want to create a campaign that challenges the players and they have fun? Of course. Being a DM is a labour of love, and having someone appreciate your efforts is all part of the reason to DM. But no DM should sacrifice their principles to cater to someone whining "But I don't have an 18 in my starting stat block".
Taking input is not the same as caving to someone whining about stats. You compromised on starting level, so clearly there is room for the players to shape the campaign.
I included my comment about negotiating starting level because I don't consider that a deal-breaker. Stat/char generation was. Another player wanted to play an Artificer. I explained my reasons as to why the answer was "No". That player has decided not to play. That is totally fair.
Again, so? There are some things that are dealbreakers to you, and others that are not. Hence, it's not entirely "my way or the highway".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am actually grateful for this thread, in that its made me think about things in a way I wouldn't have otherwise. To me rolling was never about power gaming, it was just the way I make characters because its always the way I've made characters since the red box, and as I said back in the very early pages of this thread, it's what feels like D&D to me. I hadn't considered that it could be used for evil :) But there's been a lot of good and interesting takes on it, which I'm glad I read. I can understand now why, in general, power gamers will like to roll, which isn't really something I'd thought about before.
But I think the logic puzzle/ven diagram version of the statement might be: All power gamers roll, but not all rollers power game. I think that's really where we roller-types are getting hung up. Because we like rolling, others are making negative assumptions about our playstyle that range from something like, you are all character optimizers who cry to you DM if your stat array is less than exceptional, to something like, surely you don't understand what your doing, because math tells us rolling will be unfair to a theoretical person at a theoretical table.
Can we maybe just get the benefit of the doubt that we aren't solely doing this to powergame, and we fully understand what we're getting into, and we just like it because its what's fun for us?
Very fair statement and well said!
How do I stop getting notifications about people posting on this forum?
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Click Tools at the top of the thread and then Unsubscribe
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Thanks
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
There are people like that, but my experience is that people's sense of 'rolling for stats is fun' suddenly dies when they roll badly. Not everyone is that way, but I don't think I've seen a group of players where there weren't at least a couple of people like that.
I use 4d6 drop lowest, and that is what I use at my tables. It isnt really for powergaming, its because that's what we have done since we started. Its fun to have it be random, with the chance for good or ill. I have had super strong characters and super weak ones, so have most of my players. In my current campaign, one of my players started with 3 negative modifiers, while another started with a total of 85-ish. There are some people that use it for higher stats. Most people just use it because its fun to bring in some randomness. There is the chance for a super low stat as well as a super high one. Both are fun. You cant get a true dump stat with point buy/standard array, since an 8 is in no way debilitating.
I exist, and I guess so does this
I support this and I consider this to be true statements.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Ehm, no it doesn't.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Then just give them the choice between 4d6, 3d6, ability point buy or standard array and ask it be a group decision so whatever the group agrees with in a majority decision is the one they ALL use and make it clear its decided.
Now can we move on?
Actually, no. It is the DM that decides on what system will be used. No one else. You appear to be operating under the illusion, as do many, that that setting up and running a game is a democracy.
Many players will choose the 4d6 method , because it seems "fun", and will continually roll until they get stats they like. It is the DM who then has to deal with the aftermath of having chars with wildly different starting power levels (and yes, high stats = higher power levels.) It is nuts for any DM to leave such a decision in the hands of the players. Creating a campaign that challenges the players without killing them off is hard enough. Tacking on 4d6 variations is insane.
I will turn this around: How many players would be thrilled if the DM says "I am gearing the difficulty of the game to challenge the player with the char with the highest stats. If the rest of your chars can't keep up, oh well."? Of course, in those cases, the weaker chars end up dying, or not any fun to play, and the players with such chars end up rolling new ones. The process continues until they roll a char with high stats.
That is the same as initially rolling 4d6's until a player gets a high set to start with. It just takes much longer as chars die or are retired.
Those attributes are not the be all you're suggesting.
There's no "I" in team after all, so unless they work as a group it doesn't matter if one player turns with a character with all 18's because when it comes to roleplay its ROLEPLAY not ROLLPLAY.
Unless you have an entire group of power gamers it will take a bit of time before that sinks in.
Hope its sooner than later for them!
That depends. I certainly don't mind taking suggestions from the group. Stat generation is (to my groups) a fairly minor thing, but if my players indicate they're really not in the mood for a horror campaign I'm not going to put any effort into creating something I know nobody else is going to enjoy.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Input is one thing. Final decision is yours, and yours alone.
So? If nobody wants to use a given method, why would I foist it on them anyway? If I'm taking input, that means they get to weigh in on the decision.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
4d6 take top three scores for each Characteristic. The after all that total up score to see if you get 72 or above. Then if you get 71 or below, re roll everything, 72 and above stays. Afterword, drop the lowest roll and replace it with an 18. That's how me and my group have been doing it for 20+ years since rolling for stats was introduced. We are playing a fantasy game, we should get 1 max stat in our characters stat proficiency.
If nobody wanted to use 27 point buy, then they would walk to find other tables that used a system them liked, if they could get a seat at that table. If I did not have enough players for a quorum, I would not run a game.Thanks to me losing 3 players to Covid (not dead, just afraid to go out) that is actually what has happened with my primary game I run. I am building a 2nd campaign geared to run with 3 players. 2 of the players that have committed, are both DM's. One runs a 37 point buy in their game. The 2nd one runs an Eberron setting with extra Feats. Neither said boo about the 27 point buy, but we did negotiate to start at 3rd or 4th level instead of 1st as I wanted. Oh, and I also told them PHB and XGTE only for char creation. Once again, not a word of complaint.
Rule 0 is actually the DM MUST have fun. Rule 0.5 is the DM sets the rules for their table. Do I want to create a campaign that challenges the players and they have fun? Of course. Being a DM is a labour of love, and having someone appreciate your efforts is all part of the reason to DM. But no DM should sacrifice their principles to cater to someone whining "But I don't have an 18 in my starting stat block".
Taking input is not the same as caving to someone whining about stats. You compromised on starting level, so clearly there is room for the players to shape the campaign.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I included my comment about negotiating starting level because I don't consider that a deal-breaker. Stat/char generation was. Another player wanted to play an Artificer. I explained my reasons as to why the answer was "No". That player has decided not to play. That is totally fair.
Again, so? There are some things that are dealbreakers to you, and others that are not. Hence, it's not entirely "my way or the highway".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].