Quote from: Natty Bodak;801164So his question had nothing to do with his sample situation. Rather it was about how/why/if people notice the minimum possible stat difference (i.e a +1 modifier). To own up to it, he did say +1 OR +2, so the minimum possible thing is really a slight stretch of what he said on my part. But I still think it's a good core question. And in that context this isn't really an open set issue where we can play neghborhoods-of-arbitrary size game.

He said:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798And I didn't notice it during game play.  Never impacted how I ran my PC.  But if I am to believe a lot of people, I should feel cheated?  I should feel gimped?  I should feel like I can't play my character the way I want because he can't compete?  These are all frequent arguments I've heard against random stat gen.  (whether or not they cheated isn't important; that's the DM's job to worry about that, not mine).

So honest question for those who have made those arguments.  If you don't know what stats another PC has, how does that ruin your fun?  Because from what I can see, it really doesn't impact the actual game play of your PC if you don't know how many +'s they have.  When you're rolling a random result between a 1 and 20, and extra +1 or +2 won't even be noticeable unless you're really paying attention and doing the math in your head, and why would you?  It's not your PC.

He's taking one narrow case, and saying 'we didn't notice the difference.' And then FROM that case, saying 'what's wrong with all of you nitwits complaining about feeling cheated or gimped?'

When people naturally point out other possible cases that ARE noticeable, he then pretends not to understand or refuses to engage or comes up with some reason where it doesn't count.

If the game's not fun, I'd blame the GM not the stats

Sometimes though it feels like certain players want a board game with essentially static fixed stats rather than an RPG.

Do these same players who feel sad because their stats are lower than someone elses also feel sad when THEIR stats are better than someone elses?

Quote from: Will;801168He said:


He's taking one narrow case, and saying 'we didn't notice the difference.' And then FROM that case, saying 'what's wrong with all of you nitwits complaining about feeling cheated or gimped?'

When people naturally point out other possible cases that ARE noticeable, he then pretends not to understand or refuses to engage or comes up with some reason where it doesn't count.

Ok, I think you are giving the OP an uncharitable reading, because there clearly are people who would feel gimped or cheated. But putting that aside with the possibility that I'm being too charitable, what's so hard about answering the question? Do *you* find the +1/+2 to be something that would ruin (or some less hyperbolic adjective of your choice)? Yes or no? And by all means, contribute where your personal limit is, or was.

It's the cat and dog tautology. The dog chase te cat because the cat runs. The cat runs because the dog chases it.

I honestly believe if you answer the question, and *then* follow on with the discussion of shades that this will go somewhere other than the poo flinging route.

Quote from: Will;801168He said:


He's taking one narrow case, and saying 'we didn't notice the difference.' And then FROM that case, saying 'what's wrong with all of you nitwits complaining about feeling cheated or gimped?'

When people naturally point out other possible cases that ARE noticeable, he then pretends not to understand or refuses to engage or comes up with some reason where it doesn't count.

I'm not taking one narrow case.  I'm taking the cases that actually happen in game play, not these super exaggerated examples that you've used that have the statistical probability of happening akin to winning Powerball.  And of the two of us, you were the one to keep insisting on using a strawman to paint yourself as some sort of victim.  You did it again here.  Not once have I made any claim about someone's intelligence.

Boy, you really are one dishonest craybaby, aren't you?  Discussions in other threads, and people's reactions to you in those, are starting to make more and more sense now.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801184Do *you* find the +1/+2 to be something that would ruin (or some less hyperbolic adjective of your choice)? Yes or no? And by all means, contribute where your personal limit is, or was.

It's the cat and dog tautology. The dog chase te cat because the cat runs. The cat runs because the dog chases it.

I honestly believe if you answer the question, and *then* follow on with the discussion of shades that this will go somewhere other than the poo flinging route.

Thank you for asking and answering straight!

It would probably not bother me in 3e, it would almost certainly not bother me in 5e. I'd find it esthetically silly to roll stats and would phrase my objection, but if I was outvoted, I'd shrug and move on.

It would bother me more if my schtick was close to another player's, but then normally groups try to diversify, which would limit the problem: a slightly greater chance to hit with a bow compared to having extra spells? Um, apples, oranges, whatever.

It would bug me more to have 'mr high 12' next to 'ms low 14'. Esthetically... why is it fun to have a chance to be very good or very bad? Eh.

In this case, it would depend on whether I could have a reliable niche where I felt involved and significant in the game that wasn't overshadowed by the other players. And another player simply refraining from using abilities that overshadowed mine wouldn't help.

This depends highly on the edition and the group -- in some groups significant differences in 'power' might not be important, because half the adventures are goofy fun. In others, serious special ops type doing very serious tightly tuned missions, the differences are way more noticeable.

"Overshadowed"

If your fighter and another fighter in the party boast who will kill the most goblins, and you get 8 while he gets 10 is that a problem?  If he always gets 12 while you get 2, then maybe that's a problem but what stats are going to give that outcome? Some ridiculous extreme not worth mentioning.

I don't really see how someone can be so concerned with stats without having a constant level of metagame thinking going on.  If you can hold the line when you need to hold the line - no one's overshadowed anyone.  If things like "spotlight time" are what you're actually thinking about at the table, your definition of roleplaying is somewhat different then mine.

There's a big middle between
Extreme case 1 (which never happened)
Player #1: 3,3,3,3,3,3
Player #2: 18,18,18,18,18,18
Player 1 "Umm, I..."
GM: : "Man the fuck up or get the fuck out!"

Extreme case 2 (which is all of RPG.net)
Player #1: 16, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12
Player #2: 18, 14, 13, 10, 9, 8
Player 1 "OMFG! I don't have an 18, I'm gimped!"

In between those two cases is the rest of the Known Universe.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801174If the game's not fun, I'd blame the GM not the stats

Holy crap, some common sense!
Thank you, TristramEvans for being the voice of sanity.

Quote from: jeff37923;801217Holy crap, some common sense!
Thank you, TristramEvans for being the voice of sanity.

Addendum that to "the DM or the players."

Because I've sure as hell been in games where the DM was great. But one or more players were hellbent on ruining things.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801186I'm not taking one narrow case.  I'm taking the cases that actually happen in game play, not these super exaggerated examples that you've used that have the statistical probability of happening akin to winning Powerball.  And of the two of us, you were the one to keep insisting on using a strawman to paint yourself as some sort of victim.  You did it again here.  Not once have I made any claim about someone's intelligence.

Boy, you really are one dishonest craybaby, aren't you?  Discussions in other threads, and people's reactions to you in those, are starting to make more and more sense now.

So Sacro what is your limit?

If you totalled the bonus from 2 PCs at what point does that number become a problem?

A gap of 5 , 6 , 7?

Does it matter if a PC only has 14 in their primary stat?
Does it matter if a PC has no numbers above a 12?

At what point as a DM do you say "those stats are shit reroll them" or do you always insist players take what they roll?

Quote from: CRKrueger;801200"Overshadowed"

If your fighter and another fighter in the party boast who will kill the most goblins, and you get 8 while he gets 10 is that a problem?  If he always gets 12 while you get 2, then maybe that's a problem but what stats are going to give that outcome? Some ridiculous extreme not worth mentioning.

I don't really see how someone can be so concerned with stats without having a constant level of metagame thinking going on.  If you can hold the line when you need to hold the line - no one's overshadowed anyone.  If things like "spotlight time" are what you're actually thinking about at the table, your definition of roleplaying is somewhat different then mine.

There's a big middle between
Extreme case 1 (which never happened)
Player #1: 3,3,3,3,3,3
Player #2: 18,18,18,18,18,18
Player 1 "Umm, I..."
GM: : "Man the fuck up or get the fuck out!"

Extreme case 2 (which is all of RPG.net)
Player #1: 16, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12
Player #2: 18, 14, 13, 10, 9, 8
Player 1 "OMFG! I don't have an 18, I'm gimped!"

In between those two cases is the rest of the Known Universe.

entirely agree and every players position will be a bit different so the DM has to try to pitch their game to make sure the majority have fun.

Quote from: jibbajibba;801233So Sacro what is your limit?

If you totalled the bonus from 2 PCs at what point does that number become a problem?

A gap of 5 , 6 , 7?

Does it matter if a PC only has 14 in their primary stat?
Does it matter if a PC has no numbers above a 12?

At what point as a DM do you say "those stats are shit reroll them" or do you always insist players take what they roll?

what's my limit?  I don't have one.  Why?  Because it's never been an issue.  I've never once, in almost 35 years, seen a PC use our random roll method and get everything below a 6, nor a result where 3 or 4 rolls were 17 or higher.  Yes, there have been PCs with an 18 and another player didn't have that, just like the same player had a 7 when the second had a lowest score of 10.

not once was it ever an issue if there was a +1 or 2 variance between characters.  I simply never noticed nor cared.  I played my PC how I wanted and worried only about them.  Heck, even with point buy or array, you don't know how the player allocated their point and racial modifiers, so why would you even bother to figure out what their stat bonuses are?  So why make it a big deal if they had a bigger bonus from random rolling?  You wouldn't even notice unless you figured out each of their abilities and how they allocated them to compare how they were against yours, and why would you do that?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801238what's my limit?  I don't have one.  Why?  Because it's never been an issue.  I've never once, in almost 35 years, seen a PC use our random roll method and get everything below a 6, nor a result where 3 or 4 rolls were 17 or higher.  Yes, there have been PCs with an 18 and another player didn't have that, just like the same player had a 7 when the second had a lowest score of 10.

not once was it ever an issue if there was a +1 or 2 variance between characters.  I simply never noticed nor cared.  I played my PC how I wanted and worried only about them.  Heck, even with point buy or array, you don't know how the player allocated their point and racial modifiers, so why would you even bother to figure out what their stat bonuses are?  So why make it a big deal if they had a bigger bonus from random rolling?  You wouldn't even notice unless you figured out each of their abilities and how they allocated them to compare how they were against yours, and why would you do that?

Okay using some real examples ....

As stated a few times I had a player roll

7, 16, 3, 6, 9, 13

Make them a non-human they get a +2 and a +1

7, 18, 3, 6, 9, 15

Total modifiers = -2, +4, -4, -2, -1, +2   = -3

I didn't make them play those numbers as I thought it would be "unfair" and that player would have less fun.

Emperor Norton posted an array he rolled (rolling stats so good it looks fishy thread)

16 16 12 16 13 17

Make then a non human goes to

17, 16, 12, 16, 13, 19    =>    +3, +3, +1, +3, +2, +4   = +16

Comparing those 2 PCs it seems that the second one has a big advantage even though the first one has the same +4 in their Primary.

Is that size of a disparity fair?
As a DM how would you cope with this disparity in your game.

Quote from: Omega;801228Addendum that to "the DM or the players."

Because I've sure as hell been in games where the DM was great. But one or more players were hellbent on ruining things.

Got to agree here as well.

Well, one thing about 3 and 5e, at least, is that if you can at least get ONE good score, you have some options to work with.

A number of classes function tolerably well with a single good score (Dex for some rogues and rangers, caster stat for bards, wizards, and some clerics).

In the latter examples, a character can be reasonably good within certain areas and not feel useless.

What's rougher is if someone has a max score of, say, 12. If one person has scores from 3-12 and other folks have multiple 16+ scores... that person is going to be overshadowed (in 3e and 5e).


Test rolls, 4d6 drop lowest:
12   13   8   12   8   10
16   12   11   11   10   16   
3   11   18   16   10   15
16   12   10   13   13   16
12   15   11   9   15   9   


Roll 2-5 would feel pretty balanced with one another. #1 is a bit anemic -- I wouldn't play that character in 3e, though in 5e I'd probably give it a shot, at least, particularly if I could find an odd niche.