Quote from: Natty Bodak;801164It should be blatantly obvious from all of the responses that nobody was preaching to the choir here, so I'm not sure how you came up with that.

Based on the previous thread, where nobody (but maybe gamerGoyf) argued for the strawman Sacrosanct sets up here; his point would have made sense, apparently, in the other thread, but he's not addressing those people. Some people here are honest enough to point out the flawed premise.

QuoteWho was limiting discussions to cases where nothing bad has ever happened? I don't have a clue what channel you are watching. At all.

That would be Sacrosanct. "How can I notice a mere +1 difference?" "What if the difference were bigger? What then?" "No, that's not relevant. How does +1 ruin my fun?"

QuoteAside from the concrete example of stat variation, or "inferiority", that Sacro gave, which was a useful barometer of what he clearly finds acceptable, the following is what his question actually was.

And in his second post, #4, he asks only how does the +1 ruin his fun. So he appears not to agree with your assessment of the question.

QuoteSo 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.

Again, that doesn't even seem to be his understanding of his question:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800804I don't think you answered my question on how it ruins your fun if someone  has higher stats than you.

He was more interested in rejecting proposals of wider differences that would actually cause complaint than responding to people who pointed out how differences would be noticed.

QuoteI only had the one cookie to give out on thyla count. Bren got to it first, and made that good point succinctly. I'm sorry there's no second place cookie, but I can acknowledge that you also contributed if that helps.

I'm not interested in your cookie; given your persistent misrepresentations, it would be more indictment than accolade.

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.

True , that can happen. A good GM will at least not let that happen more than once with the same disruptive players though

Quote from: jibbajibba;801240Okay 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

Jans character as noted elsewhere.
12, 14, 9, 6, 4, 14
After half orc its 14, 14, 10, 6, 4, 14 total bonuses +2, +2, 0 -2 -3 +2 = +1

Kefra all totaled has a +10. and I've got a +3. at our current levels. Jan could really give a fuck and said to say so here. I feel much the same even after doing the math and seeing that when its all done she will likely have a +7 while Kef will be possibly +14 and I could still be at +3 (more likely +5) due to choices.

Which made me realize that after the rolls adding up the bonuses after the player has assigned bonuses for a few levels is irrelevant as then player choice comes into play and those choices can end up narrowing or even reversing the gap. Which hadnt really occured to me till looking at it for this discussion.

If I spent every stat up on feats then Jannet who I know is focussing on stat ups and no more feats will jump way ahead of me.

Player choice after the rolls can totally change the dynamics in unfoereseeable ways.

Quote from: Will;801246Well, 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.

If a player feels useless its because they're acting useless.

rawma, it would be a good idea to not accuse others of misrepresentations when you're doing the same thing.. For one, I made it very clear I wasn't just talking about this thread or site, so I wasn't presenting a strawman.  Secondly, I had posted several times I wasn't talking about just a +1 difference, but differences you'd typically see based on probability.

so before throwing around accusations?  Try reading the thread

Quote from: TristramEvans;801257If a player feels useless its because they're acting useless.

I disagree.

Quote from: Will;801261I disagree.

OK, but its still true. A person can have no bonuses to any stats and still make themselves incredibly useful in any situation if they chose. The limitation of being "useless" in comparison to some other player character only makes sense if one doesn't see the game beyond a set of predetermined actions, like a videogame. The lack of a comparitive stat bonus doesn't prevent a player from being clever or innovative, and that counts for 1000x more than the ability to swing a sword or cast a spell. So if a player is sitting around pouting because they cant hit things as good as Fred the Barbarian, that's in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That applies as much to real life as RPGs.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801253True , that can happen. A good GM will at least not let that happen more than once with the same disruptive players though

As was discussed in an older thread here. Sometimes the DM doesnt have alot of choice short of ending the campaign. And even that might not be an option under certain circumstances.

For about a year I had to DM at a mildly vexing players house as that was where everyone went. He also provided the transportation for pick up and return home which was for him 80 miles total. I met a player whod been stuck 5 years in some sort of local gaming group where you did not get to play unless you also did time as a DM. Never seen that myself.

Quote from: Omega;801265As was discussed in an older thread here. Sometimes the DM doesnt have alot of choice short of ending the campaign. And even that might not be an option under certain circumstances.

For about a year I had to DM at a mildly vexing players house as that was where everyone went. He also provided the transportation for pick up and return home which was for him 80 miles total. I met a player whod been stuck 5 years in some sort of local gaming group where you did not get to play unless you also did time as a DM. Never seen that myself.

Ah, I'm strictly of the "no gaming is better than bad gaming" philosophy

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801258rawma, it would be a good idea to not accuse others of misrepresentations when you're doing the same thing.. For one, I made it very clear I wasn't just talking about this thread or site, so I wasn't presenting a strawman.  Secondly, I had posted several times I wasn't talking about just a +1 difference, but differences you'd typically see based on probability.

so before throwing around accusations?  Try reading the thread

I read the thread. You didn't make that clear; had you made it clear you might have gotten only gamerGoyf to argue with.

What is abundantly clear is that you want to pretend that a character who barely outclasses yours in quaternary and further characteristics is "way higher", and don't want to consider a lot of actual things that could happen. Tell us where you would draw the line in actual numbers and let's look at the odds of such a difference. Omega has now posted some actual player numbers (which don't bother the players involved) which would actually seem to me "way higher". Why don't you engage those? All the reasonable posts you seem to ignore.

I will reiterate my earlier point; stat differences had much bigger effects in other versions of D&D and in other games. 5e gives you a chance to mitigatge your lower stats and even the all 18's character won't be able to get every benefit (you can't get every feat, let alone class feature). But jibbajibba had a player who complained that another character was effortlessly outclassing their main thing (although it did hinge on an error in damage for ranged weapons), so it seems possible that there is a similar situation that doesn't hinge on a mistake that would reasonably make a player unhappy.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801264OK, but its still true. A person can have no bonuses to any stats and still make themselves incredibly useful in any situation if they chose. The limitation of being "useless" in comparison to some other player character only makes sense if one doesn't see the game beyond a set of predetermined actions, like a videogame. The lack of a comparitive stat bonus doesn't prevent a player from being clever or innovative, and that counts for 1000x more than the ability to swing a sword or cast a spell. So if a player is sitting around pouting because they cant hit things as good as Fred the Barbarian, that's in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you are facing enemies that are tuned for characters of a certain power level, being significantly behind the curve with other characters can make you useless.

Two melee types, one with a +20 to hit, another with a +15. They face an enemy with AC 35. First guy is hitting 30% of the time, the other is hitting 5% of the time.

How is that going to look? How is that going to feel?

Be innovative all you want, when everything is incredibly hard for you to do compared to other folks and you have to play third string, at best?

Unless you are playing a story-oriented game where dice don't come up a lot...

Ok, maybe some of you have no problem playing the spear carrier.

I've been in games where people have said 'oh, hey, just go with the flow, we'll make it work' and it's been incredibly frustrating. Maybe I'm just a terrible person.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801264That applies as much to real life as RPGs.

... That's an incredibly revealing statement. Yes.

(And yes, Krueger, that one was seeing RL politics in stuff)

Quote from: Omega;801254Jans character as noted elsewhere.
12, 14, 9, 6, 4, 14
After half orc its 14, 14, 10, 6, 4, 14 total bonuses +2, +2, 0 -2 -3 +2 = +1

Kefra all totaled has a +10. and I've got a +3. at our current levels. Jan could really give a fuck and said to say so here. I feel much the same even after doing the math and seeing that when its all done she will likely have a +7 while Kef will be possibly +14 and I could still be at +3 (more likely +5) due to choices.

Which made me realize that after the rolls adding up the bonuses after the player has assigned bonuses for a few levels is irrelevant as then player choice comes into play and those choices can end up narrowing or even reversing the gap. Which hadnt really occured to me till looking at it for this discussion.

If I spent every stat up on feats then Jannet who I know is focussing on stat ups and no more feats will jump way ahead of me.

Player choice after the rolls can totally change the dynamics in unfoereseeable ways.

Yup absolutley.

From those numbers I posted I would play the first set of rolls and not bat an eye. I would play them as a 5 year old street urchin with 3 strength and I would have a blast.

But ... you would conceed that some players don't want to do that and that people have different tastes.
There is no doubt that that the first set of stats generate a weaker character. That is just sums. Upping stats over time means no feats and some of those feats are very powerful.
The question is whether that matters and the answer is sometimes to some people.

This thread is about how crap people are who whine and complain about having lower stats.
I have been trying to drive it to a point where people admit that everyone has a threshold for what they consider weak stats and where they would conside the gap between PCs to be unfair.

The logical  position would be that if you don't care about stats then you would be happy for another PC to just have all 18s... well apparently no because its not the stats that need to be fair its the way they are generated.

So I have been trying to show extremes of actually rolled stats to see if people, specifically Sacro, has a level at which a set of fairly rolled stats are deemed unplayable. I suspect he will have a limit as everyone does, especially decent DMs who aren't talking about a PC they would play but about what they would make a player accept in their games. These limits have been arround at least as long as AD&D (AD&D recommends a hopeless character be rerolled if they don't have 2 stats 15+) and stats are much more important in 5e with bounded accuracy where level gains you a maximum of +7

Quote from: Will;801271If you are facing enemies that are tuned for characters of a certain power level

...then your game already has problems that have nothing to do with random rolling.

Verily.

Some players will overfocus on the start stats and refuse to see that with some thought and work that they can actually catch up or better a player with better starting stats simply due to differing tracks.

And in the end I doubt most of these yahoos would lower their stats to meet someone elses if theirs were the ones higher instead. Or even suggest raising the other guys stats to meet theirs.

Quote from: Omega;801278Verily.

Some players will overfocus on the start stats and refuse to see that with some thought and work that they can actually catch up or better a player with better starting stats simply due to differing tracks.

.

I don't actually agree with that.
If you are in a game with no feats then all players will be raising their stats at roughly the same rate. You might argue the ones with higher stats will gain XP faster as they can kill more stuff , rest less , steal more treasure, but we will say roughly the same.
The difference over time will become less pronounced as a % but will remain the same the weaker stated player will never catch up.

If feats are used then the weaker stated player can catch up but at the expense of feats.
Feats are either strong enough to make a big difference to the game or weak, if they are weak other players won't choose them and will increase their stats instead.

Now I have no problem playing a much weaker character but I can entirely see that some players would have a problem with that.


Some systems mitigate this with higher stats being harder to increase (FGU games)  or with level and class outweighing stats as you progress (AD&D). I think that 5e with bounded accuracy won't do that.