The funny thing is that because it's just a dice roll, and the bonus isn't high anyway, the incautious character often lives anyway. And the guy with high stats is also incautious. "I'll be okay, I have 18/00 Strength," he says striding ahead a moment before he falls into a 30 foot pit with spikes at the bottom. 

It's not about stats. It's about smart play and luck.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 27, 2021, 08:58:48 PM

Quote from: mightybrain on June 23, 2021, 07:41:17 PM
As a DM I would feel it my duty to construct a special level of hell for players who kill their own characters because they didn't like their rolls.

You don't kill your own character, you just play without the usual caution needed to keep a character alive.


Strange pool of liquid ... "I'll drink it"

Obviously magic shield covered in mold ... "Let me get that for you"

Chest full of treasure might be trapped .... "I will open it."


Trust me when I say that the other players will not be upset in the slightest by my actions. The real question is whether or not a DM can actually expect a player to treat a character who has below average rolls exactly like he would treat a character with two natural 18s?

If *I* were the DM...

1. The magic pool grants you 3000 XP!

2. You inhale a goodish part of the "mold" as you wipe it off the magic shield. Turns out it is actually powdered troll...you gain regeneration 5 per turn...indefinitely

3. You open the chest and an efreeti emerges. "Thank you for freeing me. If you survive to level 10, I will increase all of your ability scores to 18."

Classic.  The Killer DM has to keep your character alive.

Good luck buddy.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 27, 2021, 08:58:48 PM

Quote from: mightybrain on June 23, 2021, 07:41:17 PM
As a DM I would feel it my duty to construct a special level of hell for players who kill their own characters because they didn't like their rolls.

You don't kill your own character, you just play without the usual caution needed to keep a character alive.


Strange pool of liquid ... "I'll drink it"

Obviously magic shield covered in mold ... "Let me get that for you"

Chest full of treasure might be trapped .... "I will open it."


Trust me when I say that the other players will not be upset in the slightest by my actions. The real question is whether or not a DM can actually expect a player to treat a character who has below average rolls exactly like he would treat a character with two natural 18s?

I would. But then I have the expectation that my players can (and will) rollplay PCs other than above average ones. That said, in my campaign, players have more than one PC, so nobody is stuck for the duration with a below average PC.

And that said, if the GM and players all decide that they only want to play with above average PCs (e.g., play 5E), there is no wrongbadfun in that.

Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:58:05 AMAnd that said, if the GM and players all decide that they only want to play with above average PCs (e.g., play 5E), there is no wrongbadfun in that.

It's not about wanting to only play above average characters. It's about the players knowing that if their below average character dies that they will most likely end up with a better character in exchange. You've removed the downside to dying.

It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It's not about wanting to only play above average characters. It's about the players knowing that if their below average character dies that they will most likely end up with a better character in exchange. You've removed the downside to dying.

It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.

I have enjoyed random roll for games where there is more than just ability scores that are randomized. For example, Paranoia has random mutant powers and secret societies, which makes for a lot of fun uniqueness to characters. When I played Harnmaster, I rolled randomly for race, sex, social class, and other background as well as attributes. I rolled 3 to 5 characters and picked my preferred one among the set, keeping the others as backups. In Traveller, random-roll character generation is a fun minigame in itself.

But rolling for just attributes - yeah, I also find that's pointless for me, especially if it is roll-and-arrange.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM


It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.

I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.

But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM

It's not about wanting to only play above average characters. It's about the players knowing that if their below average character dies that they will most likely end up with a better character in exchange. You've removed the downside to dying.

I expect my players to play their PCs to the best of their abilities, even if they have crap stats. If I thought that one of them wasn't doing so, he'd get get a red card for being a tit, which means he's out and that I don't have to give him the time of day.

But my players also have multiple PCs, so they aren't stuck having to play Rupric the Idiot-Boy in every session. So I don't think my expectation is unreasonable. Moreover, I am happy to work with my players to give even their crap PCs opportunities to develop and advance.

As always, YMMV.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM
It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.

Is the "nostalgia" comment turning into the new Godwin?  Because you'll rarely lose a bet if you take the position that an argument made that "X is only done because of nostalgia" is not only wrong but obviously so.  It's an argument made from someone that in their own mind has already lost the argument.

Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM


It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.

I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.

But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.

Have you tried adding roleplaying for extra variability between PCs?

I like to stick to random rolls because then I get to create a character around the hand I'm dealt rather than trying to fit some pre-defined stat array into my pre-conceived character concept (which always falls short in my experience.) I prefer this because it makes it an act of creativity instead of accounting.

Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM


It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.

I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.

But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.

Greetings!

I agree, dkabq. Random attribute rolls make for the best diversity in characters, of every class. It doesn't of course preclude roleplaying a good personality, but provides a strong foundation for developing a character, again, of any class.

It can be refreshing and funny to see how a Wizard for example, with a 12 Intelligence and an 18 Strength gradually develops and gets fleshed out with their motivations and temperament, and so on.

Stat arrays, in my experience, encourage a much more "Cookie Cutter" approach to the development of every character within a particular class. After three Wizards, or six, they all start looking very much the same. The same applies to Fighters, Rogues, and so on. It isn't just mechanically boring, but also serves to standardize every member of a class as having precisely the same strengths and weaknesses as every other member of the class. That tend to have secondary effects on the same kinds of personalities and same approaches to roleplaying the character as well, seemingly divorced from mechanical attributes, and yet, when looking under the hood, the same kinds of dynamics are ultimately connected.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The next time I player poker, I'm going to throw out all the cards under 7. The game will be much better for it!

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 28, 2021, 07:36:01 PM
Is the "nostalgia" comment turning into the new Godwin?  Because you'll rarely lose a bet if you take the position that an argument made that "X is only done because of nostalgia" is not only wrong but obviously so.  It's an argument made from someone that in their own mind has already lost the argument.

It's not new, people have been Godwinning the OSR with "nostalgia" since the aughts.

Quote from: Shasarak on June 28, 2021, 07:42:09 PM

Quote from: dkabq on June 28, 2021, 06:11:36 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 28, 2021, 04:03:14 PM


It might have made sense in the 70s, but there are dozens of new ways to create characters invented over the decades: point buy, stat arrays, randomized stat arrays, point allocation, random point allocation, life paths, etc. The only reason to stick to random rolls for ability scores is nostalgia.

I respectfully disagree. Random rolls for PCs add variability to the PCs. And it precludes min/max-ing. And it provides opportunity for the player to develop their PC in terms of its deficiencies. For example, one of my DCC players has a Warrior with a STR 8 (i.e., -1 to-hit and damage in melee). He decided to have the PC focus on ranged attacks. Eventually we decided to convert the PC from a Warrior to a Ranger. Lots of roleplaying goodness from a crap stat.

But that's just me and how I like to run my game. YMMV.

Have you tried adding roleplaying for extra variability between PCs?

"Roleplaying?  Roleplaying?  We don't need no stinking roleplaying!!!".