Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever.  But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?

I enjoy varied characters.  So I guess so.  As much as I'm a huge GURPS Geek, I  get tired of the IQ14 / Magery 3 wizards and similar optimal builds.  Even so the character with nothing over 5 is just as common as the character with nothing under 16 and not nearly as much fun.

Definitely. The challenge and fun of D&D (for me that's 1st edition AD&D) is in the way in which several non-optimal characters can work together and succeed despite the odds.

I don't really care for either extreme, and if at all possible I avoid character generation that includes randomly rolled anything. I want a character who's not perfect -- not by a long-shot -- but who's quite competent in a role that benefits the party.

Enjoyment derived from a character depends on circumstances beyond stats. Events of the game itself determine how much fun I have.

That said, I prefer random chargen over point buy or predetermination. Growing a character organically from a given set of stats and a cursory knowledge of the gameworld is preferable to shoehorning a pre-conceived concept into a world that might not support the stories I've already imagined for him.

I don't think I've ever played a truly suboptimal character, with at least half the stats below 9 and no stat above 12. I've only played one character with more than one stat above 14. So, most of the characters I played were either mostly average or one significantly high score. I enjoyed myself pretty well.

I don't have much interest at all in playing in the 'special forces' sort of groups made up of uber-capable specialists perfectly balanced against each other... I much prefer the "random collection of flawed characters thrown together by fate" sort of thing.
So yeah, I favor playing the less-than-optimal PCs... as long as that fits with what the rest of the group and GM are up to.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever.  But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?

It depends on the campaign being run and the game system being used.

Variety is always a good thing to have. I do like the occasional 3d6 in order and make from that what you can. To me there is a significant investment in making that character work despite all the odds and it also forces me into classes, races,  and styles that often fall out of my comfort zone.

Certain campaigns work exceptionally well with this and as a DM it's a style I'd love to give a try. However I know this is something that you don't force on your players. Not everyone wants to do the gritty thing and their mood might run more fantasy - heroic or high leveled or they might love point buy. The key is to know your group and ask in advance if this is something they're interested in running.

Optimized characters are boring and they change the tone of the game significantly, so I want them kept as far away from me as possible.

I don't particularly care for the opposite either, but there's lots of room for variety within the averageish range.

Oh gods, yes. I like being Rumplestiltskin spinning hay into gold. I know very well that my choices are what carry the day and the character sheet is mere chronicle of a pretend 'life'.

I run PCs (campaign worlds) as trying on different masks, and each one is a universe of experiences unto themselves. To step into the shoes of another, with new joys and pains, and get lost. Saving the day is not special to me, being present in a new face and creating meaning is. So my goals often follow these ideas instead of mere "victory":

You are not the only hero, your antics mean nothing, and all is castles of sand (naturally so as it is all imaginary).

A 'hero' is what you do in the face of adversity, not in how capable you are; to choose despite circumstance.

Meaning is derived in the face of this oblivion, and the sweetest victories are often the smallest.

As I noted in an older thread here. Most of my characters would be considered sub-optimal. Most of my magic users had INT of 16 or less. A few with pretty abysmal CON to boot.

What I do like though is how 5e handles stats in that you have the option to gradually improve the characters stats. I like that because you can then have a character that starts out weak and through experience and travel, betters themselves.

I don't think I've ever played a character in any game that a min-maxer/optimizer would consider anything close to "optimal" so I guess the answer is yes.

I like to develop something about the character that makes them interesting to play regardless of stat values. Being super competent is fun, and so is being completely average and needing to try extra hard to achieve your goals.

I like focusing on things other than general competency level to provide a good hook for role playing. Personality quirks and minor details are a lot more fun for me to play with than mechanical abilities.

A couple years ago, I was playing in a HERO campaign and we were assembling our team, creating characters and deciding on cover identities. One player announced that his character was done and didn't even have a name.  I had way more fun detailing my character's personality and cover identity than building the actual super powers. He was a young musician, lead guitarist in an AC/DC tribute band called Thunderstruck. I had fun creating the other band members and their personalities too.

Well...do not enjoy playing PCs that have 16s or better in everything. Not a fan of Superheroes unless I am playing a Superhero game. Most of the time, though, it doesn't matter.