Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798So 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.

Sure, I have been the guy playing a fighter whose every ability score was bested by another fighter in the party.  Kind of sucks when that happens.  Your characterization of ruining the fun is hyporbolic.  I do not recall ever complaining or even mentioning it with any of my groups.  I have fun playing my characters even when they are noticeably worse.  Still kind of sucks.  Multiple emotions about things is normal as can be.

I guess the reason it sucks is a combination of envy, jealousy, and competitiveness.  Certainly not to the hyperbolism you ascertain, but some irksome emotion, sure.

And thusly, I generally prefer to default to point buy.  Not a strong enough preference to say anything about a table convention of rolling when I game with such a group.  I will game with whatever the group prefers, and will be a little irked if I roll up the schlub of the party.

You seem to have a somewhat idiosyncratic gaming style if players are not aware of other PC's ability scores.  Every group I've gamed with has rolled characters on the table in front of everyone.  Hoots and hollers for good rolls, groans for bad.  

General gameplay has always had routine references to ability scores.  PC personalities and physiques are heavily influenced by ability scores.  I have never seen anyone play their scores close to their chest.  Supposing you do have a style where the numbers are kept hidden or not referenced, it would probably make a difference in the matter.

Quote from: Old One Eye;801039Sure, I have been the guy playing a fighter whose every ability score was bested by another fighter in the party.  Kind of sucks when that happens.  Your characterization of ruining the fun is hyporbolic.  I do not recall ever complaining or even mentioning it with any of my groups.  I have fun playing my characters even when they are noticeably worse.  Still kind of sucks.  Multiple emotions about things is normal as can be.

To be fair, I don't think the hyperbole is Sacrosanct's. I think he's referring to the hyperbole of others that was in evidence in the character suicide thread.  My recollection is that there were folks who actually would have their fun ruined, not just by someone having +1 more in a prime requisite, but the *possibility* that could happen.

I think all of the counter arguments / cases about the inferiority continuum are valid, but what they miss is that Sacrosanct is asking (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) how the minimal possible difference in prime requisites as the first point along that continuum ruins the fun.

I tried asking Sacrosanct if there was ANY point along that continuum that would be a problem, at which point he bullet-timed my attempts to discuss it.

Quote from: Will;801046I tried asking Sacrosanct if there was ANY point along that continuum that would be a problem, at which point he bullet-timed my attempts to discuss it.

It seems to me that is an interesting question, but it also seems like an invitation to a slippery slope that isn't really encoded in the original question.

As to the back and forth that developed, well I've had my head up my own ass with work for the past few weeks and I'm in no shape to be thinking rigorously!

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801048It seems to me that is an interesting question, but it also seems like an invitation to a slippery slope that isn't really encoded in the original question.

The original question is predicated on the notion that 'what are you bitching about? The difference is negligible.'

Which, I think, reasonably invites a debate about what the range of differences is likely to be and how common the difference _isn't_ negligible.

I was expecting a reasonable rebuttal about statistics, about which methods are more prone to wild swings (4d6, for example, is more even), and esthetic discussions about the merits of simple systems with patches vs. slightly more complex systems that don't need patches, and so on.

We never got that far.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801048As to the back and forth that developed, well I've had my head up my own ass with work for the past few weeks and I'm in no shape to be thinking rigorously!

I think your head being up your own ass would be an improvement in the discourse here.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798OK, the title is a bit hyperbolic, but let me try to explain where I'm going here.  In our games, we typically roll 4d6 drop lowest, but really any method of random rolling would work.

My PCs stats are 18, 16, 14, 11, 10, 9, after racial bonuses and using the level 4 stat bump.

We've been playing several sessions as a group, up to about level 5 now.  On Saturday, I happened to notice some of the other character sheets.  One guy has stats of 20, 18, 17, 16, 14, 14.  The other has 18, 17, 15, 15, 13, 13.  I think.  Those 14s and 13s might have been switched, but no matter.  Point is, their stats are way higher than mine.

We still don't know what the racial bonuses were and whether the other characters took a feat or the ability increase (if so, it's interesting for the last one: bumped an even number to an odd number, or bumped 16 to 18 instead of 17 and 15 to 18 and 16--if the 16 to 18 was the most important characteristic, why wasn't it a 17 to start with? Racial bonuses, maybe). The first other PC described rolled at least a total of 91, which is 1 in 200+ rare, or as much as 96, which is 1 in 4000 rare; the other is between 1 in 10 and 1 in 54 rare. Calling this "way higher" when the bonus advantage in each of the three best characteristics is +1 for the first one and +0 for the second, which may not even be the same characteristics (I assume these are ordered descending), seems to me to be hyperbole.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801042To be fair, I don't think the hyperbole is Sacrosanct's. I think he's referring to the hyperbole of others that was in evidence in the character suicide thread.  My recollection is that there were folks who actually would have their fun ruined, not just by someone having +1 more in a prime requisite, but the *possibility* that could happen.

I think all of the counter arguments / cases about the inferiority continuum are valid, but what they miss is that Sacrosanct is asking (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) how the minimal possible difference in prime requisites as the first point along that continuum ruins the fun.

I don't remember a lot of complaining about mere +1 bonuses let alone the mere possibility, but I'm really not willing to read that whole thread over again. This thread seems to be about describing a modest difference and then refusing to accept counter-examples if they include a larger difference.

Quote from: rawma;801058I don't remember a lot of complaining about mere +1 bonuses let alone the mere possibility, but I'm really not willing to read that whole thread over again. This thread seems to be about describing a modest difference and then refusing to accept counter-examples if they include a larger difference.

As for the last sentence there, I agree. I guess I fall on the side of thinking that's a reasonable thing to refuse if it's not relevant to the original point.

I can't blame you if you've blocked out the source material for that whole thread, but I'll provide a reminder (perhaps ill-advised) of someone carrying that torch here locally.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;791719People who are upset about the 5e system are upset because their version of point-buy punishes you for using it.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801042To be fair, I don't think the hyperbole is Sacrosanct's. I think he's referring to the hyperbole of others that was in evidence in the character suicide thread.  My recollection is that there were folks who actually would have their fun ruined, not just by someone having +1 more in a prime requisite, but the *possibility* that could happen.

I think all of the counter arguments / cases about the inferiority continuum are valid, but what they miss is that Sacrosanct is asking (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) how the minimal possible difference in prime requisites as the first point along that continuum ruins the fun.

I am not hyperbolic in my assertion of the arguments I presented against random rolling, because they are actual arguments that have come up in many of these discussions (re: random rolling).  Not just here, but in other forums as well.  It is not an uncommon argument for some people to make they they are gimped or punished or it isn't fair because another player may end up with a higher stat than them.

Quote from: Will;801046I tried asking Sacrosanct if there was ANY point along that continuum that would be a problem, at which point he bullet-timed my attempts to discuss it.

Attempts to discuss it?  You couldn't come up with one sound reason without resorting to gross exaggerations of something that would never actually happen in a game, and kept repeating the strawman of "People keep calling me a fucking idiot if I don't like random rolling."

I've never called anyone a fucking idiot, but I gotta tell you that your posts are quickly making me want to call you a fucking crybaby.

Quote from: rawma;801058I don't remember a lot of complaining about mere +1 bonuses let alone the mere possibility, but I'm really not willing to read that whole thread over again. This thread seems to be about describing a modest difference and then refusing to accept counter-examples if they include a larger difference.

yup. The point is that everyone has a different point at which they will say unfair.

That might be any random roll needs 2 15s, any random roll needs a total stat pool of at least 80 or whatver it is.

Most people but a bottom end on what they think a random set of acceptable rolls is.
So this is probably no good

3, 8, 7, 12, 13, 9

but this is probably fine

12, 13, 8, 14, 9, 9

the trouble is that everyone has a different line that they deem acceptable and for some people that line is "everyone has to be the same total bonus and really I would have liked to use an array but the DM didn't let me"

Calling different opinions on where to draw that line "whining" is a bit daft. Its also hypocritical unless you would be happy to play 3, 8, 7, 12, 13, 9.

In RPGs is often people come to the game with a character idea and that idea is rarely a crippled village idiot with marginally above average strength. Historically people would often play this sorts of PCs brazenly hoping for character death (which is just the same as PC suicide) but now the game is build to quickly move you through the lower levels so you actually have a greater longevity and charcter creation is slower so ... chances are the PC you roll is the one you will have for at least 3 sessions.
Some people don't care some people do but classifying such opinion about how one plays an elf game is as more or less "macho" is ridiculous.
Why make a player run a character they don't like when they can run a character they like?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801063Attempts to discuss it?  You couldn't come up with one sound reason without resorting to gross exaggerations of something that would never actually happen in a game, and kept repeating the strawman of "People keep calling me a fucking idiot if I don't like random rolling."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800972Let me reiterate my point, because it seems to be getting lost.  You keep throwing out these values that realistically will never happen.  I.e., sure, I can see some players not being happy if another player shows up with a 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14.

But that doesn't happen.  What may happen (again, random rolls result in lower stats as well) is something like 17, 15, 14, 14, 12, 8.

It would help me to understand you if you clarified a your point of view. Do you really believe that it is physically impossible for anyone, anywhere, to ever randomly roll stats such that their PC ends up with stats as good as 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14?

I’m assuming you know that it is possible, just highly unlikely and that by saying it will never happen you are exaggerating or being hyperbolic for rhetorical purposes. And that what you really mean is that you think it is unlikely to happen or that you are unlikely to see it in your lifetime, but it’s not really clear what you actually mean when you keep saying that such stats will “never happen.” And I’d like to be sure what you actually meant by the phrase "never happen."

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801059As for the last sentence there, I agree. I guess I fall on the side of thinking that's a reasonable thing to refuse if it's not relevant to the original point.

The original post depended on pointing to a bunch of people who would complain if their characters were worse. Except for gamerGoyf, nobody I could find in that other thread* was complaining about the modest differences Sacrosanct posted. So it's completely relevant to bring in the sorts of examples that were in that previous thread. Those were large differences, besides some of the posts from gamerGoyf (who does not appear to have had a consistent point of view, but seemingly wouldn't have been unhappy with any of the characters listed in the original post of this thread).

*OK, I could still only bring myself to read about half the thread, so maybe you could find an example from another poster. But it wasn't part of the half I read.

QuoteI can't blame you if you've blocked out the source material for that whole thread, but I'll provide a reminder (perhaps ill-advised) of someone carrying that torch here locally.

gamerGoyf appears to be an outlier, unless you mean people posting on another website entirely; I didn't look at the linked thread. And there's little honest point to addressing an honest question here to people not on this forum.

Quote from: Will;800802What if those other folks had a few levels more than you because of a random die roll? How many more levels before you notice or care?

Pragmatically, it's only noticeable or important when it starts being noticeable or important. If your highest score was, say, 12, you'd more likely notice a difference.

Esthetically, it's bothersome from a 'why are we doing this?'

I've played with a 4 or 5 level difference frequently, and it never ruined my fun.

I've played when I had the poorest stats in the group and was the most kickass character because I played like a motherfucker.

It is not bothersome.

And "we are doing this" precisely because random generation has variable results.  There are a myriad of games available for people who don't want random generation.

TL;DR  Random variations in characters bother people whom it bothers and does not bother people whom it does not bother.

I'm going to tell this stale old story again because it's actually relevant.

From about 2005 to 2008 I played in a Star Wars d20 game.

I had the shittiest stats of all.  I had one stat of 13, and everything else was in the 9-12 range.  I don't think anybody else had more than one stat less than 13.

Three years later my character was renowned in half the galaxy as the first of the New Jedi, and Luke Skywalker asked me to teach lightsaber technique at his academy on Yavin.

Because I PLAYED like I was the baddest ass motherfucking Jedi in the galaxy.  So in some cases somebody had a +2 or +3 more than me.  Big deal.  Audace, audace, tujours l'audace.  And I'd rather have my character die because I was playing big than spend the game whining about my stats.

Quote from: Bren;801066It would help me to understand you if you clarified a your point of view. Do you really believe that it is physically impossible for anyone, anywhere, to ever randomly roll stats such that their PC ends up with stats as good as 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14?

I'm assuming you know that it is possible, just highly unlikely and that by saying it will never happen you are exaggerating or being hyperbolic for rhetorical purposes. And that what you really mean is that you think it is unlikely to happen or that you are unlikely to see it in your lifetime, but it's not really clear what you actually mean when you keep saying that such stats will "never happen." And I'd like to be sure what you actually meant by the phrase "never happen."

"realistically never happen".  Don't bold a quote from me and then conveniently drop the first conditioning word.

Tell you what.  You tell me the odds of coming up with a set of stats like that.  Because if something only has a 1 in a million or billion chance of happening, I feel safe in saying that it will "realistically never happen" and not consider that hyperbole.

There is a part of me at cringes at the very real likelyhood that somewhere out there there is a group that has everyone on the standard array and in that group there is one fighter who is pissed because he put his 8 in wisdom and the other fighter put his 12 in wisdom and so has a +1 on Perception checks while he has a -1...