TheRPGSite

OK, 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.

And 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.

What 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?'

You need to throw a tantrum until the DM bumps up your stats to match. It's the only mature and well adjusted thing to do.

I don't think you answered my question on how it ruins your fun if someone  has higher stats than you.  Closest you came was a false equivilancey of trying to compare different levels.

Speaking of, having another player a level or 2 higher than me hasn't ruined my fun in 30+ years, so even if it were a valid comparison, still doesn't explain why it would ruin your fun.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;800803You need to throw a tantrum until the DM bumps up your stats to match. It's the only mature and well adjusted thing to do.

No. No! NO!

He should insist that the DM lowers the other players stats because as everyone should know by now, you don't make everyone equal by raising one person up. You make everyone equal by knocking everyone who towers above the lowest common denominator down.

Well, clearly 'honest question' is utter bullshit.

Have fun with your echo chamber.

In my current open table FLGS campaign any new player joining does so with a 1st level character. The party is well into 3rd level and we just had a new player join them last week.

He had a blast playing his character and was 2 whole levels behind everyone else. When his fighter got wounded and knocked down to 2hp, he disengaged and retreated. This was a player brand new to rpgs and he had the sense to recognize a bad situation and take steps to mitigate it. He was playing his character like a person with a bit of common sense. It was a breath of fresh air to get him into the group. :)

It doesn't ruin your fun, because it shouldn't.
The GM is supposed to be able to make the gaming experience entertaining for all involved anyway, no matter what the Players stats are.
This also means though, that "I killed most orcs" boasts better not leave the playing table, because they practically means nothing.

Quote from: Will;800809Well, clearly 'honest question' is utter bullshit.

Have fun with your echo chamber.

In the words of the Philosopher Eastwood: "A man's got to know his limitations."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798My PCs stats are 18, 16, 14, 11, 10, 9

Which is really

+4,+3,+2, +0,+0, +0

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798
One guy has stats of 20, 18, 17, 16, 14, 14.  
The other has 18, 17, 15, 15, 13, 13.  [/QUOTEWhich is
+5,+4,+3,+3,+2,+2

and

+4,+3,+2,+2,+1,+1


The first guy has a 5% better chance of doing his best thing versus your best thing.

The second guys has a equal chance of doing his best thing versus your best thing.

If you were both melee fighters this would the first guy would be

+1 or 5% more likely to hit something.

Have one more hit points per level than you (assuming he pick Con as his second stat)

Have +1 AC or 5% less likely than you of being hit.

The second guy is exactly the same as you.

Now looking at at the worst thing the first guy is at versus the worse thing you are at.

We find that first guy is consistently has a +3 to +2 advantage over you. I.e. a 15% to 10% advantage.

The second buy has only +2 to +1 advantage over you. +10% to +5% advantage.

Given the effects of proficiencies and class abilities (particularly expertise and certain feats) the higher stats are nice but not automatic win for the other characters.

I find that creative thinking and mastery of tactics counts for more in 5e than raw stats.

All of this is largely due to bounded accuracy where it is hard to generate a big bonus over and above everybody else.  At 20th level it possible to have +20 to skill. +5 ability, +6 prof doubled by expertise, +3 magic bonus. A plain character would have a +11 to skill. +45% advantage, signficant but nothing like how it was with 3e, 4e, even classic D&D for that matter.

For combat the best +14 (+5 ability, +6 prof, +3 magic) verse +5 for a plain character without proficency. +11 with proficiency. And the way the rules are written you will have that +5 ability modifier unless you actively avoid it by picking feats every time.

In short it is not as big of deal in 5e as it is in previous editions except for OD&D core books only.

Quote from: Will;800809Well, clearly 'honest question' is utter bullshit.

Have fun with your echo chamber.

Oh please.  Stop with the victimization complex.  The only "dishonest" post here was yours, in not only not answering my question, but for somehow trying to equate it with giving someone extra levels for a random die roll or two.

You essentially pulled the rpg version of "If gays are allowed to marry, then what's stopping people from marrying animals!"

If you can't answer the question with an actual answer, then don't blame everyone else.

Quote from: estar;800814I find that creative thinking and mastery of tactics counts for more in 5e than raw stats.
.

This is my impression as well, which is why I had the observation that one wouldn't even notice another PC having a higher stat than them unless they reverse engineered the math of their die rolls.  And who does that?  And therefore, based on that assumption (you wouldn't notice another player having a higher stat most of the time), how would that impact you having fun playing your PC?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800824Oh please.  Stop with the victimization complex.  The only "dishonest" post here was yours, in not only not answering my question, but for somehow trying to equate it with giving someone extra levels for a random die roll or two.

I don't feel like a victim, you're just full of shit.

Also, I did answer the question, you are apparently just too stupid to pick up on the general issue of 'power inequity.'

Then again, given this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, there are really only two possibilities: you are trolling, or you are a fucking idiot.

Quote from: Will;800828'power inequity.'

and you say you don't think everything's political? :D

I ended up deleting the message, because I'm just irritable today (lots of people saying really stupid shit, everywhere).

As for power inequity... I think that says more about you than me, bub, if you think 'politics!!' rather than, say, The BMX Bandit and the Angel Summoner.

Without any actual comment of use, i will say your buds stats totally belong in the "stats so good it looks like cheating" thread. ;)

Quote from: Will;800830As for power inequity... I think that says more about you than me, bub, if you think 'politics!!' rather than, say, The BMX Bandit and the Angel Summoner.

Funny enough, I don't think about either, because I've never seen anything close to the BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner come up in actual play because someone had an extra +1 or +2 modifier over what I had.  Not sure why someone would think of that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;800831Without any actual comment of use, i will say your buds stats totally belong in the "stats so good it looks like cheating" thread. ;)

Supposedly the 2nd PC was rolled up in front of the DM, but not so sure about the first one.  Either way, hence the reason I mentioned how it's not my job as a player to worry about if someone is cheating above ;)

Because let's be honest.  If someone is going to cheat, even if you make sure their stat bonuses are all the same, they're probably going to cheat on their rolls anyway, essentially making the stat modifiers moot in the grand scheme.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800824Oh please.  Stop with the victimization complex.  The only "dishonest" post here was yours, in not only not answering my question, but for somehow trying to equate it with giving someone extra levels for a random die roll or two.

You essentially pulled the rpg version of "If gays are allowed to marry, then what's stopping people from marrying animals!"

Going to try to do this again more calmly. I don't feel like a victim. But you said 'honest question' and then everything after that is slanted with 'you idiots, why are you being so stupid?'

The second thing is ... goofy. The whole point of stat variation is power inequity... someone having more 'stuff' than other folks.

For a variety of reasons, maybe people see stat variation as 'normal.' So I was trying to illuminate the issue by taking it from another angle. Like, levels. I could have also used equipment... Jill has 18000 gp worth of stuff, you have 500 gp worth of stuff. Do you feel jilted? (Although unlike levels and stats, you can share gear, so there's that)

I didn't think it'd be that hard to follow -- one person being more powerful than another person can have one of several annoying issues.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800824If you can't answer the question with an actual answer, then don't blame everyone else.

I gave what I thought was a lucid answer and tried to take 'honest question' in that spirit. And then snark.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800824This is my impression as well, which is why I had the observation that one wouldn't even notice another PC having a higher stat than them unless they reverse engineered the math of their die rolls.  And who does that?  And therefore, based on that assumption (you wouldn't notice another player having a higher stat most of the time), how would that impact you having fun playing your PC?

As I said in the post where you fixated on one specific thing (level difference), degree matters.

A difference of a +1 or +2 in some areas, particularly if you are a very different sort of character? Easy to overlook.

At some point, it starts becoming noticeable.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800824This is my impression as well, which is why I had the observation that one wouldn't even notice another PC having a higher stat than them unless they reverse engineered the math of their die rolls.  And who does that?  And therefore, based on that assumption (you wouldn't notice another player having a higher stat most of the time), how would that impact you having fun playing your PC?

I'm not sure you'd need to reverse-engineer the die roll results to see the impact during actual play. If you were sensitive to PC "inequities", you might deduce that if your compatriots appeared, on average, to dish out more damage, hit monsters more frequently, and avoid hits more often than your PC.

Quote from: Will;800834Going to try to do this again more calmly. I don't feel like a victim. But you said 'honest question' and then everything after that is slanted with 'you idiots, why are you being so stupid?'

This is what I actually said:

"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."

Nothing in that even remotely is calling other people idiots or being stupid.

Come on now.  This is what I'm talking about when I say stop trying to be the victim.

QuoteThe second thing is ... goofy. The whole point of stat variation is power inequity... someone having more 'stuff' than other folks.

For a variety of reasons, maybe people see stat variation as 'normal.' So I was trying to illuminate the issue by taking it from another angle. Like, levels. I could have also used equipment... Jill has 18000 gp worth of stuff, you have 500 gp worth of stuff. Do you feel jilted? (Although unlike levels and stats, you can share gear, so there's that)

I didn't think it'd be that hard to follow -- one person being more powerful than another person can have one of several annoying issues.

False equivelency.  If one person has a +1 stat, that gives them a range of 2-21 on a die roll.  if another person has a +2 stat bonus, that gives them a range of 3-22.  That is not a difference of 18,000 compared to 500.

if you can't make your point without making up arguments to paint yourself as a victim, or without resorting to blatant hyperbole and exaggeration, then I'm not sold on the validity of that point.

Quote from: K Peterson;800835I'm not sure you'd need to reverse-engineer the die roll results to see the impact during actual play. If you were sensitive to PC "inequities", you might deduce that if your compatriots appeared, on average, to dish out more damage, hit monsters more frequently, and avoid hits more often than your PC.

Over the course of a 4 or 6 hour session, with a lot of things going on (both combat, non-combat, exploration, table talk, etc), I don't think I'm really going to notice if another player has hit 5% more often than I did.  And if I did, I wouldn't think it was that big of a deal, and would probably assume it was for any number of reasons (chose a skill that granted a bonus, etc).

It certainly wouldn't impact how I play my PC or ruin my fun.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800836False equivelency.  If one person has a +1 stat, that gives them a range of 2-21 on a die roll.  if another person has a +2 stat bonus, that gives them a range of 3-22.  That is not a difference of 18,000 compared to 500.

if you can't make your point without making up arguments to paint yourself as a victim, or without resorting to blatant hyperbole and exaggeration, then I'm not sold on the validity of that point.

I haven't made up arguments to paint myself as a victim. What are you talking about?

I've been talking about hypothetical games where, hell, _I_ might be the one with more stats/levels/gear. I've been in games where people get grumpy about treasure distribution. (And I wasn't one of the folks pissed at not having stuff)

As for blatant hyperbole and exaggeration, it's called making an argument and a point.

The _argument_ that I'm making is that it's, at least in part, a matter of degrees.

Part of that argument is showing an extreme case where you would obviously notice, like being in 3e and you are playing a first level Commoner and someone else is a 20th level Wizard.

Then I outline the problems you might encounter in such a game.

Then I point out that a difference of a point or two in stat is easy to overlook.

The conclusion, which I didn't think I really needed to hammer out in excruciating detail (but apparently I do) is that at SOME point in between there is a shift between 'ugh, this game is kind of annoying, I want to play a hero or not die in every encounter' and 'eh, close enough.'

Where that point is will depend on system, taste, and probably the mix of personalities and classes involved.

With a single ability dependent character, you might not notice much difference at all as long as you have that 18. A wizard can get away with Intelligence 18 and little else, as can the Sorcerer with Charisma 18.

Quote from: Will;800838I haven't made up arguments to paint myself as a victim. What are you talking about?

How about the two posts of you accusing everyong of being a big meany to you when no one said the things you said they were saying.

QuotePart of that argument is showing an extreme case where you would obviously notice, like being in 3e and you are playing a first level Commoner and someone else is a 20th level Wizard.

Then I outline the problems you might encounter in such a game.

Then I point out that a difference of a point or two in stat is easy to overlook.

The conclusion, which I didn't think I really needed to hammer out in excruciating detail (but apparently I do) is that at SOME point in between there is a shift between 'ugh, this game is kind of annoying, I want to play a hero or not die in every encounter' and 'eh, close enough.'

Where that point is will depend on system, taste, and probably the mix of personalities and classes involved.

Will, the context of this conversation is the difference between random stat generation and non-random, and asking for someone, anyone, to give a rational argument as to why random stat generation results in feeling like you're cheated, gimped, or restricted from playing your PC (all arguments that have been presented in the past).

You haven't been able to answer that without going way outside of the boundaries of that context.  You're throwing out level 20 vs level 1.  18000gp vs 500gp.  None of that matters because we're talking about the difference in stat generation methods only.  In stat generation, you're only going to get a variance of a couple +/- at worst over array or point buy.  Most often, there might only be one or maybe two attributes with an extra bonus, and unless you saw their character sheet, you'd never know which of those stats had those values.  I.e., if you figure out Joe has a +2 to hit, how would you know he didn't place his highest stat there like you did?  if he had 2 16s and you only had 1, how would you know the other 16 is in something like Constitution?  You don't know his HP.  

you wouldn't unless you were looking and worrying about it.  And it in no way impacts your PC or gaming experience.  Also, you seem to forget that with random rolling, that other player who has 2ea 16s might also have a 6 for a stat somewhere.

so it seems to me that unless you were looking at another player's character sheet, you wouldn't even reliably know if they had higher stats than you.  And I have a hard time buying into the argument that that means you're being gimped or cheated.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800837Over the course of a 4 or 6 hour session, with a lot of things going on (both combat, non-combat, exploration, table talk, etc), I don't think I'm really going to notice if another player has hit 5% more often than I did.  And if I did, I wouldn't think it was that big of a deal, and would probably assume it was for any number of reasons (chose a skill that granted a bonus, etc).

It certainly wouldn't impact how I play my PC or ruin my fun.

Well, sure. That's evident in your playstyle, and the activities that take place during your sessions. And with marginal differences in stat bonuses it wouldn't be that noticeable.

The gamers that are going to argue the loudest against your viewpoint are those that play quite differently. Those that emphasize combat over other session activities; those that view a PC party as a fantasy special forces unit that your PC needs to justify being a member of; the sensitive that require PC "balance"; etc.

Is it weird that when I see another PC has higher stats and combat abilities I think, "Oh good, he'll keep us safe!"?

It only ruins my fun when extra stat bonuses, equipment or powers hogs the spotlight. I always assess my play experience with "how effective at this role am I?" and "how much fun am I having?"

I've played under-powered characters at the table and had a blast. I've played "balanced" characters and found my incessant need to build a "whole" character trumped by the system-optimizer. It's not about knowing the other player's stats. It's pretty obvious when your participation is irrelevant. "Let Sir Charles do that, he's always better!".

I've told this story several times, but it illustrates my point. At a convention I played a Pathfinder game. They needed another person to play the module so I volunteered and played the pre-gen 9th level cleric (thinking I could be helpful). Someone brought this Archer with 4 - 6 shots per round, magic dripping off the manly god-created biceps, mechanical creature of doom. The combats consisted of watching the Archer kill everything followed by 5 min of roleplaying followed by the high level characters healing up and looking at me like a tumor. It was a shit experience. Now, had there been opportunity to proselytize my religion, or interact with towns folk as the trusted cleric, or gods know ANYTHING else maybe I could have participated.

So, at a basic level the answer to your question is "no". But it's not a complete scenario. Because when we're playing and other players are getting all the screen time because of better stats or skills or what not, I'm going to be NOT having fun. At which point you still get me bitching (and probably not playing).

This of course can be mitigated by a good GM. Looking at the characters and making sure there's something in there for everyone, regardless of stats. As long as you are not running the game on autopilot, leaning on the game system to prop you up, I'm sure the players will be happy.

Edited to say TL: DR: If I'm playing and can participate without being sidelined by "more powerful characters", I'm having fun and therefor don't care about any "imbalance".

That seems more like a character progression build issue than an issue with rolling stats randomly vs. non-random.

Quote from: Will;800830As for power inequity...

"Just hackin' on ya..." (I used the Big Grin)

Still, you gotta admit, 'power inequity' is a textbook phrase in social politics. (We need an evil grin smiley)

True, although I feel like a lot of folks feel like when their cool phrases get coopted by jerks. ;)

(Like: I avoid calling myself an Atheist because of dilholes like Dawkins. He ruined the word, dammit. Or Privilege. Or...)

Maybe I should call it the BMX Bandit/Angel Summoner effect. It's longer, but funnier.

One character being more powerful than another doesn't bother me; I play Gamma World so balance ain't a biggie. Nor do I think that the rules should guarantee me some spotlight, that's my job as a player to shine in role-play when I see an opportunity.

What does bug me is that a +2 bonus seems to be "average". I like average to be zero-modifier and a character –1 in some stats is still very playable. A character with a 19 or 20 is verging on demigodlike ability. So it appears that I do not like the power-scale of 5e at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800841Will, the context of this conversation is the difference between random stat generation and non-random, and asking for someone, anyone, to give a rational argument as to why random stat generation results in feeling like you're cheated, gimped, or restricted from playing your PC (all arguments that have been presented in the past).

You haven't been able to answer that without going way outside of the boundaries of that context.  You're throwing out level 20 vs level 1.  18000gp vs 500gp.  None of that matters because we're talking about the difference in stat generation methods only.

That seems bizarrely literal and limited perspective. Ok, we'll stick to stats only.

Character 1:
All scores are between 3 and 8.

Character 2:
All scores are between 14 and 20.


Substitute that in. I wasn't trying to be misleading, coy, or evasive bringing up level or gear. I thought it was obviously analogous, apparently you disagree.

In 5e I don't see how it would but I do remember running more than one fighter type that had 16 or 17 in STR and fairly average scores (10-13 everywhere else) in the same games with others that had 18/00 and 17's, 16's across the board in 2e and in definitely ruined my fun. My solution was to start making F/M characters to give me other areas to focus on and taking the need to have an absolutely top statline like others in my group away that just flat rolled well in character generation consistently.

Quote from: Will;800859That seems bizarrely literal and limited perspective. Ok, we'll stick to stats only.

Character 1:
All scores are between 3 and 8.

Character 2:
All scores are between 14 and 20.


Substitute that in. I wasn't trying to be misleading, coy, or evasive bringing up level or gear. I thought it was obviously analogous, apparently you disagree.

You've had many games where a PC had every score between 3 and 8 with another with every stat between 14 and 20?


I've brought up the hyperbole bit because it's important.  If you can't even attempt at trying to make a point without it, then I think we're just done here.

Quote from: estar;800814In short it is not as big of deal in 5e as it is in previous editions except for OD&D core books only.

Good summary. Yeah this is why I wouldn't be quite as bothered, since 5e is like this.

Now if I had a crappy GM and playing a different edition... I might feel the mediocrity a bit more.

Quote from: trechriron;800849If I'm playing and can participate without being sidelined by "more powerful characters", I'm having fun and therefor don't care about any "imbalance".

This too. That is the core of the issue for me. I've had GMs and players at the table who were awesome and any obvious stat disparities were non-issues. On the other hand... that ONE campaign of 3e I went through... ugh...

But edition warring aside, the quality of people at your table means more than the quality of your character's stats, in my opinion.

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?

Estar's breakdown mirrors one I did several years ago in a similar discussion, in which I eventually wondered out loud, "Okay.  What IS the mechanical advantage between Awesome Stats and Not So Awesome stats?"  It turned out to be a bit less than a single level's worth of advantage.

I do have an answer to someone inclined to throw a hissy fit about that: if it bothers you that goddamn much, don't play RPGs with random gen.

Beyond that, I've ranted at length on the subject, but "He's ruining my fun!" is a turn of phrase I've come to despise.  It's somehow seen to be a trump card to end all debate, and we're supposed to take it on faith, without bothering with pesky issues of whether the opinion is reasonable or not.  Honestly, I believe the effective translation is "I'm a self-absorbed solipsist who can't deal with people who disagree with me or have different preferences, likes, dislikes or prejudices from mine."

Do most people guard their character sheet and keep all their stuff hidden from the other players? That seems weird.

Anyway to answer the op I've never been bothered if someone else had higher stats than my dude, I have preferred random rolling over PB and sometimes it just comes with the territory. Now if someone cheats to get high scores it pisses me off but that has nothing to do with higher scores and everything to do with disliking cheats.

When my elf only has a 14 and the other guys all have 16s, my elf is literally crying.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800867You've had many games where a PC had every score between 3 and 8 with another with every stat between 14 and 20?

I've almost never been in games with random stats, not since grade school.

Another game I was in had a 'random value' that was so stupidly generous everyone ended up with lots (and you could always decide to go with point buy). One time I managed to be about 2 points, total, more than standard. Didn't have an observable effect.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800867I've brought up the hyperbole bit because it's important.  If you can't even attempt at trying to make a point without it, then I think we're just done here.

It's not hyperbole, it's called making an argument.

I'm trying to pin down if numbers are important at all. Is there _any_ amount of numbers where it matters? I assume yes, but maybe you don't care however much power difference there is.

If numbers DO matter, is the value difference ever likely to come up? We haven't even gotten to that part because you keep calling 'working out the boundaries of the argument' hyperbole.

And in case it matters, yet again I will point out that 'random stats' doesn't have to be 'random point total.'

I like random characters (lifepath, jumble where your stats go). I don't like random point totals.

Quote from: Will;800872I've almost never been in games with random stats, not since grade school.

Another game I was in had a 'random value' that was so stupidly generous everyone ended up with lots (and you could always decide to go with point buy). One time I managed to be about 2 points, total, more than standard. Didn't have an observable effect.

so then that's a "no" then.  You've never really encounted this problem either.  Seems odd you would be defending it then.

QuoteIt's not hyperbole, it's called making an argument.
.

If you can't make an argument without extreme hyperbole and exaggeration?  Pretty weak argument.  Just saying.

Ok, man, you totally had me going. ;) Kudos!

Quote from: misterguignol;800871When my elf only has a 14 and the other guys all have 16s, my elf is literally crying.

He's an elf, of course he's crying.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798When 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.

Because it is easy to do since it's just simple arithmetic. And I'm already used to doing that as the GM.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800824And who does that?

That would be me again. Personally I find it odd when no one else at the table does that sort of simple calculation. It reminds of going to a fast food restaurant or store where the cashier can't calculate how to make change without first punching numbers in the register.

Quote from: Raven;800870Do most people guard their character sheet and keep all their stuff hidden from the other players? That seems weird.

Why? Well that's how we all started playing OD&D. Only the DM and the player necessarily knew a PC's stats. The assumption was that other characters didn't know what level your character was outside of observable phenomena so you didn't show them your character sheet as that would be out of character knowledge. Also I guess some of us liked keeping secrets.

I guess I'm just different then, because I find it odd that a player would sit and figure out all the bonuses another player has when that other player is making an attack roll or check or saving throw.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;800803You need to throw a tantrum until the DM bumps up your stats to match. It's the only mature and well adjusted thing to do.

Quote from: Bren;800807No. No! NO!

He should insist that the DM lowers the other players stats because as everyone should know by now, you don't make everyone equal by raising one person up. You make everyone equal by knocking everyone who towers above the lowest common denominator down.

You know, there is always the option of letting the offended party just go fuck himself because he is being infantile.

Quote from: jeff37923;800884You know, there is always the option of letting the offended party just go fuck himself because he is being infantile.

That hardly offers any drama. I mean besides the first moments of jaw dropping shock. Oh wait, you said "letting". If it was "telling" it might offer some drama, but in this case it just seems creepy.

Quote from: trechriron;800889That hardly offers any drama. I mean besides the first moments of jaw dropping shock. Oh wait, you said "letting". If it was "telling" it might offer some drama, but in this case it just seems creepy.

Now that was funny. :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800882I guess I'm just different then, because I find it odd that a player would sit and figure out all the bonuses another player has when that other player is making an attack roll or check or saving throw.

I suspect most players are like you. Most cashiers don't make change in their head either. What I find odd is the notion that nobody at the table would be doing the math. It's pretty easy after all. You see what roll they hit on or miss on and infer their bonuses from that. If you care to you can then see how that compares to your bonuses. If you are familiar with the system the degree of mental effort involved is equivalent to figuring out how much change is due back from a sale. Which is why I compared it to that.

Quote from: Bren;800807No. No! NO!

He should insist that the DM lowers the other players stats because as everyone should know by now, you don't make everyone equal by raising one person up. You make everyone equal by knocking everyone who towers above the lowest common denominator down.

If there's one thing I took from Harrison Bergeron it's the equalizing power of the clown nose!

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.

The difference in stat bonuses is not that great; the second one is only matching for the top three. The worst difference is +2 versus -1, which is in the worst of six characteristics, so probably not something either character uses much. The d20 roll varies by up to 19, so the bonus isn't that big a difference, and 5e seems designed for that to be true. I am curious what racial bonuses were involved; Dragonborn get less extra points than humans but get a breath weapon. Also, did your character have an advantage in a particular characteristic (18 where the others had lower bonuses, low where they were high) so that you still have the advantage in your specialty?

But still differences may be noted in other areas of 5e; although it was because jibbajibba was running with an incorrect rule (no DEX bonus on damage for ranged weapons), his players did notice that the archer was worse than the warlock with a cantrip on damage, and that would undercut the archer player's enjoyment of what should be his signature ability (hitting things hard from a distance, round after round). Also, if they got their higher characteristics by cheating, then why wouldn't they be cheating on lots of other rolls? Or if you can see their rolls, then you know that they hit on a 12 the enemy you missed on a 16.

The situation was much worse in, e.g., OD&D (with supplements): Rangers and Paladins got abilities nobody else got and you could only qualify by having high enough characteristics, or humans could only multiclass with high enough characteristics, or other qualitative effects (e.g., being the only character who could kick open a wizard locked door).

In summary: my honest answer is that it probably doesn't matter much in 5e and very little for the example given, but a little in areas where the bonus makes a consistent difference (like damage) and a lot in other versions of D&D. (But I haven't made those arguments very strongly.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800882I guess I'm just different then, because I find it odd that a player would sit and figure out all the bonuses another player has when that other player is making an attack roll or check or saving throw.

Agreed given I'm too busy trying to figure out my own bonuses in any situation. And then redoing the whole mess IF he misses and I actually have to come up with some type of seat of my pants tactic because it's ACTUALLY my turn and the group is counting on me to do something awesome and fun.

Yup none of this matters until it matters.

No one cares what stats other PCs have and yet if I sat down with a 1st level PC with:

20, 19, 18, 18, 18, 18

then you might care.
The point is that that line between caring and not caring might be different for different people but I think there is a line.

For me its when a PC gets consistently overshadowed in their "niche" by a PC who has made no effort to cover that niche but just by luck or game rules is uber at that thing (thus the origin of my concern round warlock vs archer damage). Or when a minor tweak moves a PC from having no skill in an area to being comparable to specialists. Feats can do this eg. A Paladin who has previously had no ranged attack to speak of picks up Magical Adept at 12th level and can suddenly cast at will Firebolts for +9 to hit 3d10+5 damage.

I don't think stats alone can do this but .... like I said most people would probably object to the stat line above so we all have limits.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800913Yup none of this matters until it matters.

No one cares what stats other PCs have and yet if I sat down with a 1st level PC with:

20, 19, 18, 18, 18, 18

then you might care.
The point is that that line between caring and not caring might be different for different people but I think there is a line.

For me its when a PC gets consistently overshadowed in their "niche" by a PC who has made no effort to cover that niche but just by luck or game rules is uber at that thing (thus the origin of my concern round warlock vs archer damage). Or when a minor tweak moves a PC from having no skill in an area to being comparable to specialists. Feats can do this eg. A Paladin who has previously had no ranged attack to speak of picks up Magical Adept at 12th level and can suddenly cast at will Firebolts for +9 to hit 3d10+5 damage.

I don't think stats alone can do this but .... like I said most people would probably object to the stat line above so we all have limits.

Why would a Paladin waste a feat on an ability/spell she doesn't need given she can attack TWICE with a bow or any other ranged weapon at full profiencency or use various Smites combined on a hit if in melee? If she had a use for a couple of cantrips it'd make more sense to go for a couple of utility types over a combat type that will never see any use.

The only options to combine combat spells beyond Smites are the EK or VB and even they do it at disadvantage if it's a ranged spell attack just like anybody. Hence the reason they use cantrips like Chill Touch or Shocking Grasp. No other class or subclass can even use any spell in conjunction with a weapon attack beyond Smites which are adders not seperate attacks or spell attacks.

This isn't 3e a Paladin has 5 chances over 19 levels to pick a feat or up her stats, not both but EITHER one or the other.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800913Yup none of this matters until it matters.

No one cares what stats other PCs have and yet if I sat down with a 1st level PC with:

20, 19, 18, 18, 18, 18

then you might care.
The point is that that line between caring and not caring might be different for different people but I think there is a line.

So I guess the answer to my question, "Why would anyone feel cheated or gimped by random rolled stats?" is

"Here's a bunch of reasons that won't ever actually statistically happen in game, or here's a reason that doesn't have anything to do with stat generation."


:rolleyes:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800915So I guess the answer to my question, "Why would anyone feel cheated or gimped by random rolled stats?" is

"Here's a bunch of reasons that won't ever actually statistically happen in game, or here's a reason that doesn't have anything to do with stat generation."


:rolleyes:

No the answer is there is a continum and the continum goes from most people don't care about randomly rolled stats at all to some people want all stats to come from an array so its "fair".

Now that continum is different for different people and spreads out beyond the actual stats to what they do in game to how the PC "performs" in game.

Stats only affect us when they are used to do something in game.
So if the Cleric can track better than the bounty hunter because the Cleric has 20 Wisdom so their +5 to tracking outweighs the Bounty Hunter's +2 WIS +2 proficiency then the Bounty Hunter PC might be a little irked... Some players will some won't.  Some will tell the Bounty Hunter they should have chosen a better class to make a bounty hunter... whatever :)

We all have a different take on what we percieve to be "fair".

From my persepctive as a player I don't give a toss what is on your sheet. From my perspective as a DM I need to make sure that my game is as much fun as it can be for all my players so I need to be much more aware of where they all sit on that continum.

So now your issue is that some WIS maxed player (impossible unless using random roll) is slightly better then a wizard or fighter? Given a Bard or Rogue, you know, those dumb skill based classes? Totally invalidate your stupid premise at the start. Given no Cleric has profiencency in tracking without a feat or that even without upping WIS at all said Bounty Hunter outdoes them by level 9 (obviously much sooner given Druids and Rangers usually have 16-18 in WIS as soon as possible). Or maybe take a background that works for Bounty Hunter like a player of the type you're positing (that's part of your job as DM by the way, giving helpful advice during character generation).

Quote from: Marleycat;800919So now your issue is that some WIS maxed player (impossible unless using random roll) is slightly better then a wizard or fighter? Given a Bard or Rogue, you know, those dumb skill based classes? Totally invalidate your stupid premise at the start. Given no Cleric has profiencency in tracking without a feat or that even without upping WIS at all said Bounty Hunter outdoes them by level 9 (obviously much sooner given Druids and Rangers usually have 16-18 in WIS as soon as possible). Or maybe take a background that works for Bounty Hunter like a player of the type you're positing (that's part of your job as DM by the way, giving helpful advice during character generation).

I am begining to tire of your lack of basic comprehension.

Read the post. The post is about Random rolled stats so your reference to "impossible unless using random roll" is entirely irrelevant and you always focus on the detail of an example when its just an example. I don't give a shit if the guy could get a much better bonus from this combination of x, y and z.
The discussion is around fairness and the perception of fairness. Some people have a very wide boundary of what is fair and for some people its very narrow.
If you entirely don't care about fairness then you would be entirely happy to roll 3d6 straight for your PC and for me to have all 18s. Most people care about fairness more than that. But for some people the fact that you have an additional +1 bonus over them is unfair. It's a continum. There is no right or wrong. You can't say a total of +3 more bonuses is fair but +4 is unfair. We all have a different tipping point.
A good DM is aware of that and tries to pitch his game so that all the players are happy.

That is all I am saying.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800920I am being to tire of your lack of basic comprehension.

(...)

That is all I am saying.

Good luck. I didn't think I was talking rocket surgery, but some people are either really really thick or fucking with us.

Quote from: Will;800921Good luck. I didn't think I was talking rocket surgery, but some people are either really really thick or fucking with us.

Or they think that there is an objectively wrong way or right way for everyone to play elf games. Which is pretty crazy.

Quote from: Bren;800924Or they think that there is an objectively wrong way or right way for everyone to play elf games. Which is pretty crazy.

It'd be one thing if they actually just disagreed. Like:
'Savory stuff can't be dessert!'
"What about salted caramel?"

Now, you could have someone say 'just because you put salt on it doesn't make it SAVORY, it's still fundamentally a sweet thing.' Or you could argue about flavorings.

But going 'you're bringing up binary combinations! That's just distracting with the craziness!' or 'yes, but caramel isn't food' or whatever... wuuut?


I would disagree with 'only chocolate things count as desserts,' but at least it'd be stating an argument.

(I'm now waiting for 'but games aren't food' or other nigh-Aspie responses)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798My 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.

Damn your stats are better than mine! ;-;

The one with the 20 is kinda fishy, but in a r4k3 its perfectly possible.
So lets break this down. His starting stats were 17, 17 16 15, 12 12, assuming are all playing humans. The other was say 15 16 14 14  12 12 and yours were Id guess 15 15 13 10 9 8.

For the current group I am DMing the paladin, option human, had 16 15 15 12 13 12, the sorcerer, dragonborn, had 8 13 14 11 9 17, and the wizard, mountain dwarf, had 14 10 15 18  17 9 before race additions. All used their level 4 for a feat.

While in my group Jans half-orc fighter got 12 14 9 6 4 14, Kefra got 12, 14, 12, 7, 17, 12 (arranged in reverse order) the freakish thing was that the three 12s were each two 1s and 2 6s... She took wood elf and went Druid. And me playing warlock, option human, 15 12 10 7 8 13 (pretty much in order. Just swapped the 7 and 8) before race bonuses.

Overall you cheated me man! I want a reroll!

In the next dungeoncrawl game I run, there will be no stats!

Players can pay me a $1 for a +1 to any roll.

Negative modifiers will be applied for making any humorous remark that fails to make me laugh.

I call this the "Free Market Equality System"

Quote from: Bren;800924Or they think that there is an objectively wrong way or right way for everyone to play elf games. Which is pretty crazy.

There may not be one right way, but let me assure, there are WRONG ways!!!!!

Personally from observing various groups. Usually no one gives a damn. The rare times I've seen grumbling was when someone noticed a player had several unusually high stats. Usually anything 16 and up. No one cared if Joe had a bunch of 14 and they had a 15 and lots of 10s or worse. or all 12s.

It seems to be the abnormal spikes that attract attention.

I think one of the problems is that with r4k3 some players are expecting still a r3 spread. So the tendency to get good rolls throws them off?

Sacrosanct: Would you have payed as much attention had the other players high stats been less, but more prevalent?

When we were young, I remember people getting upset about other players having characters who were more powerful than them (because of stats, class, level, whatever). It may have been over-involvement in the game, lack of spotlight time, or something else entirely.

In my current groups, no one seems to care. In fact, if one player does something awesome, that's a win for the whole table: I (we?) don't just get fun from seeing my personal character doing something cool.

Quote from: TristramEvans;800929There may not be one right way, but let me assure, there are WRONG ways!!!!!

OK, sure actually killing the players is wrong or at least it's probably illegal in most jurisdictions. But other than edge cases like that which, by the way, absolutely no one is discussing, I'm just not seeing anyone who is suggesting anything even remotely close to something that is wrong for everyone.

I don't care (much) if people want to play games where every PC is as mathematically as close to equal as possible to every other PC. It sounds like a boring as hell exercise in frustration to me, though if the rest of the setting and system sounded interesting I'd be willing to play it for a while. I wouldn't ever want to GM that, but as long as you don't try to make me be the GM what do I care if someone wants to spend their time as a GM trying to balance the PCs out of game. Seems like a waste of energy to me, but then there's stuff I do as a GM out of game that I'm sure some people wouldn't want to do if they were the GM. Strokes. Folks. Different. Etc.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800913Yup none of this matters until it matters.

No one cares what stats other PCs have and yet if I sat down with a 1st level PC with:

20, 19, 18, 18, 18, 18

then you might care.
The point is that that line between caring and not caring might be different for different people but I think there is a line.

If a player showed up with those "randomly" rolled stats then it would be a huge relief. At a glance I could tell that I wouldn't be able to trust that player with jack or shit.

That is useful information.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;800956If a player showed up with those "randomly" rolled stats then it would be a huge relief. At a glance I could tell that I wouldn't be able to trust that player with jack or shit.

That is useful information.

So where is your limit?

20, 19, 16, 16, 12,9

?

Everyone has a fairness band

My fairness band is everyone rolls the same dice the same way right in front of me during chargen.  There's always a "shopkeeper rule" - you have to have at least one 14.

In 5e I was more lenient.  If your random roll didn't meet the total points of the standard array, you could take the standard array.

One 18 and I'd shrugg. It happens. Even an 18 and a 17.
Two 18s is stretching it even for r4h3.

This is of course assuming someone rolled outside of my sight and just brought it in.

It used to be that I'd have looked at a string of 16s as a little suspect. But lately I've been getting those in batches on NPCs and one PC for a different campaign.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800959So where is your limit?

20, 19, 16, 16, 12,9

?

Everyone has a fairness band

Let 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.

So when you compare the results from actual random roll, compared to the non-random methods, are you expecting me to believe I will feel cheated and gimped compared to the above?  If I didn't even notice the difference in the much larger gap in my OP, I certainly wouldn't notice the more likely result above.

TL;DR: If the basis of your argument as to why random rolling is unfair based on a result that doens't actually every happen, rethink your argument.

3d6 in order, 5 runs:

8, 8, 14, 8, 17, 13
10, 9, 13, 7, 12, 10
10, 10, 9, 12, 9, 15
10, 4, 5, 9, 8, 10
12, 6, 8, 11, 8, 17

I suspect person #4, with a max stat of 10, might feel a little outmatched by ... well, everyone else, particularly #1.

Quote from: Will;8009743d6 in order, 5 runs:

8, 8, 14, 8, 17, 13
10, 9, 13, 7, 12, 10
10, 10, 9, 12, 9, 15
10, 4, 5, 9, 8, 10
12, 6, 8, 11, 8, 17

I suspect person #4, with a max stat of 10, might feel a little outmatched by ... well, everyone else, particularly #1.

Didn't realize 3d6 in order was a method used in 5e.  Or for that matter, the only random method to use.  Or for that matter, widely used by people who prefer random stat gen (some sure, but not the majority by any means).  Or that you'd have point buy/array at the same table where only 3d6 in order was the alternative.

Once again, I find your tactics to be just a bit disengenous.  I shall repeat: if the only examples you can think of to support your argument are those that don't actually occur, you may want to rethink your argument.  Especially since by your own admission you don't even use random rolls, so how would your really know to begin with?

Quote from: jibbajibba;800920I am begining to tire of your lack of basic comprehension.

Read the post. The post is about Random rolled stats so your reference to "impossible unless using random roll" is entirely irrelevant and you always focus on the detail of an example when its just an example. I don't give a shit if the guy could get a much better bonus from this combination of x, y and z.
The discussion is around fairness and the perception of fairness. Some people have a very wide boundary of what is fair and for some people its very narrow.
If you entirely don't care about fairness then you would be entirely happy to roll 3d6 straight for your PC and for me to have all 18s. Most people care about fairness more than that. But for some people the fact that you have an additional +1 bonus over them is unfair. It's a continum. There is no right or wrong. You can't say a total of +3 more bonuses is fair but +4 is unfair. We all have a different tipping point.
A good DM is aware of that and tries to pitch his game so that all the players are happy.

That is all I am saying.

How about this fuck off? I understand perfectly it's you that doesn't and keep putting up more inane crap that most players wouldn't care about (like me) because a decent DM would have made it a non-issue in the first place. As I said before at this point you're just trolling so I'll troll back for the lolz.

Quote from: Will;8009743d6 in order, 5 runs:

8, 8, 14, 8, 17, 13
10, 9, 13, 7, 12, 10
10, 10, 9, 12, 9, 15
10, 4, 5, 9, 8, 10
12, 6, 8, 11, 8, 17

I suspect person #4, with a max stat of 10, might feel a little outmatched by ... well, everyone else, particularly #1.

How would you know? And what DM wouldn't allow for some sort of reroll? Especially if you're using such a restrictive chargen method not even listed as an option in 5e. (Most experienced players would ask or just be Opa and not care). In otherwords it's a situation unlikely to happen in an actual game.

Quote from: Marleycat;800977How about this fuck off? I understand perfectly it's you that doesn't and keep putting up more inane crap that most players wouldn't care about (like me) because a decent DM would have made it a non-issue in the first place. As I said before at this point you're just trolling so I'll troll back for the lolz.

I am merely saying that different players have different ideas about fairness.
What is fair to Sacro might be terrible for Will or Keiro. If you DM that game you try to hit a level that is reasonable and keeps most folk happy.

A good GM accommodates the people at his table.

Different tastes are a good thing

Quote from: jibbajibba;800984I am merely saying that different players have different ideas about fairness.
What is fair to Sacro might be terrible for Will or Keiro. If you DM that game you try to hit a level that is reasonable and keeps most folk happy.

A good GM accommodates the people at his table.

Different tastes are a good thing

If everyone had the same opportunity, that's what "fair" means.  If someone got luckier and has a stat with a +1 bonus higher than the person who chose to go array instead?  That's not unfair, it's luck.  And guess what?  The entire game is based off of luck or why have dice at all?  If they get upset and think it's not fair, then that speaks volumes to me about what kind of person you're dealing with.

Seriously, people need to stop using words in ways that don't fit what they mean.

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.

So when you compare the results from actual random roll, compared to the non-random methods, are you expecting me to believe I will feel cheated and gimped compared to the above?  If I didn't even notice the difference in the much larger gap in my OP, I certainly wouldn't notice the more likely result above.

TL;DR: If the basis of your argument as to why random rolling is unfair based on a result that doens't actually every happen, rethink your argument.

So here you go PC in my game rolled - using 4d6 keep 3 arrange to taste.

#1

7, 16, 3, 6, 9, 13

Would that stat array have been fair next to a "16 16 12 16 13 17" (see the I rolled too good thread)
Any less fair than 6 18s versus that second set of numbers?
I could have said well tough mate you rolled now you have shit stats but you rolled like everyone else so man the fuck up.

I allowed them to reroll.
they got
#2
8, 14, 11, 7, 11, 9

I could have said stop being a loser and take these you had 2 changes to roll .... wanker.

Or

I allowed them to keep the best 6 out of 12 and rearrange.

Now that is a ludicrously generous system compared to everyone else. Out of the rest of them I allowed one guy to reroll an 8 as they had another 8 and only 1 stat over 15.

so for these 6 PCs I have I have allowed 1 an Uber random generation model. I have allowed 1 other to "cheat" the system and the other four got what they rolled.
Entirely unfair by any stretch of the term. However.... I made a judgement based on each player, 3 of whom I had actually never met before, and determined that they would all be totally cool with the outcome. They were.

The odd thing was that guy that rolled dire stats , twice, actually decided to roll for his HP once he reached 2nd level. As a Fighter he got a 2.... I made him keep it of course.

Quote from: Will;8009743d6 in order, 5 runs:

8, 8, 14, 8, 17, 13
10, 9, 13, 7, 12, 10
10, 10, 9, 12, 9, 15
10, 4, 5, 9, 8, 10
12, 6, 8, 11, 8, 17

I suspect person #4, with a max stat of 10, might feel a little outmatched by ... well, everyone else, particularly #1.

OMG my elf would be crying

Quote from: Marleycat;800977How about this fuck off? I understand perfectly it's you that doesn't and keep putting up more inane crap that most players wouldn't care about (like me) because a decent DM would have made it a non-issue in the first place. As I said before at this point you're just trolling so I'll troll back for the lolz.

And yet you have previously said that you hated to use rolled stats cos you are so unlucky and prefer to use an array of stats to make sure you get a reasonable PC.

I think you are being inconsistent.

If I am correct Sacro is saying fair is you all rolled the same dice so man up and take the result. He is entirely right.

He goes on to say that players that cry because their random stats weren't equal to the other players are less worthy and indicates the statistical variations are slight.

Well they don't have to be slight they can be huge (see example above) . Are they still fair, sure.
Might some players get upset of course, so why not accommodate them ? It is just a game of pretending to be elves after all :)

So I was going to chime in about my personal experiences with perceived "unfairness" or at least perceived "well my character can only do this one thing and not as well as the other characters and that one PC can do everything," but I figured as they were all Pathfinder related and weren't really pertinent to 5e and its bounded accuracy and divorcement of the number of skills known from intelligence.

But then well...I don't even known.

The short and skinny is that part of the POINT of R4k3 IS the higher chance that the PCs have at least one high stat and several above "average" stats. Bringing up how you are "supposed to feel cheated" when you obviously don't is almost as daft as stretching all the way to "rolling for random levels" and "well if you use 3d6 in order."

But this right here

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800985If everyone had the same opportunity, that's what "fair" means.  If someone got luckier and has a stat with a +1 bonus higher than the person who chose to go array instead?  That's not unfair, it's luck.  And guess what?  The entire game is based off of luck or why have dice at all?  If they get upset and think it's not fair, then that speaks volumes to me about what kind of person you're dealing with.

Seriously, people need to stop using words in ways that don't fit what they mean.

THAT is the point of using any kind of random character gen.
It is FAIR because everyone got to roll their stats.
It should also be fair because the group should have decided either by consensus or just agreement to roll up stats.
It is not like someone is going to hold you hostage, forcing you to play in a game where you have roll your stats.

The fact that I *could* win the lottery makes it patently unfair, somehow. So we need to all just play the same numbers every week in ensure equity.

Seriously, this thread is idiotic. If you don't like random rolls, don't fucking use them. Saying random rolls aren't "fair" reveals major issues with comprehending the word "random".

Quote from: misterguignol;800988OMG my elf would be crying

Yeah, but your elf's brother cries more tears than him. How do you feel now!

He's not even the best at crying in his own family. Ha!

Quote from: One Horse Town;800993Yeah, but your elf's brother cries more tears than him. How do you feel now!

He's not even the best at crying in his own family. Ha!

An elf who doesn't cry enough?  Clearly the only answer is to suicide that worthless PC for one who cries better.

Quote from: Brad;800992The fact that I *could* win the lottery makes it patently unfair, somehow. So we need to all just play the same numbers every week in ensure equity.

Seriously, this thread is idiotic. If you don't like random rolls, don't fucking use them. Saying random rolls aren't "fair" reveals major issues with comprehending the word "random".

The thread is basically 'if you don't like random rolls, you are a fucking idiot.'

Surprisingly, some people take issue with that!

Quote from: Will;800996The thread is basically 'if you don't like random rolls, you are a fucking idiot.'

Surprisingly, some people take issue with that!

Dude.  Seriously.  Stop with this bullshit already.  No one has said that.  What people (at least me) have said is that if you think you're being gimped or treated unfairly because someone else has a higher stat, then that doesn't make sense to blame it on random stat rolling.  As of yet, no one has been able to show why it is unfair or how you're being gimped.  At least not with scenarios that will actually happen in a game, as opposed to these huge exaggerations that never actually happen.

Your insistance with this line of strawman argument is rapidly deteriorating any credibility you may have had.

Quote from: Marleycat;800979How would you know? And what DM wouldn't allow for some sort of reroll? Especially if you're using such a restrictive chargen method not even listed as an option in 5e. (Most experienced players would ask or just be Opa and not care). In otherwords it's a situation unlikely to happen in an actual game.

Well, I find it weird when people want a random system... and then for a bunch of exceptions when the results go bad.

It seems to me that what many random folks want is random distribution, not random point totals (which, as I've pointed out plenty of times, is fairly easy to separate)

But if you actually have a guy with a 17 in primary stat and another with 10... I think it'd be reasonably obvious, particularly if they are similar characters.

If 17-guy is a melee type, she has a +3 over the 10 guy.

Although in 5e, to be fair, the person with the 10 can get a lot more bang out of magic items and ability score bonuses. After a few boosts, she could catch up to the person with the 17 (assuming both shoot to hit 20); the person with a 17 would then have been able to boost a secondary stat, but that's probably less bang for your buck.


So 5e, on the one hand, makes a stat difference more noticeable (because of bounded accuracy and less stacking nonsense), but on the other hand the stat 20 cap and the amount of ability score increases help make up for weak stats.

Quote from: One Horse Town;800993Yeah, but your elf's brother cries more tears than him. How do you feel now!

He's not even the best at crying in his own family. Ha!

I feel like my inner Gary is crying.

It's almost like people think you can't ever just roll up a new set of stats for your character if their stats suck.

Quote from: AxesnOrcs;801003It's almost like people think you can't ever just roll up a new set of stats for your character if their stats suck.

Did you read my entire post?

If you really like random generation but you don't want 'the stats to suck,' maybe you don't want random total, you want random distribution.

Which, as I've said elsewhere, is easy to do AND have a consistent point total.

Methods:
Use standard array, or maybe select one of several balanced arrays. Roll to determine which ability you put each score into (maybe, if you have multiple arrays, randomly choose which array you use, too)

Roll 3d6 in order. Check total. If total is too high, randomly remove points until it isn't. If total is too low, randomly add points.


There are other ways, if people care I can outline them.

Quote from: Will;801005Did you read my entire post?

If you really like random generation but you don't want 'the stats to suck,' maybe you don't want random total, you want random distribution.

Which, as I've said elsewhere, is easy to do AND have a consistent point total.

Methods:
Use standard array, or maybe select one of several balanced arrays. Roll to determine which ability you put each score into.

Roll 3d6 in order. Check total. If total is too high, randomly remove points until it isn't. If total is too low, randomly add points.


There are other ways, if people care I can outline them.

That is just too many damn operations. Also you are being extremely jackassery declaring that anyone who wants to use random rolls MUST always stick with the character they rolled.

"Sorry Jim, you have to stick with your all 9s fighter in this brutally lethal dungeon crawl in which knowing you will probably die halfway through the session if not sooner so we will have stop the game so you can spend another half hour picking your shit for your replacement character"

I mean I am all for "3d6 in order suck it the fuck up," when I happen to playing/running ACKS or LotFP, but for PF extremely less so.

Quote from: Will;801005If you really like random generation but you don't want 'the stats to suck,' maybe you don't want random total, you want random distribution.

This statement doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: AxesnOrcs;801006That is just too many damn operations. Also you are being extremely jackassery declaring that anyone who wants to use random rolls MUST always stick with the character they rolled.

My point was that I think that if you have a system you declare you want, and then have to add liberal exceptions, I think it's a sign that you may have inconsistent desires in a system and some other method might work better for you.

As for 'too many damn operations':
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

Strength: 1d6, pick that score. Cross it off list.
Dexterity: 1d5, count over to that score, cross it off.
Constitution: 1d4, ditto.
Intelligence: 1d3, ditto.
Wisdom: 1d2, ditto
Charisma: Only one left.

That's 6 die rolls, same as before.

So, 3 tests:
10, 8, 15, 12, 13, 14 (a very healthy bard, or maybe a cleric focused on spells)
13, 8, 12, 10, 14, 15 (Cleric, an unusual fighter, bard again)
15, 8, 14, 10, 12, 13 (Fighter, cleric, barbarian...)

Hardly took much more time than, say, 3d6, 4d6 swapping, or whatnot.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800959So where is your limit?

20, 19, 16, 16, 12,9

?

Everyone has a fairness band

What does that even mean? Basically roll your dice in front of everybody and IF for some reason you get 2 18's fine. I have seen it happen once or twice but it really is an outlier. Mostly my DM was concerned about a particular floor for an ability and did things like give everybody an 18 or 17 and do 4d6d1 5 times 4-6 times pick the best array and arrange to taste. That method virtually guaranteed that nobody had a useless character and didn't advantage the good die rollers too much if they got lucky.

Quote from: Will;800999Well, I find it weird when people want a random system... and then for a bunch of exceptions when the results go bad.

It seems to me that what many random folks want is random distribution, not random point totals (which, as I've pointed out plenty of times, is fairly easy to separate)

But if you actually have a guy with a 17 in primary stat and another with 10... I think it'd be reasonably obvious, particularly if they are similar characters.

If 17-guy is a melee type, she has a +3 over the 10 guy.

Although in 5e, to be fair, the person with the 10 can get a lot more bang out of magic items and ability score bonuses. After a few boosts, she could catch up to the person with the 17 (assuming both shoot to hit 20); the person with a 17 would then have been able to boost a secondary stat, but that's probably less bang for your buck.


So 5e, on the one hand, makes a stat difference more noticeable (because of bounded accuracy and less stacking nonsense), but on the other hand the stat 20 cap and the amount of ability score increases help make up for weak stats.

Personally I prefer arrays and point buy systems but have no problem with random roll either. But in 5e it really does matter less because of the ability caps and the ability to bump up any stat multiple times in a game.

I played a Thief from 1st to 13th level in ad&d and he had the worse Dexterity of all the characters in the party.

Now, i admit that i made a joke about it once to much hilarity, but that was it. He was my guy and i didn't give a shit what the other guys had in their stats as long as they had my back when we were adventuring.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;800803You need to throw a tantrum until the DM bumps up your stats to match. It's the only mature and well adjusted thing to do.

I was under the impression that the mature and well adjusted thing to do was to repeatedly committing character suicide until you roll better than the other. Although nothing prevents from throwing a prolonged tantrum in the process.

Quote from: Korgul;801018I was under the impression that the mature and well adjusted thing to do was to repeatedly committing character suicide until you roll better than the other. Although nothing prevents from throwing a prolonged tantrum in the process.

You can only do that if you do so while making elaborate RPing pre-suicide speeches in an extremely passive-aggressive way.

You know, now I want to do a 5e game where race, class, and ability score distribution is random...

Quote from: Will;801021You know, now I want to do a 5e game where race, class, and ability score distribution is random...

4e D&D Gamma World. AKA Random World.

Random stats, random race twice, random items, random powers. Oh yeah and your powers and items randomized on a rest. (dont recall if it was short or long)

5e.
Roll a d10 for race. Reroll a 10. Flip a coin or roll a d3 for sub race
Roll a d12 for class. Flip a coin or roll a dX for path. d8 in the Wizards case.
Roll a d12 for background. On a roll of 12 flip a coin and see if you get Soldier or Urchin.
etc.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;800798I should feel gimped?

You're playing 5e, of course you're gimped.

Quote from: Omega;8010254e D&D Gamma World. AKA Random World.

Random stats, random race twice, random items, random powers. Oh yeah and your powers and items randomized on a rest. (dont recall if it was short or long)

5e.
Roll a d10 for race. Reroll a 10. Flip a coin or roll a d3 for sub race
Roll a d12 for class. Flip a coin or roll a dX for path. d8 in the Wizards case.
Roll a d12 for background. On a roll of 12 flip a coin and see if you get Soldier or Urchin.
etc.

Ooo, this seems fun... though I'll just roll 1d13 for the last bit. Let's try it with my earlier rolls:

10, 8 (+2), 15 (+1), 12, 13, 14
Race: Stout Halfling
Class: Paladin (Oath of Vengeance... ok, that's hysterical)
Background: Guild Artisan (tinkers, pewterers, and casters; full of witty aphorisms; Freedom: everyone should be free to pursue livelihood (Chaotic); I created a great work for someone, and then found them unworthy; still looking for worthy recipient; never satisfied with what I have -- I always want more)
Alignment: Here I'm going to choose... CG. While the halfling paladin is keen on justice and civilization, feels duty requires taking matters in hand.
Skills: Insight, Persuasion (from background), Insight, Intimidation (random Paladin skills)

Ok, this was fun! So we have a worldly, but intense halfling, with a potential network of contacts among tinkers and some merchants. What drove this character to an adventuring life and dedication to justice and vengeance? Oppressive kings, taxation, perhaps something like that.

13, 8, 12 (+2), 10, 14 (+1), 15
Race: Hill dwarf
Class: Rogue (ha ha) Assassin (Even better!)
Background: Sailor (I enjoy sailing into new ports and making frikends over ale; Respect: The thing that keeps a ship together is respect (Good); I'm loyal to my captain first, all else second; My pride will probably be my destruction)
Alignment: NG (ethics determined randomly)
Skills: Athletics, Perception (from Sailor), Acrobatics, Athletics, Intimidation, Performance (maybe sea shanties)

Ha, perfect path to a grizzled tough thug, but easily underestimated.

15 (+1), 8 (+1), 14, 10, 12, 13 (+2)
Race: Half-elf
Class: Barbarian (... whu? Hahahaha) Path of Totem Warrior (wolf)
Background: Sailor (seriously? Er, ok... I stretch the truth for a good story; Aspiration: someday I'll own my own ship; In a harbor town, I have a paramour who tempted me from the sea; Once I start drinking, it's hard to stop)
Alignment: (Rolled LE, but decided, given the party, that it made for sufficient problems that I flipped it to CG)
Skills: Performance, Arcana (from Half-elf), Athletics, Perception (from Sailor), Insight, Persuasion

A rather odd character, has an obvious potential link to the hill dwarf (maybe they can perform as a duet). Broadly skilled, the wolf totem abilities help the group nicely.



As I've said, I really LIKE random stuff like this and using it as a prompt to connect the dots.

Quote from: Simlasa;800845Is it weird that when I see another PC has higher stats and combat abilities I think, "Oh good, he'll keep us safe!"?

I'm there. If he's got 5% better chance to hit, he's going in the front rank.

Meanwhile, my guy with the "lesser" stats is going to try for the flank while the enemy is kept busy.

Quote from: Brad;800992The fact that I *could* win the lottery makes it patently unfair, somehow. So we need to all just play the same numbers every week in ensure equity.

Seriously, this thread is idiotic. If you don't like random rolls, don't fucking use them. Saying random rolls aren't "fair" reveals major issues with comprehending the word "random".

What about the players who look for advantages to minimize those "random rolls"?  Things like 5ft crowbars, rock drills, 10ft poles?

Quote from: Simlasa;800845Is it weird that when I see another PC has higher stats and combat abilities I think, "Oh good, he'll keep us safe!"?

Funny. I look at the high stat characters and think. "Good. The DM will kill them off first before getting to me." :cheerleader:

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...

Quote from: Omega;801096There 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...

Finally! Someone sees through the inanity of Jibba's premise and Will's examples.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801094"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.

Assuming the stats were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12.

Using anydices roller it took just 3 rolls to get 17, 16, 16, 15, 11, 9.
8 more to get 17, 17, 15, 13, 10, 10.
55 more to get another pair 17, 17, 13, 11, 11, 7.
28 more got one last one 18, 17, 16,  12, 12, 12.

So it occurred 4 times in 100 rolls. There were also about six instances of 18, but usually with mostly 12s or lower as the rest.

So the odds of getting stats like that are 4 percent maybee? That is still pretty low though.

Out of curiosity, what else do the stats do? If they only give small bonuses, would there be any advantage to just use those bonuses as the stat? (e.g. Strength +2, Wisdom -1)

Quote from: Majus;801117Out of curiosity, what else do the stats do? If they only give small bonuses, would there be any advantage to just use those bonuses as the stat? (e.g. Strength +2, Wisdom -1)

Yes it would and some systems have done just that.

But traddition ....

I think Tru 20 did that ? (my heartbreaker does too)

the range can be quite large. a 3 give you -4 a 20 gives you +5 on a d20 that is a fairly broad range especially since bounded accuracy means your level and other stuff isn't ever going to totally overwhelm those stats.

So you level from proficiency is only ever going to get to +6 (at 17th level) whereas if you roll well you might get a +5 from a stat (an 18 + a racial uptick) at level 1 (4d6 best 3 comes at at close to 30% to hit an 18 over 6 rolls).

Now you increase stats as you level at the cost of a feat so the difference isn't as stark as it appears.

Stats can also be used as a target number to beat. Though currently the CR system does that instead.

STR though determines how much you can carry and CON effects HP loss  if something drains CON. There are also effects that can drain other stats.

Also stats give some players a general idea of the characters build and aspect.

And if you removed the stats and just had the bonuses whed STILL have the exact same problem. Just even more focused on the bonus vs negative.

I don't like the random rolling in 5E because the perk for levelling up is a stat bonus. Yay you've killed orcs for 3 sessions and congrats, the reward is something you could've gotten at level 1 if your 4d6 had rolled 2 points better.

AD&D's "and you have crappy stats forever" is probably harsher, but actually doesn't bother me as much because a character with low stats doesn't feel specifically like they're just wasting my time.

Quote from: rawma;801074The 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.



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.

If you haven't ever read the source thread then you're missing the context. It's OK if you can't respond to the OP with the context he had in mind, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to shift the argument to something the OP wasn't talking about just because of your lack of context.

Again, all of the "where on the continuum would it suck for you" points are interesting, but outside of some sort of induction proof they aren't terribly relevant.

Bren went that farthest to answer the question by noting that he notices other folks rolls and almost can't help doing the math in his head. So there's somebody that notices (a question Saacro had). I'm not sure/don't recall if he felt a +/-1 would ruin his fun, but at least he weighed in with something relevant (and all without having a position as extreme as gamerGoyf or the nutter TBP mod).

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801143If you haven't ever read the source thread then you're missing the context. It's OK if you can't respond to the OP with the context he had in mind, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to shift the argument to something the OP wasn't talking about just because of your lack of context.

Again, all of the "where on the continuum would it suck for you" points are interesting, but outside of some sort of induction proof they aren't terribly relevant.

Bren went that farthest to answer the question by noting that he notices other folks rolls and almost can't help doing the math in his head. So there's somebody that notices (a question Saacro had). I'm not sure/don't recall if he felt a +/-1 would ruin his fun, but at least he weighed in with something relevant (and all without having a position as extreme as gamerGoyf or the nutter TBP mod).

Thus far, the OP has not acknowledged the possibility of any position between the extremes of "not caring about other PC abilities whatsoever" and "fun is ruined by differences in abilities".  Basic common sense says that the overwhelming majority of people are somewhere between the extremes.  

The OP seems to be pushing the position that players should have no emotional attachment to the differences in PC ability scores whatsoever.  PC stoicism.  I do not agree with that position.  If the OP acknowledges there are reasonable position on the continuum between stoicism and ruined fun, he can say so himself.

Quote from: Omega;801101Assuming the stats were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12.
.

Why would you assume this:

20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14


Were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12?

If you were human, they would be 19, 18, 17, 17, 15, 13
Most other races have a +2 with a subrace of another +1, meaning the original rolls would be 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 14

Pretty sure the odds of rolling those are much smaller than your example.  So yeah, I stick my assertion that those stats are realistically impossible without that being hyperbole any more than telling someone that they won't realistically ever win the lottery is hyperbole.

What is hyperbole is to say that people feeling gimped and/or cheated is justified when the other PC has stats like 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801153What is hyperbole is to say that people feeling gimped and/or cheated is justified when the other PC has stats like 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14.

This is noticeably less rhetoric than you have been using.  Go back, reread your OP, and you will see that your original position contains significantly more rhetoric than this statement.

Yes, I feel somewhat miffed when one PC has those stats and I am rocking a 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10, 8.  

I have a different emotional response to this issue than you.  People have emotional responses to things on the continuum from stoicism to completely loosing it.  Most people will hanot be on the extremes of the continuum.  What deeper understanding are you looking for?

Quote from: Old One Eye;801152Thus far, the OP has not acknowledged the possibility of any position between the extremes of "not caring about other PC abilities whatsoever" and "fun is ruined by differences in abilities".  Basic common sense says that the overwhelming majority of people are somewhere between the extremes.  

The OP seems to be pushing the position that players should have no emotional attachment to the differences in PC ability scores whatsoever.  PC stoicism.  I do not agree with that position.  If the OP acknowledges there are reasonable position on the continuum between stoicism and ruined fun, he can say so himself.

Fair enough. I may projecting too much from the character suicide thread, both onto Sacro's intent in the OP and onto the responses of others.

Quote from: Old One Eye;801155This is noticeably less rhetoric than you have been using.  Go back, reread your OP, and you will see that your original position contains significantly more rhetoric than this statement.

Yes, I feel somewhat miffed when one PC has those stats and I am rocking a 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10, 8.  

I have a different emotional response to this issue than you.  People have emotional responses to things on the continuum from stoicism to completely loosing it.  Most people will hanot be on the extremes of the continuum.  What deeper understanding are you looking for?

I don't think you're getting the point.  You wouldn't be miffed at someone having those stats because it's not realistically possible for anyone to have those stats in the first place.

I've repeated this several times.  If the examples you're bringing forth as justification for your hurt feelings don't ever happen, then I think that's not much basis to argue against or blame random stat generation.

My second part is that if someone does have an extra +1 somewhere (the more likely scenarios), you wouldn't even notice unless you sat there and reverse calculated all of their die rolls.  And if you do that and still feel like you're gimped or cheated?  Frankly you need to grow up.  Or stop playing a game with a random element in it all together.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801143If you haven't ever read the source thread then you're missing the context. It's OK if you can't respond to the OP with the context he had in mind, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to shift the argument to something the OP wasn't talking about just because of your lack of context.

So this is railing against those sinners at the other website and preaching to the choir here? Actually explaining that context in response to examples that depend on a wider definition of "way higher" would have helped, instead of just railing at them. The fun is ruined if the difference is big enough; if the difference is big enough then it's hard not to notice.

QuoteAgain, all of the "where on the continuum would it suck for you" points are interesting, but outside of some sort of induction proof they aren't terribly relevant.

If we limit discussion to cases where nothing bad has happened, then we conclude that nothing bad has ever happened, so how dare you complain about bad things happening! The entire point is that worse things can happen; the original question is a strawman if +1 only in fourth through sixth best characteristics is "way higher".

QuoteBren went that farthest to answer the question by noting that he notices other folks rolls and almost can't help doing the math in his head. So there's somebody that notices (a question Saacro had). I'm not sure/don't recall if he felt a +/-1 would ruin his fun, but at least he weighed in with something relevant (and all without having a position as extreme as gamerGoyf or the nutter TBP mod).

I also pointed out that other totals reveal bonuses, unless your group is never revealing any numbers (the DM rolls everything, in which case he probably rolled the characteristics too; or you spend a lot of time reporting damage by passing notes). So I can know someone's combat stat by observing the minimum and maximum damage they roll with the same weapon I have. And that was how jibbajibba's player got upset over being overshadowed in their own specialty (ranged damage). (If it is that secretive, then I'll take greater efforts to figure it out statistically just because secrets provoke that in me.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801153Why would you assume this:

20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14


Were originally 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12?

If you were human, they would be 19, 18, 17, 17, 15, 13
Most other races have a +2 with a subrace of another +1, meaning the original rolls would be 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 14

20, 18, 17, 16, 14, 14 is that you said in the OP?
I was going on the basis they were playing human and used a stat up instead of a feat at level 4.
remove the human bonus and the stat up and you get  17, 17, 16, 15, 13, 13? I goofed on the last two... But that is still in the range I got. on the first 100 rolls.

The 20, 19, 18, 18, 16, 14 Im not even going to waste the time trying to figure as yes, its less than 1%, Im pretty sure alot less.

Closest I got in another 100 rolls was 18, 16, 16. 16, 10, 11

On an unrelated note, one of the rolls was all 14s... weird...

Quote from: rawma;801158So this is railing against those sinners at the other website and preaching to the choir here? Actually explaining that context in response to examples that depend on a wider definition of "way higher" would have helped, instead of just railing at them. The fun is ruined if the difference is big enough; if the difference is big enough then it's hard not to notice.

I'm not here to defend anyone's decision or approach to rail against anything. It 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.

Quote from: rawma;801158If we limit discussion to cases where nothing bad has happened, then we conclude that nothing bad has ever happened, so how dare you complain about bad things happening! The entire point is that worse things can happen; the original question is a strawman if +1 only in fourth through sixth best characteristics is "way higher".

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

Aside 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.

QuoteSo 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.

So 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.

Quote from: rawma;801158I also pointed out that other totals reveal bonuses, unless your group is never revealing any numbers (the DM rolls everything, in which case he probably rolled the characteristics too; or you spend a lot of time reporting damage by passing notes). So I can know someone's combat stat by observing the minimum and maximum damage they roll with the same weapon I have. And that was how jibbajibba's player got upset over being overshadowed in their own specialty (ranged damage). (If it is that secretive, then I'll take greater efforts to figure it out statistically just because secrets provoke that in me.)

I 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801276...then your game already has problems that have nothing to do with random rolling.

Have you played much 3e? Because hey, if you want to say 'a system that does this is one you shouldn't be playing,' I won't necessarily agree, but I'd defend it as a consistent point of view.

Quote from: Will;801283Have you played much 3e? Because hey, if you want to say 'a system that does this is one you shouldn't be playing,' I won't necessarily agree, but I'd defend it as a consistent point of view.

Indeed, my PoV is....consistent. The glasses help.

Quote from: jibbajibba;801281I 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.

Yes, but in 5e and some other versions EXP is from a combined pool. Not handed out based on who killed the most. I wouldnt want to play under such rules either. I had enough of that on MMOs and MSOs.

As for feats. Thats down to personal choice. Which is the crux here. Jans picked up 1 feat and has no interest in any others so far. I've got two, one  at the expense of free 4 stat points. Not sure if I'll blow more on feats or not. If I do then Jan will catch up or even exceed me. Neither of us has a chance to catch up to Kefra. Though if Kefra went all out on feats and Jan went all stats then shes allmost catch up.

Jan has zero interest in such fretting and is playing her character as she rolled it. And has molded it since accordingly. What the rest of us has is irrelevant to who we are, what we are playing, how we play and how we RP.

Obviously others apparently can and will feel sad, fret, or even freak out and refuse to play at the extreme end of the scale. That is not the sort of people I'd ever want to RP with. Especially since odds are they wouldn't lift a finger at someone being less than they are.

Personally one reason in 5e I even have come like having lower stats is that with the stat ups, it gives me room to grow if I so desire.

Quote from: Will;801271If 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?

That is what you call arguing for your own limitations.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801285Indeed, my PoV is....consistent. The glasses help.

Sooooo... is that what you're saying?

Quote from: jeff37923;801299That is what you call arguing for your own limitations.

No, it's called debating the point.

'You can just do X, and be effective/useful!'
"Ok, let's examine this point in detail. What about X case, based on actual results someone just posted?"
'I'm just going to make a quip and avoid engaging.'

Quote from: Will;801306No, it's called debating the point.

'You can just do X, and be effective/useful!'
"Ok, let's examine this point in detail. What about X case, based on actual results someone just posted?"
'I'm just going to make a quip and avoid engaging.'

Then you are being disingenuous.

In your example, you just said AC 35, you did not say whether or not that was base, flat-footed, or without armor. If you are a lower level with a lower to hit bonus in 3.x, you can still grapple an opponent in melee. Hell, in a worst-case scenario you can make an opponent spend an action on you allowing an opening for another PC.

You wanted to argue for your limitations, so you conjured a scenario where you were limited. Congrats.

No quips needed. You just lack imagination.

Quote from: Will;801305Sooooo... is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that at the point one starts a premise of "the monsters have been predetermined and adapted to the level of the player characters", one has already stepped so far from the concept of an rpg that random chargen was designed to support that the argument becomes inconsequential outside of the particularly narrow videogame-esque variation on rpgs described.

Quote from: jeff37923;801309Then you are being disingenuous.

In your example, you just said AC 35, you did not say whether or not that was base, flat-footed, or without armor. If you are a lower level with a lower to hit bonus in 3.x, you can still grapple an opponent in melee. Hell, in a worst-case scenario you can make an opponent spend an action on you allowing an opening for another PC.

You wanted to argue for your limitations, so you conjured a scenario where you were limited. Congrats.

No quips needed. You just lack imagination.

Why do you feel it necessary to insult me about this? Seriously.

I don't lack imagination, but every time I actually try to engage with examples, everyone immediately shuts down.

And as for 'conjured a scenario,' what do you think it MEANS when your max bonus is 5 less than someone else? I just rolled 5 4d6 drop lowest stats, one guy had a max of 13, another had an 18.

Checking some real monsters, it seems at CR 10ish, a more common AC is 29, so it's more like 60% chance to hit vs. 30% chance to hit, which isn't quite as stark. Although with the 5 point difference, the second character is hitting half as often and going to lack much ability to hit with second attacks.

Now, thank you for actually using imagination to come up with an example to work with.
The problem with grapple, though, is that if you are doing it as an alternative to attacking because your Strength is too low to hit as much... you're not going to do very well. The enemy likely has a better grapple score AND strength, so can avoid the grapple or happily use it and kill you.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801312I'm saying that at the point one starts a premise of "the monsters have been predetermined and adapted to the level of the player characters", one has already stepped so far from the concept of an rpg that random chargen was designed to support that the argument becomes inconsequential outside of the particularly narrow videogame-esque variation on rpgs described.

You are still not answering me about 3e. I assume the answer is 'little/none'?

3e has random chargen; 4d6, drop lowest, assign as needed.
3e has encounter design that is totally about predetermining monsters and balancing them around the level of the player characters.

So for 13 years, the published version of D&D, the biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world was exactly what you are saying is inconsequential.

Quote from: Will;801317Why do you feel it necessary to insult me about this? Seriously.

Seriously?

Because every time I hear one of these spherical cow arguments I think that the originator is deliberately trying to suck the fun out of gaming by trying to discourage actual adventuring because it has wobbly math.

Fuck that. And the attitude that goes with it.

So what if my character can't fight toe-to-toe with the Big Bad Evil Guy? I just won't fight fair then. Whether or not a PC can cause damage to a BBEG should not so much depend on character stats as it should depend on what the Player does with that character. Creativity, ingenuity, skullduggery, and plain old fashioned cussedness in a Player will determine what effects their PC will have in a game. Not just stats.

It's not spherical cow. It comes from ~10 years of playing 3e.

I'm not trying to suck the fun out, I'm pointing out stuff to avoid that sucks the fun out of the game.

I've been in games where I've had concerns about how a character would play, people said 'oh, don't worry, it'll work out.' And then it hilariously doesn't and I (or others) get frustrated when, surprise surprise, the concerns translate to actual problems.

Never mind my elf, this thread is making the baby Jesus cry.

Who fucking cares. Some people have low thresholds for being a little baby, while others just play their character. We all have some form of little baby threshold, but most people's isn't on either the low or high end but in the middle.

I say middle baby is a little baby, but hey i have a high threshold.

Oh, i forgot in all the excitement, this thread has fuck all to do with gaming and more to do with being bored at work. My mistake. :rolleyes:

Quote from: One Horse Town;801329Never mind my elf, this thread is making the baby Jesus cry.

Who fucking cares. Some people have low thresholds for being a little baby, while others just play their character. We all have some form of little baby threshold, but most people's isn't on either the low or high end but in the middle.

I say middle baby is a little baby, but hey i have a high threshold.

  Do I have to kill all your characters again (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=755743#post755743)? :)

   (Minus the obnoxious language, you've got a point. Power disparity can be a problem for almost anyone if taken far enough, but the point that's 'far enough' can differ wildly.)

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.

I don't care (as a player or as a GM) what a character's stats are so long as the player rolled them with fair dice in front of the GM. If another player manages to roll 18-18-18-18-18, good for him. If stats make that big a difference in the system, that character will give the party a huge boost -- and will not detract from my fun at all (at least not in any game system I'd be willing to actually play more than a session or two). Note, however, that I only play old school where solutions to game situations are not limited to what is written on the character sheet.

As I GM, my games feature random stat rolls, XP requirements to level that differ by class, PC sin the party that may be at level 1 or 2 while others are higher levels (sometimes much higher levels), "random" encounters (that is, encounters are not designed around the character sheet abilities of the PC at their current level), and all sorts of other things that would likely drive players who would be bothered by stats differences crazy. Such players are free to not play in my games.

Quote from: Will;801319You are still not answering me about 3e. I assume the answer is 'little/none'?

Enough.

QuoteSo for 13 years, the published version of D&D, the biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world was exactly what you are saying is inconsequential.

Thats actually not what I said was inconsequential, but I'm fine with saying that now in regards to this conversation, not the goal-post shifting irrelevance of the game's sales or influence.

What I'm seeing here is a trend: you, Will, do not roleplay currently, but even when you did, you did not play old school, the style that is not only the most popular on this board, but is also currently what the "biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world" was forced to turn back to after the failure of taking the type of play that you're arguing to its logical extremes. It created the OSR out of a necessity for people who actually wanted to roleplay, and not engage in math theory or min-maxing. As such you are arguing in this and other threads from a PoV on game design and an approach to playing games that is not shared by the majority, and in particular is one that rejects imagination and creativity for mathematical acumen. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for (not) playing that way, but there's no reason for you to expect any poster here to meet you on those terms. The good news is, the net is full of forums where your style of play is not only preferred but vigorously pursued and argued. I know, because a number of them have come here to troll, and just by the general wailing and gnashing of teeth in other places over 5th edition.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801336What I'm seeing here is a trend: you, Will, do not roleplay currently, but even when you did, you did not play old school, the style that is not only the most popular on this board, but is also currently what the "biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world" was forced to turn back to after the failure of taking the type of play that you're arguing to its logical extremes. It created the OSR out of a necessity for people who actually wanted to roleplay, and not engage in math theory or min-maxing.

  Two problems with the "Triumphant Victory of the OSR Over Theorycrafters/Bitter Non Gamers/New Schoolers" narrative, despite how hard the Pundit wants to push it (any news on how "My Struggle Against the Swine" is coming? ;) ).

  1. 5E's got swift healing, no XP for treasure (unless that's an option in the DMG), Inspiration and Plot Point options and other things that don't look very 'old school'. It might be more old-school-friendly, but it's not "thou shalt play the True Way of Demogygax or be cast forth into the Storygaming/Theorycrafting Darkness!".
  2. Pathfinder is still going strong, and while it's arguably more Old School than 4E, it's also doubled down on many of the things the OSR detests.

Quote from: One Horse Town;801329Who fucking cares. Some people have low thresholds for being a little baby, while others just play their character.

As we've seen elsewhere, a lot of people here don't actually play the games they talk about every day on this forum.

QuoteOh, i forgot in all the excitement, this thread has fuck all to do with gaming and more to do with being bored at work.

Work? A lot of them don't seem to have jobs either. Which is why they post all day, just about every hour on the hour.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;801338Two problems with the "Triumphant Victory of the OSR Over Theorycrafters/Bitter Non Gamers/New Schoolers" narrative, despite how hard the Pundit wants to push it (any news on how "My Struggle Against the Swine" is coming? ;) ).

  1. 5E's got swift healing, no XP for treasure (unless that's an option in the DMG), Inspiration and Plot Point options and other things that don't look very 'old school'. It might be more old-school-friendly, but it's not "thou shalt play the True Way of Demogygax or be cast forth into the Storygaming/Theorycrafting Darkness!".
  2. Pathfinder is still going strong, and while it's arguably more Old School than 4E, it's also doubled down on many of the things the OSR detests.

Oh, Im not saying 5e is perfect, or even the Edition that will end the OSR! just that its been at least recognized on a corporate level that the min-maxing style of play is not sustainable in and of itself. My point overall was more about this foruum and the incongruity between Will's arguments and the completely incompatible style of play the posts hes trying to debate are engaging.

Since people have short memories (not a complaint, this is a game forum, not a business) and tend to typecast whomever they are talking to based on whatever their immediate discussion is...

I generally favor system light, qualitative games where a lot of numbery fiddly details don't come up much. My favorite gaming was in BRP CoC, with random generation of stuff. I like Fate (I don't love it, but I like it), Dungeon World, and Risus.

It strikes me that this and related topics end up really being edition wars. It'd also be helpful, perhaps, to preface what scope/edition you are engaging.

I've been careful to pick at problems specific to 3e (and, I THINK, 4e), and I think when people are used to OSR or other games and don't understand why people shy from randomness, it's because you are crossing editions.

I've attempted to explain, previously, why randomness can be a problem in 3e.

Feel free to point out why randomness is not a problem in specific other editions, and why.


It's not a fair complaint to say 'why are these people sweating small differences' when you aren't taking into account what games they play.

Quote from: Will;801341Since people have short memories (not a complaint, this is a game forum, not a business) and tend to typecast whomever they are talking to based on whatever their immediate discussion is...

I generally favor system light, qualitative games where a lot of numbery fiddly details don't come up much. My favorite gaming was in BRP CoC, with random generation of stuff. I like Fate (I don't love it, but I like it), Dungeon World, and Risus.

It strikes me that this and related topics end up really being edition wars. It'd also be helpful, perhaps, to preface what scope/edition you are engaging.

I've been careful to pick at problems specific to 3e (and, I THINK, 4e), and I think when people are used to OSR or other games and don't understand why people shy from randomness, it's because you are crossing editions.

I've attempted to explain, previously, why randomness can be a problem in 3e.

Feel free to point out why randomness is not a problem in specific other editions, and why.


It's not a fair complaint to say 'why are these people sweating small differences' when you aren't taking into account what games they play.

Whatever your preference is, I'm taking into account solely the arguments you're making.

Quote from: TristramEvans;801343Whatever your preference is, I'm taking into account solely the arguments you're making.

You are solely focusing on my arguments and not my preferences?

From an hour ago:

Quote from: TristramEvans;801336What I'm seeing here is a trend: you, Will, do not roleplay currently, but even when you did, you did not play old school, the style that is not only the most popular on this board, but is also currently what the "biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world" was forced to turn back to after the failure of taking the type of play that you're arguing to its logical extremes. It created the OSR out of a necessity for people who actually wanted to roleplay, and not engage in math theory or min-maxing. As such you are arguing in this and other threads from a PoV on game design and an approach to playing games that is not shared by the majority, and in particular is one that rejects imagination and creativity for mathematical acumen. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for (not) playing that way, but there's no reason for you to expect any poster here to meet you on those terms. The good news is, the net is full of forums where your style of play is not only preferred but vigorously pursued and argued. I know, because a number of them have come here to troll, and just by the general wailing and gnashing of teeth in other places over 5th edition.

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

HERETIC OUTCAST UNCLEAN!!!

Marinate the Jesuit!  Marinate the Jesuit!

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

Precisely.  See my post about my Jedi.  Worst stats, most awesome in play.

Quote from: Will;801261I disagree.

42 years of gaming tells me he's right.  If a player wants to be badass then they should act badass.

And I've also noticed that whiny players who bitch about somebody having a +1 they don't bitch about everything else as well.

I'm with Sacro here.  In 42 years of gaming it's never been a problem for me apart from players who were fucking crybabies in other ways too.

Of course, somebody on this site once told me that I wasn't really having fun in WW2 miniatures gaming because my Shermans were nowhere near the equal of a Panther.

So, what are folks actual experiences, preferences, games they haven't played?


Given the topic, one game where randomness never bothered me was Call of Cthulhu. For one thing, unfair results seem very emulative of Victorian Horror! For another, Cthulhu eats 1d6 Investigators per round -- when the highs and lows don't matter terribly much, eh, whatever.

Old Geezer:
30 years of gaming tells me players and GMs matter... but system has a big impact.


And, for what it's worth, my experiences have lead me to conclude I should avoid the systems where it has a big impact. Not just because of this, but because of other issues -- trying to fine tune encounters to be 'right' for a given party is just annoying.

Quote from: Will;801271If 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.

)

Maybe you need to stop playing shitty rules sets.

I don't know what game you're quoting in your above example, but I wouldn't play it.  If random rolls can give you a character that is genuinely useless, the fucking game system needs fixing.

Remember, I'm the guy who thinks Star Wars d20 stinks worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.  (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)  I also explicitly deny that later games are necessarily better than earlier ones.  If your example above is from a real game, and I have no reason to doubt it is, I'll stick with OD&D, thank you.

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.

That applies as much to real life as RPGs.

But... but... but... PWECIOUS SNOWFWAKE!!!

Quote from: Will;801341Since people have short memories (not a complaint, this is a game forum, not a business) and tend to typecast whomever they are talking to based on whatever their immediate discussion is...

I generally favor system light, qualitative games where a lot of numbery fiddly details don't come up much. My favorite gaming was in BRP CoC, with random generation of stuff. I like Fate (I don't love it, but I like it), Dungeon World, and Risus.

It strikes me that this and related topics end up really being edition wars. It'd also be helpful, perhaps, to preface what scope/edition you are engaging.

I've been careful to pick at problems specific to 3e (and, I THINK, 4e), and I think when people are used to OSR or other games and don't understand why people shy from randomness, it's because you are crossing editions.

I've attempted to explain, previously, why randomness can be a problem in 3e.

Feel free to point out why randomness is not a problem in specific other editions, and why.


It's not a fair complaint to say 'why are these people sweating small differences' when you aren't taking into account what games they play.

While I can acknowledge that from a certain point of view the random generation of stats and starting wealth, and possibly treasure and dungeons and encounters, does look to be starkly at odds with the 12-13 encounters of a CR equal to the party level assumption that is in 3e, 3.5, and PF.
However, to argue that because 3e and later 4e and even later 5e, use a CR system as a numeric classification of how difficult a specific monster or trap is, and then give at the least a small handful of pages explaining what the CRs mean and how to distribute encounters, that the unequal and random distribution of stats is somehow at odds with what is essentially, depending which specific game, a more or less clearer way of assigning experience points for the defeat of monsters and other trials. The CR system is just a more concrete way of saying roughly how dangerous a monsters is beyond hit dice with a number of pluses and asterisks. I have a small handful of WotC 3e/3.5 modules and they look horribly brutal, EL 8 encounters in a module for 3rd level characters that the PCs can't leave the dungeon once they enter.

The 3e DMG also has a table that shows just how many encounters of what EL/CR relative to the expected part level, which includes encounters 5 or more level higher. 3e also used average stats for the vast majority of its monsters, ie straight 10's modified by racial modifiers. And since this was a mass market game, the statistically average PC with rolled stats has what, 12's and 13's for stats, but if you really want, we could just unilaterally declare all PCs to have 13's plus racial modifiers, and it still wouldn't matter with the CR system. I've seen players tear through encounters of their level like they were nothing, and I've watched bad luck tear through PCs with similar encounters. Obviously random chance will then have to be removed. Now all PCs and monsters don't roll HP, or attacks, or skills, or damage. Because that is roughly what the expectation of the CR system is, that generally a group can do x number of encounters of a particular level before needing to retreat and rest. So either you accept that by playing a game with dice in it, things will not always fit the average expectation, or you play a game with different expectations. I mean I've had single players at 1st level kill monsters with CRs 3 level higher with one or two lucky hits and take no damage, but I've also done that same to PCs.

Quote from: Will;801319You are still not answering me about 3e. I assume the answer is 'little/none'?

3e has random chargen; 4d6, drop lowest, assign as needed.
3e has encounter design that is totally about predetermining monsters and balancing them around the level of the player characters.

So for 13 years, the published version of D&D, the biggest, most influential roleplaying game in the world was exactly what you are saying is inconsequential.

SWd20 is derived from 3E.  I wouldn't call it "inconsequential," I'd call it "shitty design."

Quote from: Old Geezer;801353Maybe you need to stop playing shitty rules sets.

I don't know what game you're quoting in your above example, but I wouldn't play it.  If random rolls can give you a character that is genuinely useless, the fucking game system needs fixing.

Remember, I'm the guy who thinks Star Wars d20 stinks worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.  (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)  I also explicitly deny that later games are necessarily better than earlier ones.  If your example above is from a real game, and I have no reason to doubt it is, I'll stick with OD&D, thank you.

The example was 3.5e, but should also apply to 4e. I THINK it should also apply to 5e, but I'm not positive: the 'attack bonus' rises much slower, so I think it's easier to hit. Then again, the 5 point difference in damage (which I actually forgot to mention before) is also a factor.

So, yeah, if the example seems terrible to you, don't play anything from 3e on (except OSR/Microlite/other weirdness).

Quote from: Will;801352Old Geezer:
30 years of gaming tells me players and GMs matter... but system has a big impact.


And, for what it's worth, my experiences have lead me to conclude I should avoid the systems where it has a big impact. Not just because of this, but because of other issues -- trying to fine tune encounters to be 'right' for a given party is just annoying.

Absolutely agree.  If you don't like a system, don't play it!  As I've said several times, I hate SWd20, and the whole "encounter rating" thing sucks.

But SWd20 is based off 3E and I played the best even though I had a "gimped" character who had a +1 DEX bonus and no other bonuses.

I also shocked the shit out of people because I didn't piss my pants every time somebody got a potential attack of opportunity on me.  It's called a "calculated risk."

Quote from: Will;801358The example was 3.5e, but should also apply to 4e. I THINK it should also apply to 5e, but I'm not positive: the 'attack bonus' rises much slower, so I think it's easier to hit. Then again, the 5 point difference in damage (which I actually forgot to mention before) is also a factor.

So, yeah, if the example seems terrible to you, don't play anything from 3e on (except OSR/Microlite/other weirdness).

And I don't; I freely admit it.  The fact that my Jedi had one defense against blasters, a different one against physical ranged attacks, another one against physical melee attacks, another one against energy melee attacks, yet ANOTHER one against lightsabers, and yet ANOTHER ANOTHER one against touch attacks, was my first warning.  I don't think I calculated the damn things correctly once in 3 years, due to all the buffs, feats, and skills that influenced them.

And in another instance another player said "When you have a +20 on a 20 sider roll, something is seriously wrong."

Shitty game design is shitty game design.  Just because 3rd edition came after first edition doesn't mean it's not shitty design.

Quote from: Will;801261I disagree.

I actually agree with Will on this. Partly.
However, feeling useless is not the same as being useless. In the last PF game I was in my character was, despite being specifically "built" and intended to kick ass, was vastly overshadowed by the first two, then three, of the other PCs in the realm of beating faces in. So I felt useless in combat. Which sucked, because that was the original point behind that character, something dumb that beats faces so I can socialize with my group while we go dick around on one of the other PC's quests for a flying boat. But, despite feeling useless in that one section of the game, and it was late in the campaign anyways, my character was the focal point of the last part of that campaign. My character could legitimately feel useless because he was fight alongside 3 gods, with a sizable army at his back, and several other gods. So I felt useless a lot, and my character felt useless a lot more, despite being the big mover and shaker.
It is possible to feel a way that is at odds with the actual situation.

AxesnOrcs:
The problem is the 3e-onward design idea:
Modifier = 1/2 x (stat-10)
Add Strength modifier to melee attack chance, and to melee attacks (mod x 1.5 added to damage for two-handed weapons)

This basic design element changes the importance of stats in everything a player does. Want to fast-talk the guard? You need good Charisma and skill, unless the DM specifically makes lower-level challenges for your character to handle.

Now, it's possible to vary up challenge like that. It's a little tricky, but if you know LowStatGuy focuses on some activity that works apart from what everyone else does, then you can tweak things appropriately.


Ooor... you can stick with systems where stats don't have such an immediate impact on everything you can do.

Ooor... you can make sure stats don't end up with disparate results (either point buy or liberal 'those stats suck, try again,' or... something)

Ooor... you can have a goofy game where combat doesn't come up as often and the bar is lower on everything, and you don't sweat it.

Verisimilitude. If you care for it whatsoever, you worry not about things like "balanced encounter" or "equity of player stats".

How many times will the same circular reasoning be done in this thread before we end up with Hitler and gun control?

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

Quote from: Will;801362AxesnOrcs:
The problem is the 3e-onward design idea:
Modifier = 1/2 x (stat-10)
Add Strength modifier to melee attack chance, and to melee attacks (mod x 1.5 added to damage for two-handed weapons)

This basic design element changes the importance of stats in everything a player does. Want to fast-talk the guard? You need good Charisma and skill, unless the DM specifically makes lower-level challenges for your character to handle.

Now, it's possible to vary up challenge like that. It's a little tricky, but if you know LowStatGuy focuses on some activity that works apart from what everyone else does, then you can tweak things appropriately.


Ooor... you can stick with systems where stats don't have such an immediate impact on everything you can do.

Ooor... you can make sure stats don't end up with disparate results (either point buy or liberal 'those stats suck, try again,' or... something)

Ooor... you can have a goofy game where combat doesn't come up as often and the bar is lower on everything, and you don't sweat it.

Or you can just wing it. That's how we played 3e when it first came out, and that's how I run Pathfinder now.
Yes stats matter in those games.
Yes stats matter much more than in previous editions of the game.
Yes stats and magic items can make shit get horribly out of hand.

And I'm not really sure what reminding anyone the shorthand for figuring out the bonus or penalty a stat has has any real bearing at hand.

As for fast talking a guard, bluff is opposed by the guard's sense motive, so the rate of success is based on both the guard's stat and ranks in that skill and the PC's stat and ranks in bluff. Even if every, or just that one special guard, had max ranks in Sense Motive, they are still NPCs with NPC stats so might have a +1 from wisdom, giving the PC a roughly equal chance at lying their way past the guard.
The DC for diplomacy improving attitudes is based on the initial attitude, not HD or level or stats of the target.
Only intimidating the guard is primarily based on the level or hd of the guard.
So what exactly does fast talking a guard have to with randomness of stats and CR based encounters?

'Just wing it' was the last option I mentioned. ;)

I was assuming a guard random folks might actually talk to would have a skill in Sense Motive. After all, they are... guards (particularly if you are talking about level 8+, where you are dealing with something other than random conscripts you slap a blazon on)

If I was selecting guards, I'd probably go for guys who are are alert (Perception), and not easily flim-flammed (Sense Motive).

Although you are right in that a guard is likely to be more vulnerable to bluffing past than fighting, all things being equal. So it's a good niche for sub-par stats.

Quote from: Will;801351So, what are folks actual experiences, preferences, games they haven't played?


Given the topic, one game where randomness never bothered me was Call of Cthulhu. For one thing, unfair results seem very emulative of Victorian Horror! For another, Cthulhu eats 1d6 Investigators per round -- when the highs and lows don't matter terribly much, eh, whatever.

Call of Cthulhu isnt (usually) about Victorian horror? Its set in the 1920s and 30s?

Otherwise yeah. I've seen few games where having a big disparity between two players was a kill point.

I have though seen games where you had to be very carefull WHERE you put your points though due to how the system handled stats or character growth.

Shadowrun was one. There are times when Gurps feels like it is that way.

Der, yeah, not Victorian. Still, it's definitely a period of inequity (POLITICS POLITICS) and shit. ;)

Quote from: Will;801367'Just wing it' was the last option I mentioned. ;)

I was assuming a guard random folks might actually talk to would have a skill in Sense Motive. After all, they are... guards (particularly if you are talking about level 8+, where you are dealing with something other than random conscripts you slap a blazon on)

If I was selecting guards, I'd probably go for guys who are are alert (Perception), and not easily flim-flammed (Sense Motive).

Although you are right in that a guard is likely to be more vulnerable to bluffing past than fighting, all things being equal. So it's a good niche for sub-par stats.

Considering neither of those skills are class skills for fighters or warriors, and assuming you just went straight 10s or the PF NPC stat array, the bulk of your guards have only a bonus to those skills equal to their level.
Again, I'm not really sure what this example of the guards has to do with the broader "random stats make no sense in 3e/PF" stance you have adopted. Unless you are rolling up all the stats for the NPCs instead of using one of the stat arrays, which just seems like a lot of extra work, they aren't PCs, and when do you draw the line at this? You going to generate the stats of every owlbear and dragon in the land too?  
Again yes, stats matter. Having an 18-20 in a key stat contributes greatly to the success of certain rolls, more so than level does for a long time. That is a feature of the game.

Quote from: Will;801362This basic design element changes the importance of stats in everything a player does. Want to fast-talk the guard? You need good Charisma and skill, unless the DM specifically makes lower-level challenges for your character to handle.

Now I realize how my Jedi worked so well.  In SW you can use "Force Points" to add a certain number of d6 to any d20 roll.  Adding 3 or 4 d6 to a d20 roll sure makes up for weak stats.

Much like I wasn't afraid to risk an Attack of Opportunity, I wasn't afraid to burn Force Points.  I often was down to 2 or 3 and seldom had more than 6, and the Jedi player with the best stats (nothing less than 16) had over 20 Force points but never used them because he was afraid of "running out."

So yeah, something to boost the odds helps.

True. But you would have been getting that anyhow so you were still kicking ass with a supposedly crippled character.

Quote from: Brad;801363Verisimilitude. If you care for it whatsoever, you worry not about things like "balanced encounter" or "equity of player stats".

How many times will the same circular reasoning be done in this thread before we end up with Hitler and gun control?

It's only a matter of time, I figure.

Hrm.  Hang on -- let me borrow some of my wife's pins, so people can blather on about how many OSR gamers can dance on the heads.

Quote from: Omega;801408True. But you would have been getting that anyhow so you were still kicking ass with a supposedly crippled character.

But on the other hand, it prevented impossible stuff like Will pointed out where I simply CAN'T succeed.  In many of the tests, it doesn't matter by how MUCH you exceed the target number, just as long as you exceed it.  Having the boost thereby kept me from suffering overmuch.

An interesting wrinkle is that the rules state that your defense assumed you were "taking ten" and that referees could make players roll a d20 and adjust their defense accordingly.

The rules also say burning a Force point will help on ANY d20 roll.

I'm sure you see where this is going.  Instead of a Defense of 10 + some other stuff, it was d20 + 4 or 5 d6, eventually + some other stuff.  By rolling at crucial moments I got base defense well over 20 more than once.  Not being allowed to "take 10" didn't turn into much of a disadvantage.

Yet another case where I'm convinced the damn rules were just never playtested.

Quote from: Will;801326It's not spherical cow.

It better not be. Per Lewis Carroll, spherical cows move at arbitrarily high speeds, so a stampede would kill you before you were even aware they were on the same continent.

Thanks for extra info, Old Geezer. I was a little puzzled at how your 3e experience was so different, but I don't know much about the Star Wars mods.

Quote from: Will;801491Thanks for extra info, Old Geezer. I was a little puzzled at how your 3e experience was so different, but I don't know much about the Star Wars mods.

Your explanations helped.  Lacking Force Points it would have been a very different game indeed; if I had 3 levels in a skill, and no stat bonus, a DC of 20 would indeed be pretty much impossible.

My own personal answer to that problem (ymmv and all that) is "don't play those damn rules."  When I've brought players into my OD&D game who are used to later editions, one major cultural shift for them is not "stats don't matter," but WHY stats don't matter; if you're a 4th level whatever, I figure you are a 4th level in all kinds of general "adventuring stuff."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801094"realistically never happen".  Don't bold a quote from me and then conveniently drop the first conditioning word.

Don't be such a cry baby. The qualifier was included in what I quoted and in what I bolded.

QuoteTell 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.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million plus people have played D&D over the past 40+ years. For various reasons, players almost always roll up more than one character unless they stop playing after only a few sessions. Many players roll up dozens of characters. Therefore I feel quite safe in saying that one in a million stats have come up more than once in the hundreds of millions of PCs that have been rolled up by all the D&D players world wide. So now we have shown that such large differences do, in reality, occur in actual play somewhere. They just don't seem to have occurred in your play.

So do you still maintain that those sorts of differences aren't going to ever  occur in anyone's play or do you agree that they do occur, just not in your personal play experience and in so far as you've noticed?

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801164I 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.

What flavor cookie?

Quote from: Natty Bodak;801143Bren went that farthest to answer the question by noting that he notices other folks rolls and almost can't help doing the math in his head. So there's somebody that notices (a question Saacro had).

I didn't answer that specifically – in fact nobody asked. But I have more than once mentioned that I prefer games with some variation between the PCs abilities, stats, etc. both as the GM and as a player. Also that I am often not bothered by significant differences in abilities, stats, etc. However, at some point, such differences can become too large to be viable as a game, plausible in the setting, or fun to play.

Quote from: Bren;801633I didn't answer that specifically – in fact nobody asked. But I have more than once mentioned that I prefer games with some variation between the PCs abilities, stats, etc. both as the GM and as a player. Also that I am often not bothered by significant differences in abilities, stats, etc. However, at some point, such differences can become too large to be viable as a game, plausible in the setting, or fun to play.

I think the difference is personal and a good GM will pitch their game to make the most players happy.
As a Player I will play whatever gets rolled but that comes from playing for 35 years right, you get to see the fun in the challenge .... I can definitely see that other players are going to have a different limit.

Sacro has still to admit that as a DM he has any flexibility on stats as rolled.
Surely as a DM he wouldn't make a new player run a PC with 4 stats under 8 ?

Maybe he would who can say.

Quote from: Bren;801633Don't be such a cry baby. The qualifier was included in what I quoted and in what I bolded.

Which you completely ignored in your response.  This is what you said:

"Do you really believe that it is physically impossible ..."

Since your response was missing that qualifier (which is pretty important in the context of what I was saying), I can then only assume you were setting up a strawman?  After all, I never said it was physically impossible as you had tried to frame my argument.

QuoteSomewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million plus people have played D&D over the past 40+ years. For various reasons, players almost always roll up more than one character unless they stop playing after only a few sessions. Many players roll up dozens of characters. Therefore I feel quite safe in saying that one in a million stats have come up more than once in the hundreds of millions of PCs that have been rolled up by all the D&D players world wide. So now we have shown that such large differences do, in reality, occur in actual play somewhere. They just don't seem to have occurred in your play..

So then that's a 'no', you don't have the odds of that happening?  You know what?  I'm guessing you probably have really small odds of rolling an 18/00 strength with 00% psioncs in AD&D too, and by your logic it must have happened several times, but that in no way means that the rules for generating stats and psionics is unfair and gimps and punishes every other player does it?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801668Which you completely ignored in your response.  This is what you said:

"Do you really believe that it is physically impossible ..."

Since your response was missing that qualifier (which is pretty important in the context of what I was saying), I can then only assume you were setting up a strawman?  After all, I never said it was physically impossible as you had tried to frame my argument.

I ignored the qualifiers in my question because I was asking a question to clarify your meaning not debating what you said. The "?" at the end of the sentence was one clue that I was asking you a question not making a point, the interrogative "Do you believe..." was another.

Since you seem to be, for some reason, reluctant to clarify your intent, I’ll make it easier for you by spelling out several answers in a multiple choice fashion so you can just pick the answer that best corresponds to your belief.

   (A) It is logically impossible for someone to roll stats like those mentioned. (I don’t think you meant that due to the qualifiers, but wanted you to actually do your own clarification.)

   (B) It is logically possible but so statistically unlikely as to be a virtual impossibility. As an example, say the odds of you personally (or anyone really) being struck and killed by an asteroid while posting a reply to me. While it is logically possible for that to happen, it is statistically so unlikely as to be ignored in almost all contexts.

   (C) It is logically possible but statistically of a very low probability, but still something that will, given enough people playing RPGs for enough sessions, occur. For example, being dealt a royal flush in cards, buying the winning lottery ticket.

   (D) It is logically possible and something that is significantly more frequent than say a royal flush. Something that some people may not see after years of gaming. For example, anything any one person hasn’t seen occur in an RPG after years of regular gaming.

   (E) It is logically possible and something that does not occur in most game sessions but something that the majority of gamers who play for an extended period of time will see happen. Various critical hits in certain game systems would be a pretty good example of this. (I don’t think you meant this due to your use of the phrase “never occur” but again, it’s not really easy what you think the probability of occurrence of events are since you provide no actual probabilities.)
Which of these five answers best corresponds to your belief when you said, something would never occur in a roleplaying context?

QuoteSo then that's a 'no', you don't have the odds of that happening?

I have not calculated the exact odds. (Although see below for a calculation of odds of rolling 18-00 Strength and Psionic Strength of 100.) I have a fairly good intuitive notion of the underlying probabilities and the number of characters that have been rolled in 40 years of D&D are in the hundreds of millions. The odds are some roll at least as good as that has happened.

I also note that other people have provided their estimates of the probability which you seem to have dismissed without providing your answer for the probability. You’ve done zip statistically. Since so far you have been claiming that it can’t ever happen in an RPG to anyone it really is up to you to provide the numbers or to stop claiming it isn’t possible for it to occur just because you haven’t noticed that it happened in your games.

QuoteYou know what?  I'm guessing you probably have really small odds of rolling an 18/00 strength with 00% psioncs in AD&D too, and by your logic it must have happened several times, but that in no way means that the rules for generating stats and psionics is unfair and gimps and punishes every other player does it?

The odds of rolling 18-00 strength on 3d6 is 1/21,600. I don’t recall the psionic rules in AD&D. Does everyone have a psionic strength or is there some qualifier before rolling a number? Assuming everyone rolls psionic strength on 1D100 then the odds of that are 1/100. Therefore the odds of both happening are 1/2,160,000. So given that estimates for the number of D&D players world wide are around 10 million. If every D&D player only ever rolled one character in their whole life we’d expect to see 4 or more characters with those stats. Since we know most players roll up far more than one character in their whole life and we know that many people use some method like roll 4 dice pick best 3 dice that increase the probability even further, we should expect that dozens of characters (if not hundreds) would have stats of that sort of low probability. So hundreds or thousands of players have seen such an event occur. We can also observe that it is unlikely that any single player of the millions of people who have played D&D would see 18-00 with 100 Psi rolled on 3d6 once, let alone more than once.

Whether or not something like that is likely to have occurred is an analyzable, statistical question which you seem to be dodging or ignoring. Whether when it occurs it is perceived to be unfun or something that “gimps” or “punishes” other players is a subjective question, not an objective question. Therefore the answer will vary from person to person. You appear to me to be conflating the objective with the subjective and vice versa.

In 1e, a human (possibly dwarves and halflings if allowed) has a chance for psionics if at least one of the three mental scores are an unmodified 16 or greater, I assume this means before any racial or post-rolling stat adjustments. In order to have psionic power you need to roll a 100 or higher on d%. Every point of Int over 16 adds 2.5 to the roll. Wis adds 1.5, and Cha adds .5.

Anecdotally, I remember rolling up several characters with psionics, but cannot remember rolling up any with percentile strength and psionics.

Quote from: Bren;801695Which of these five answers best corresponds to your belief when you said, something would never occur in a roleplaying context?

You just did it again.  I said it would realistically never happen.   You're taking something that is not an absolute and strawmanning it to something that is.

Also, I already answered your question when I made the reference to winning the lottery above.  You had no need to type out lengthly options when I already clarified my point.


And I'll note I don't think it's as subjective as you think it is.  I'll expand my analogy.

You've got a million people.  Half invest a $100 into an investment they know will return a 10% rate of return after a year.  Half invest $100 into the lottery.  Most of those either end up with a slightly less return than 10%, or a slightly higher return.  One (or even two) people hit it big, and win a million bucks.  Are you saying it's subjective if the people who invested in the assured 10% return feel cheated and punished because those two people won it big?  Maybe on a very literal definition, but I think it is widely accepted that if someone feels cheated and punished because they didn't play the lottery and one or two people won big, then that person complaining has the problem.  The problem is not with the system, nor with the people who won.

Because that's what's happening in these discussions.  heck, just look at this thread.  I ask why would someone feel gimped, punished,  or cheated, and all the people who said they would only came up with examples that realistically would never happen, much the same as the one or two people who won the lottery.  No one (here at least) has admitted they'd feel gimped or cheated or punished if another PC only had one additional +1 bonus somewhere.  It's always something outrageously unlikely to ever happen.  And my point, is if that's the case, why are you (general you) whining about being treated unfairly or cheated or punished, just like the person whining about being cheated and punished because someone else won the lottery?

The first time I rolled 5 sets of '4d6, drop lowest' sample characters for one of the threads (I forget, now, which thread), I ended up with one character with nothing above a 13, and another with an 18. (And most of the rest had 16s, if I remember right).

A difference between a high of 13 and 18 (in 3e-5e) is 25%, which is pretty significant.

Going to do another batch:
15, 12, 15, 15, 12, 14
11, 13, 14, 8, 14, 11
9, 12, 15, 14, 11, 12
12, 12, 13, 10, 11, 7
11, 12, 14, 9, 12, 15

(highest max 15, lowest max 13)


A second:
11, 18, 15, 13, 13, 11
12, 11, 16, 7, 12, 12
9, 11, 11, 14, 12, 15
15, 6, 16, 10, 10, 10
15, 9, 12, 8, 9, 14

(18, 14)

15, 11, 13, 11, 13, 10
8, 11, 12, 8, 15, 7
14, 9, 13, 15, 12, 17
12, 15, 12, 14, 13, 15
11, 10, 11, 14, 13, 14

(17, 14)

13, 10, 13, 11, 12, 16
13, 14, 9, 10, 11, 14
15, 9, 14, 13, 17, 5
11, 15, 13, 13, 16, 12
14, 13, 3, 9, 18, 14

(18, 14)

So, out of five batches of 5 characters, the 'spread of highs' ranges from 2 to 5.

So I'd say roughly half the time, the spread is enough to be noticeable (in 3e-5e). Though 5e's ability score system helps mitigate issues a bit.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801698You just did it again.  I said it would realistically never happen.   You're taking something that is not an absolute and strawmanning it to something that is.

No I am not. Do try to actually read what I wrote rather than just reiterating that same comment.

QuoteAlso, I already answered your question when I made the reference to winning the lottery above.  You had no need to type out lengthly options when I already clarified my point.

Which like very high stats is something that multiple people who are not you have noticed because they have occurred. Statistically from the numbers of players and characters we know they have to have occurred.

So we now have established.

(1) The modest difference in stats that you say no one will notice, some people do in fact notice. Even though you don't notice it.

(2) The large difference in stats that you say will never occur in a roleplaying setting occurs to multiple people playing a roleplaying game. This is just like the fact that someone wins the lottery even though for millions of people the someone that wins is not them.

QuoteAnd I'll note I don't think it's as subjective as you think it is.  I'll expand my analogy.

Why? Seriously, why do you bother?

It seems you are hell bent on trying to prove that people who notice things you don't notice, experience things you haven't experienced, and who have a subjective reaction different from the reaction that you hypothesize you would have (in the event that you ever noticed it had happened to you at all) are playing elf games wrong. Why?

QuoteBecause that's what's happening in these discussions.  heck, just look at this thread.  I ask why would someone feel gimped, punished,  or cheated, and all the people who said they would only came up with examples that realistically would never happen, much the same as the one or two people who won the lottery.

So now you are back to claiming that something that is statistically likely to happen to the level of a certainty never happens in fact because you haven't ever noticed it happen around you. Bullshit!

QuoteAnd my point, is if that's the case, why are you (general you) whining about being treated unfairly or cheated or punished, just like the person whining about being cheated and punished because someone else won the lottery?

They use the word unfair or punished to describe their emotional response to an outcome they find unfun. Now I agree that they are using "unfair" in a statistically invalid and unmeaningful sense. But it seems clear that the people on this site are not trying to use the word unfair to prove anything objectively about games but only as emotive language to try to describe their feeling. People often have a non-rational, statistically invalid sense of what is probable and statistically fair. That fact, while occassionally frustrating, is so common as to seem hardly worthy of needing it pointed out. As just one example, if people made decisions in a rational, statistically accurate manner no one would play the lottery since the roulette wheel offers a far, far better rate of return than does any state lottery.

What I find particularly ironic in this discussion is your use of the phrase "realistically would never happen." A phrase that is statistically invalid and unmeaningful because you are objectively, statistically wrong about the odds of high stats occurring over all D&D players. So I don't see where you have the grounds to complain about other people's definitional inaccuracies when you yourself are similarly inaccurate.

Backing up Bren's point, I did 5 runs of 5-player groups.

In 3 of the five groups, there was one person whose highest score was at least 4 points below the highest score of the rest of the group, which translates to a 20%+ greater chance of missing.

So, _realistically_, this is going to come up more often than not.

Bren, go read the thread again, and pay particular attention to the examples people used to show why they would feel cheated.  Then pick up a dictionary and realize that "I noticed the difference" does not mean the same thing as "I feel cheated/punished/gimped."

If someone is going to say they feel cheated/punished/gimped and uses an example that realistically never happens, then they need to evaluate the basis of their entire position.  Just like if I say I feel cheated and/or punished because someone else won the lottery and I chose to not even play.  "Realistically not going to happen" is a perfectly valid statement.  You don't go around wearing a helmet all day do you, because it will realistically never happen that someone hits you in the head with a rock.  So why would you complain about getting hit with a rock?  I'm guessing you don't.  I.e., rational people typically don't complain about something that realistically never happens.

Quote from: Will;801716Backing up Bren's point, I did 5 runs of 5-player groups.

In 3 of the five groups, there was one person whose highest score was at least 4 points below the highest score of the rest of the group, which translates to a 20%+ greater chance of missing.

So, _realistically_, this is going to come up more often than not.

This is all well and good, but has jack shit to do with the point of this thread.  That being, why would you feel gimped/cheated/punished for using array or point buy just because someone else wants to use random rolls?  None of your examples are comparing the average bonues of random rolls to those of non-random choices.

Quote from: Bren;801633What flavor cookie?

It was dark chocolate with pecan. I'm ashamed that I need to emphasize "was" in that sentence. Rain check!

Quote from: Bren;801633I didn’t answer that specifically – in fact nobody asked. But I have more than once mentioned that I prefer games with some variation between the PCs abilities, stats, etc. both as the GM and as a player. Also that I am often not bothered by significant differences in abilities, stats, etc. However, at some point, such differences can become too large to be viable as a game, plausible in the setting, or fun to play.

You answered the question of how/why some people do notice those differences, though.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801719This is all well and good, but has jack shit to do with the point of this thread.  That being, why would you feel gimped/cheated/punished for using array or point buy just because someone else wants to use random rolls?  None of your examples are comparing the average bonues of random rolls to those of non-random choices.

Huh? The point of the thread was 'why is it important because nobody will notice the difference in random generated scores.'

Since when was it comparing one person using point buy to another person using random.

And, heck, comparing the two is even worse, actually, because I can reliably have an 18 max score, if I want it, with point buy while in several examples people had high scores of 13-15.

Quote from: Will;801729Huh? The point of the thread was 'why is it important because nobody will notice the difference in random generated scores.'

Since when was it comparing one person using point buy to another person using random.

And, heck, comparing the two is even worse, actually, because I can reliably have an 18 max score, if I want it, with point buy while in several examples people had high scores of 13-15.

I went back and reread my OP, and I'll own up to that for not including non-random in it. My bad on that.  I guess after a few days later my mind shifted to the topic in general, and I'm sure the topic was shifted earlier in the thread re: random vs. non random.  I'm positive I had brought that up earlier, because usually when talking about being punished, it's in the context of why non-random is the only fair way to go so no one is gimped and/or punished.

Fair enough. The one guy with the 'high of 13' had a point total of 17, which is a full 10 points below standard point buy.

Now, in 5e, point buy doesn't go above 15. Which is a little weird, so at least it wouldn't be immediately noticeable.

But, of course, the standard point buy person has 5 ability score improvements worth of 'stuff' the lowbie doesn't have.


Flipping it around, if you are doing point buy and you max at 15, that guy with the 17 or 18 is going to have a leg up, particularly in a game with so little wiggle room elsewhere. That guy with the 18 has a lot more stuff, overall.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801719Bren, go read the thread again

Not unless you are going to pay me and I need at least 1/3 upfront before I start rereading.

But then I never said "notice" = "feel cheated." You were the one who made a big deal about how no one would notice things that people clearly do notice. If you don't notice of course you won't feel cheated. If one does notice, one may or may not feel the difference makes things unfun. If you think things are unfun, you may or may not describe that as "cheated" as opposed to just saying it sucks.

If someone is going to say they something will never realistically happen then they ought to be willing and able to show us the math to prove it. So show us your math.

Quote"Realistically not going to happen" is a perfectly valid statement.

It is. But not for the examples that are being cited. Show us the math to demonstrate the billions to one odds that would make your statement true instead of wrong.

And since you like analogies so much better than math, here is an analogy to your viewpoint on the probability of high stat differences occuring randomly based on your not noticing that it has happened. I have never fallen off a bicycle and hit my head. Would you say that no one should ever wear a bicycle helmet while cycling since falling and hitting your head is realistically never going to happen based on my experience? If not, why not?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;801238I've never once, in almost 35 years, seen a PC use our random roll method

It will help in understanding your position to know what method of random rolling your group is using and why your group chose such method.

Back in January '94 during the major snowstorm in the midwest.  The base I was at was shut down.  So there we were bored out of our minds, except us gamers we were happily playing some D&D(Undermountain).  We went through a number of semi-drunk people in the barracks wondering what we were doing and then asking to play.  Using the Dm's dice, one of those semi-drunk peeps rolled: 16,18,18,14,18,18 for stats. Didn't have a clue what he had done, but we spent an hour or more marveling about it.  The guy then proceeded to fail on (almost)every single d20 roll he had to make for the rest of the night.  He never came back.

Quote from: Will;801716Backing up Bren's point, I did 5 runs of 5-player groups.

In 3 of the five groups, there was one person whose highest score was at least 4 points below the highest score of the rest of the group, which translates to a 20%+ greater chance of missing.

So, _realistically_, this is going to come up more often than not.

Um... what? Are you even playing D&D?

A score 4 points below someone elses would translate to a -2 at best. Which is only a +10%.
Example, Say Kefra has a 12 STR and I have a 16, (Which our characters do currently) I  only have a +2 bonus over her. Which is a 10% better chance to whatever. Im sure Kefra is weeping at the unfairness of it... not.

... Yeah, you're right. Stupid kids and sleep deprivation.

Ok, it's not great (it's still two ability score bonuses difference), but it's not as terrible as I'd feared, in practice, in 5e.

Since I think Sacrosanct may have missed this, I'll reiterate more clearly:

After seeing ACTUAL NUMBERS (which I had to end up providing), I'm convinced that, in practice, 4d6 drop lowest provides close enough balance to use without significant problem and I wouldn't have a problem playing in such a game.

So hey, actual information and reasonable argument convinced me to change my views.


Thank you to all the folks who stepped in to engage rationally on the topic.

Quote from: Old One Eye;801776It will help in understanding your position to know what method of random rolling your group is using and why your group chose such method.

Stuff 3d6 up your butt and squeeze hard.

As to why, I got nothin'.

Quote from: Will;802779Since I think Sacrosanct may have missed this, I'll reiterate more clearly:

After seeing ACTUAL NUMBERS (which I had to end up providing), I'm convinced that, in practice, 4d6 drop lowest provides close enough balance to use without significant problem and I wouldn't have a problem playing in such a game.

So hey, actual information and reasonable argument convinced me to change my views.


Thank you to all the folks who stepped in to engage rationally on the topic.

And thanks to you for your examples; going back over the Star Wars game, if I hadn't been able to spend Force Points like water, that game would have sucked; with only a +1 on DEX and no other plusses, I'd have been always far inferior to characters with multiple, higher bonuses.  In a solo situation it wouldn't be as bad, but in a group it would be "stand back and let the real characters play."  Or else you're being dumb and not using the character with a decent chance of success.

IN SWd20 you can burn a Force Point and add a certain number of d6 to a d20 roll.  I don't remember the progression exactly, but I think that at about 9th or 10th level, I started adding 3d6 to a d20, which on the average adds a nice juicy +10.5, which SERIOUSLY affects how the game plays.

Quote from: Will;802779Since I think Sacrosanct may have missed this, I'll reiterate more clearly:

After seeing ACTUAL NUMBERS (which I had to end up providing), I'm convinced that, in practice, 4d6 drop lowest provides close enough balance to use without significant problem and I wouldn't have a problem playing in such a game.

My group splits the difference: everybody rolls 4d6/drop lowest, and if they don't like the results they can always opt to use the standard array instead.

Quote from: Old Geezer;802807

Quote from: Will;802779After seeing ACTUAL NUMBERS (which I had to end up providing), I'm convinced that, in practice, 4d6 drop lowest provides close enough balance to use without significant problem and I wouldn't have a problem playing in such a game.

So hey, actual information and reasonable argument convinced me to change my views.


Thank you to all the folks who stepped in to engage rationally on the topic.

And thanks to you for your examples; going back over the Star Wars game, if I hadn't been able to spend Force Points like water, that game would have sucked; with only a +1 on DEX and no other plusses, I'd have been always far inferior to characters with multiple, higher bonuses.  In a solo situation it wouldn't be as bad, but in a group it would be "stand back and let the real characters play."  Or else you're being dumb and not using the character with a decent chance of success.

IN SWd20 you can burn a Force Point and add a certain number of d6 to a d20 roll.  I don't remember the progression exactly, but I think that at about 9th or 10th level, I started adding 3d6 to a d20, which on the average adds a nice juicy +10.5, which SERIOUSLY affects how the game plays.

Changing opinions and new realizations about game play. Nice job you two. Sometimes exchanges of opinions and experiences on e-forums actually works. Sweet. :)

I've always valued an environment where I'm free to be wrong without people locking down into orthodoxy, and I'm quick to accept people going 'oh fuck, yeah, I'm wrong' without holding it against them (generally).

I think it might be a northeast cultural thing, maybe? Or something.

Yell at each other, have a beer, then weep over another beer and slap each other on the back and get on with it.

Quote from: will;802818yell at each other, have a beer, then weep over another beer and slap each other on the back and get on with it.

I love you, man!

(stupid board won't post all caps...)

Quote from: Old Geezer;802820I love you, man!

That was exactly my response. OH SHIT! I'm turning into an Old Geezer.