Do most people prefer rolling or point buys for ability scores?

[ABlotOfInk]

I think rolling is a treat sometimes just because doing point buy gets you the same spread over and over and over again. If I had to only ever pick one to do, I think yeah I'd do point-buy just because it's the most fair and effective of the two, but man sometimes it's fun to get the thrill of rolling them and having a wildly different spread than you have had a million times in the past. Problem with rolling though is it really can break 5e's bounded accuracy/ac at low levels. Less of a big deal at high levels but a level 1 campaign with rolled stats will probably have to pump up the difficulty a bit.

I've heard of DMs also having all players roll a stat spread and then having them choose ONE of the generated spreads for everyone to use, but never actually done this myself. Solves the issue of unfair differences between players due to good/bad luck.

[TheFred]

18 hours ago, cailano said:

I don't like point buy because so many of the characters end up the same. Here's a fighter for you:

Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 10 Wis: 10 Cha: 8
 

So, it's better if players do that, but some players just get a worse version of that? 🤨

Players are still free to choose the classes they want, the feats they want, whatever, but their stats and only their stats have to be randomised?

Is there actually anything wrong with every Fighter looking the same? And if so, perhaps it's the system that means there's an optimal choice, and no real benefit for deviating from it. If you really want people to create randomised characters all the time you can do that but, personally, in a storytelling game, I like some agency to actually tell the story I want, not be forced into something just because of some dice.

[Stygian]

3 hours ago, TheFred said:

So, it's better if players do that, but some players just get a worse version of that? 🤨

Players are still free to choose the classes they want, the feats they want, whatever, but their stats and only their stats have to be randomised?

Is there actually anything wrong with every Fighter looking the same? And if so, perhaps it's the system that means there's an optimal choice, and no real benefit for deviating from it. If you really want people to create randomised characters all the time you can do that but, personally, in a storytelling game, I like some agency to actually tell the story I want, not be forced into something just because of some dice.

I think you’re actually making a case for randomized stats here, not against. I’ve rarely seen DMs who don’t allow point buy or standard array if a player absolutely insists—but there is absolutely a problem when an array pigeonholes you into being awful in one particular facet of your character, with no exceptions, ever. You will always be at a deficit in one area—not charismatic, not intelligent, not very sensible—etc.

[Vladim]

The thing with rolled abilities is that one invariably gets the applicants that roll stats, and they end up low, so they don't bother finishing their apps. As a GM at least, I'd like better selection criteria than "got not terribly unlucky when rolling ability scores".

[TheFred]

Exactly, it makes even less sense when you've a bunch of applicants, and one player just gets really bad stats.

It's like sitting down to a game and saying "OK folks, create your characters, make whatever you want... except you, Bob, your character has to be an idiot. I don't care that you were going to play the party Wizard, tough luck".

Giving a point-buy as a fallback is kinda silly too IMO; then only the people who roll good stats keep the stats, so you've a point buy game except some people random have a dollop of extra power for no real reason. That's almost as bad as having some people randomly suck for no real reason.

[Talya]

One player rolling really good stats is the same thing as a player rolling really bad.

 

If the dice gods make one character superior, it automatically makes everyone else inferior.

 

Ability scores are actually the only place I feel everyone needs to start on a level playing field, because everything else is the player's choice. I like systems that allow for a lot of customization and optimization, balance is a trap. For your build to matter, it has to have the potential to improve or degrade your ability. But dice rolls are random. There will if he no randomness in the strength of a build.

[cailano]

14 hours ago, Vladim said:

The thing with rolled abilities is that one invariably gets the applicants that roll stats, and they end up low, so they don't bother finishing their apps. As a GM at least, I'd like better selection criteria than "got not terribly unlucky when rolling ability scores".

Your point is valid, although I consider it a good selection criterion (not the luck part).

[cailano]

20 hours ago, TheFred said:

So, it's better if players do that, but some players just get a worse version of that? 🤨

... I like some agency to actually tell the story I want, not be forced into something just because of some dice.

You hit the nail on the head. Some players prefer to bring to life a pre-conceived idea they have in mind before character creation. I like to see their creativity revealed by what the dice tell them. But then, I'm the sort of gamer who thinks "backstory" is what happens between level 1 and level 5.

You say "forced," but I would like to say "inspired."

[cybersavant]

random rolls, with a smidge of leeway - maybe it's cause i'm old and started playing that way?

if you doing 3d6 in order - well, no

 

point buy make everyone equal = no, it doesn't unless you're all playing the same race and class

rolling gives you the chance to create a memorable character - if you have less than optimum abilities, you have to think more to survive, right?

point buy leans too much into min/max playing the same character with a different name

 

try Traveller some time - the original, where you can DIE during character creation

it's still a fun game, and i have died

 

i rarely play characters like bards or charismatics; but if i roll that stat high, then it's a challenge, a refreshing change

if people drop a game because they rolled low, well then, that sets of alarm bells for their play style, and i don't want them in my game anyway, do you?

[Eagleheart]

I think it somewhat depends on the system. If you roll a spread of 8, 10, 7, 12, 9, 11 for a Pathfinder character (I have seen it happen) that character is simply going to be useless until they die. Remember most of these are team games, and having a useless party member is not conducive to a team game.

Obviously the GM and house rules are also a factor. Most GMs would allow a spread like the one above to be rerolled. But that particular GM was very stubborn.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Eagleheart (see edit history)

[Eric]

With the more modern systems, the increased importance of mechanical numbers also drives the need for “equal”/“fair” score distribution. Player creativity often trumped mechanics in the older editions.

[Primeval Stasis]

38 minutes ago, Eric said:

With the more modern systems, the increased importance of mechanical numbers also drives the need for “equal”/“fair” score distribution. Player creativity often trumped mechanics in the older editions.

Is that a pitch to get me to try older editions? 😏

[Talya]

9 hours ago, Eric said:

With the more modern systems, the increased importance of mechanical numbers also drives the need for “equal”/“fair” score distribution. Player creativity often trumped mechanics in the older editions.

Just to be clear ... You have to go back to AD&D at least for this to be true. 3.x/pf, you are your abilities.

 

I'm not sure if that's true for AD&D, I know it is for 3.x. So your modem systems start at least 23 years ago.

 

(I'm not objecting per se. You're just making me feel young again.)

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Talya (see edit history)

[leons1701]

The weird thing about AD&D stats is that they absolutely didn't matter most of the time because they fell into the chasm of stats that do absolutely nothing which for most stats was anything from 7-14. But when they DID matter, they were huge. Just ask anyone stuck playing fighter with 15 Str while his lucky buddy was rocking an 18. Or, for an actual example from a roll down the line game, stuck playing a Wis 9, Int 6 cleric because his Dex of 5 meant that was the only legal class. But at least his Str and Con were ALMOST good enough to have bonuses.

From that, you might guess that I hate rolled stats, and that's not a bad guess, but wrong. I hate overly strict rolling systems and systems in which most rolls just don't matter, until they really, really do. I've rolled stats for 5e, ended up with a Str 7 paladin that runs on a Dex build and likes to joke about the typical image of paladins as "Sir Clanks a Lot". Not a character I might have built, but one that's been fun to play. I generally prefer point buy, but as long as rolled stats don't hammer me into playing a bad character, I'm willing to go that way.

[Suzuki Stumpy]

I've always preferred a system whereby I roll one extra die per stat that I need to roll up and drop the lowest roll. Then, after rolling for all stats, assign the rolled values as I see fit. That way, I get the best of all worlds - truly randomised rolls, but way less chance of rolling a crappy stat that's going to either seriously disadvantage me in play, or mean that I toss the character and start again.

Of course, it doesn't totally negate the chance of a crappy stat, but that then leads to roleplay opportunities down the line ...