Why do you like rolling stats?

[Aavarius]

I'm starting up a regularly occurring game for a bunch of rookie players in a couple weeks. Teaching new people how to do a tabletop RPG is a passion of mine. The more people in the hobby the better, I say. It occurred to me that this might be a good opportunity to open my mind about something I've never been a fan of in many RPGs: rolling your core attributes. Not every game does this, of course, but there's a good chance we'll be playing a system that offers this.

I've always been much, much more attracted to every player getting the same starting point for their character, be it a point-buy or some other method. To me, the idea of rolling a character wildly different in power from others at the table isn't a fun. It's a disappointment, a disappointment you're stuck with for months of play time. I usually want all players to have the same starting opportunity. What they choose to do with that opportunity (optimal or not) is their call to make. Start off at the same line, then run the race how you want to.

I recognize that it's probably more realistic that some people are more exceptional than others. I also recognize that some people love the randomness and embrace it in their games. Far be it from me to tell somebody they're having fun wrong. More power to you out there who are this way.

So, for those of you who like rolling for your stats, I want to hear what makes it fun for you. Help me understand your joy. I'm not going to argue with any of you about it. And please, nobody else argue with them, either. I want no part of being inflammatory here. I'm just here to be open and try to learn.

Thank you ahead of time for sharing.

[matt_s]

in many old school systems

- your character will likely die soon anyways

- player skill matters a lot

- stat modifiers are compressed (18 is +2 or +3 instead of +4 as in dnd3.5e/5e) and some things don't actually depend on stats (certain skills: either you roll on an existing percentile table or it simply succeeds/fails, certain saves depending)

- GMs will let you mulligan garbo stat rolls anyways or the "random" rolls come with a free 14 or what have you (without numbers does this)

and also

- point buy/standard array are often "solved" problems: e.g. in dnd 15/15/15/8/8/8 is very strong and characters can feel "samey"

- many people also view rolling dice as ontologically good (they like clicky-clack!)

 

 

 

 

[Aavarius]

4 minutes ago, matt_s said:

- many people also view rolling dice as ontologically good (they like clicky-clack!)

That's a great way of putting that! 🤣
Ontology coupled with dice rolls was not on my bingo card.

Do you feel the pro-rolling view makes more sense with OSR (or actually old) games? Does it make less sense with more modern games and their different assumptions?

[matt_s]

13 minutes ago, Aavarius said:

Does it make less sense with more modern games and their different assumptions?

PC mortality in 5e is exceptionally low and attributes matter a ton so starting with +4 or even +5 at lvl 1 vs +3 or +2 is a huge deal and you are stuck with that variance the whole campaign.

In OSR games like WWN the math is squished (the whole 18 = +2 thing) and your character is likely not going to last too long.

I'm personally neutral to rolling vs array/point buy for old school systems especially with the "you rolled rubbish have a mulligan" backstop, definitely in favor of array/point buy for 5e.

 

 

[Aavarius]

Thank you for sharing. I had a feeling you would say the more modern attribute math would make point buy more desirable in those cases. That makes sense to me.

That being said, I am curious to hear from anyone who rolls when using a newer system's attribute bonus spread. What has your experience been?

This might be my bias showing, but in terms of Kevin Crawford's games, I do like the bonus progression in Godbound much, much better than the usual Without Numbers games, where the progression is very flat.

[cailano]

I like rolling attributes because it creates variety and avoids min/maxing. I like the lower power levels in old-school systems and adventuring parties made up of imperfect people who are either brave or crazy enough to take on a life of adventuring.
 

That said, one mechanic I like from modern systems is the way characters can improve their attributes as they level up. I incorporate that into all my campaigns now. What you get is characters that become more optimized over time.
 

OSR gamers tend to reject the idea of balance and fairness, though. We’re weird like that.
 

All the points above about the math in modern editions is valid. If I were running a Pathfinder game I’d use point buy, but I’d probably start with 15 points.

[Penchant]

I like rolling for stats because it's a sense of surprise and the unexpected. I think humans are hardwired to appreciate risk and seek the thrill of rolling those 18's. One method that I've used is to have all players roll a set and then the group decides which of those arrays for everyone to use. That way the party is still balanced and you still get the thrill of chance.

[Powderhorn]

I like rolling for stats, because that's what I cut my teeth on :D

All the other points above are valid, and I broadly agree with them. That said - for a new group of players who are unfamiliar with TTRPGs, I'd probably lean towards point buy, because you don't want them feeling like they're underpowered compared to whomever they're sitting next to.

Many of us here would fall under the "grognard" category. However, it's unreasonable to expect that of brand new people. (They'll see the light eventually ;) )

[Sellsword]

In old-school games (pre-3.5e) I like rolling stats. In anything 3.5e and beyond, I think the game is more mathematically-structured towards all players having certain bonuses in certain stats. I don't want to use the word "balanced", but the expectation is that characters will be a certain amount of good at the stuff they're good at.

I agree with everyone who said point buy creates "samey" kind of characters. More outcomes are decided by dice in 3.5e, 4e, 5e, so having bonuses in appropriate stat/skills is more important. Monsters are constructed assuming PCs will have certain levels of offense/defense. So point buy allows you to check those boxes to increase survivability, but it does mean that characters are going to look a lot alike.

Rolling stats is exciting. Most games I've run or played in have house rules for unplayable rolls--no one wants to play a character with penalties in every stat--but as others mentioned, the benefits for high stats and penalties for low stats are flatter than in more modern editions. I definitely reject the idea that characters won't "last long" in older editions--that's definitely subjective to the DM/group, but we've always approached character creation with campain longevity in mind.

I think the biggest difference for older editions is that the expectation is stats are rolled and that the character is constructed around them, whereas more modern editions tend to focus on choosing a class and building around it. You might want to play a paladin, but not get the rolls for it--so you look at ways to make a fighter that is more of a holy knight or cleric that's more martial. You have to make decisions based on what you rolled, not choose to "dump" stats to your paladin a better paladin.

[Aavarius]

As usual, this community doesn't fail to be awesome. Much of the feedback I'm getting is what I expected to hear, but getting it from the perspective of somebody who agrees with rolling attributes helps me better understand it from a point of view that's not my own. Ignoring my own bias is hard. I can't reasonably respond to every little thing said here, but her are a few choice picks to volley back across the discussion net.

 

8 hours ago, cailano said:

I like rolling attributes because it creates variety and avoids min/maxing. I like the lower power levels in old-school systems and adventuring parties made up of imperfect people who are either brave or crazy enough to take on a life of adventuring.
 

That said, one mechanic I like from modern systems is the way characters can improve their attributes as they level up. I incorporate that into all my campaigns now. What you get is characters that become more optimized over time.

I've always wanted characters to start with a minimum level of competence, then move in the direction of being super exceptional. The difference is that, the way I've been looking at it, they should begin a few steps out the starting gate at level 1. The wizard is already notably smart, the fighter is already notably tough, etc. They just get increasingly more so over time.

If I follow you correctly, you're saying that you enjoy the idea that (statistically speaking) nobody is likely to stand out much in terms of core attributes. Their chief heroic trait is just being on the adventure in the first place. They're heroes because they answered the call, not because they began the story stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, etc.

 

4 hours ago, Penchant said:

One method that I've used is to have all players roll a set and then the group decides which of those arrays for everyone to use. That way the party is still balanced and you still get the thrill of chance.

That's a great compromise between the two paradigms, IMO. Thank you for sharing that.

 

3 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

I like rolling for stats, because that's what I cut my teeth on :D

I can understand that. I got my start in the middle 90s in the latter years of AD&D 2nd Edition--the black hardback covers. It's funny how my sensibilities when it comes to gaming have changed over time. Back then I wouldn't have batted an eye at getting a character with 9s in his best stats. Now... man, that hurts just thinking about it.

Maybe that's just a symptom of the kinds of RPGs I'm playing today rather than back then.

 

3 hours ago, Sellsword said:

Rolling stats is exciting.

You know, that's probably true. I shouldn't discount the sheer, simple fun of it either. As long as people are enjoying the bones hitting the table then that should probably be a factor in whether to do it or not.

---

Further thoughts:

I didn't intend to make this discussion principally a comparison of Old/OSR vs. Modern...but I suppose it's a natural place for it to go, considering.

On the subject of "samey" characters, I was one of the people that actually enjoyed 4th Edition D&D when it was current. Samey was most definitely a valid criticism of that edition. As a 4E-enjoyer, even I felt that sometimes when playing. Class-to-class, there was a lot of similar structure between that contributed to that. E.g. the wizard and the fighter both followed the same at-will, encounter, daily, utility power progression. At one point I heard somebody comment, "Rogues are just wizards. Wizards with knives."

In the context of other modern editions (like 5th) I also recognize that's a valid criticism. Within a class there is definitely a tendency for being samey. E.g. All clerics are likely to have basically the same statline (high Wis, mid Str and Con) regardless of build. If you're doing a cleric a different way there's an argument (even if I don't agree with it) that you're "doing it wrong."

I'm curious to hear from you stat rollers, do you feel the "samey" criticism goes the other way as well? I.e. if the dice tend to produce average results, then what you get is average characters. Nobody stands out much very often, so all these old school characters tend to be just as samey as a modern point-buy character--just in a different way.

I'm definitely not trying to instigate an edition war here. I'm just acknowledging that even things I have loved have flaws.

 

 

[cailano]

I think we're good as far as warring goes. I've heard a couple of people who REALLY don't like rolling stats and get a little emotional about the idea but most people are only a little to one side of the fence or the other. I've played in and even run games that use either method, it's ultimately not that big of a deal (or at least it shouldn't be.)

2 hours ago, Aavarius said:

 

...If I follow you correctly, you're saying that you enjoy the idea that (statistically speaking) nobody is likely to stand out much in terms of core attributes. Their chief heroic trait is just being on the adventure in the first place. They're heroes because they answered the call, not because they began the story stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, etc.

 

 

 

 

It's not that they won't stand out, necessarily. In a group of six PCs you're going to have at least a couple of them be a little tougher than average. It depends on the GM. For example, I let players re-roll if the sum of their attribute bonuses is less than +1.

But I love the origins of RPGs and how they started as wargames. Players looked at the foot soldiers and then at the hero characters and realized that the latter must have started as one of the former. What did the journey between look like? Throw in some Conan, Dying Earth, Elric, and Lord of the Rings, and bam, you have an amazing hobby.

I love that journey, so I like first level characters to essentially be that random foot soldier, wannabe tomb robber, or wizard's apprentice. Then we get to watch them grow (btw folks, if that sounds fun to you, I'm recruiting for a game right now.)

[MrAndrewJ]

There was a thread posted here in November: https://www.myth-weavers.com/index.php?/topic/13775-do-most-people-prefer-rolling-or-point-buys-for-ability-scores/

My personal preference is that it depends on the game and the group. Point buy is fine for lighter, more social games. It can also help inspire actual dramatic improvisation.

Sometimes I also appreciate point based generation. There was a time I could print up a Vampire: the Masquerade sheet and have one filled out in minutes.

In either case, the best scenario is that everyone is on board. I prefer it when the group has fun together.

[Roughtrade]

I don’t.

[Roughtrade]

Expanding

 

My point of view has always been this. When Robert E Howard started writing Conan stories, he didn’t roll random dice and hope for a fighter. When Dumas wrote the Three Musketeers, he didn’t hope D’artagnon rolled high Dexterity. When I create a character, I want to plan what it is, not hope I get something that can eventually work out.

 

Can I play a random rolled character? Sure.
It’s fun for a one shot game at a convention or the like. But I’ve been there and done that enough times over two and a half plus decades. For anything longer than an afternoon, I prefer to have a plan.

 

For Play-by-Post, it’s even more important. Look at the games on the old site that insist on random rolled characters and count how many players roll dice and then say “nope” and never post again.

[cybersavant]

rolling feels more like a game, point buy feels more like math class

 

i hate cookie cutter characters - i guess i favor more of the middle ground (A)D&D editions - where you can add variety, make your character more unique and different

 

the very early versions, and from what i hear the latter as well, are less variable - in the older games, the only thing making characters unique was their stats - all thieves had the same skills, the same progression, ditto for fighters; clerics and wizards had slight differences by spells

 

point by encourages min maxing - optimizing stereotypical qualities; and even with spells - most players takes the same few basic spells every time

( just my perception )

 

rolling plays up the excitement of chance/ of the gamble - what will i get

as an experienced player - what character can i make of these rolls - sometimes that pushes me out of my usual choice and i try something new - usually i like that, sometime i don't - but it was my choice, not dictated by some rule