Why do you like rolling stats?

[leons1701]

8 hours ago, cybersavant said:

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

 

Somewhat true. Stats did a LOT less than you might think, mechanically there was next to no difference between Doofus the Nearly Useless with every stat at 8 and Sir Somewhat Exceptional who's every stat was 14.

You are right in that modern D&D encourages certain "builds" more than it probably should. Though really, that's primarily a 3.5/Pathfinder 1/4e problem due to the creation of a LOT of seriously inferior choices and a few standout options, not so much point buy. Even if you roll stats, that can only sometimes make weaker options competitive by rolling really well, otherwise the characters still tend to fall into the common builds because power attacking with a two handed weapon works and sword and board mostly doesn't.

[Powderhorn]

9 hours ago, cybersavant said:

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

My read on this was that you're referencing the "Kits" of AD&D 2e? I'm hoping so - it was and remains my favorite feature of the rules set. Sometimes I even think about writing a kit book for WWN :D

[Bobcloclimar]

1 hour ago, Powderhorn said:

Sometimes I even think about writing a kit book for WWN :D

<curiosity piqued> Would these kits be written as partial classes, or a different mechanism entirely?

 

On-topic, I started in the 3.x era and did point-buy for years. I got tired of it for two reasons: My scores tended to be very samey (I naturally minmax, so there would always be an optimal array to use at any point level), and I started burning out on a character concept first and buying stats to fit into the concept. Rolling stats help mitigate these in the same way that rolling for character background on a random table does - it helps foster my creativity by adding constraints. I haven't bought into the "surviving with a truly random character helps build attachment to it" mentality others have brought up here, but I may once I've played more of those styles of games. I do agree that it feels bad to have a huge mechanical malus from rolling poorly, which makes it harder to want to play with a set of bad rolls - I don't have a real solution for that other than rolling on a table for an array instead of rolling each stat individually.

 

Ironically, my other preferred game at this point is GURPS, which is one of the poster children for point buy optimization...

[Powderhorn]

2 minutes ago, Bobcloclimar said:

<curiosity piqued> Would these kits be written as partial classes, or a different mechanism entirely?

Probably Foci, the same way races are done. But then, at that point, you're just looking at essentially writing more Foci which don't have to be tied to character creation. Dunno, it's something I chew on from time to time.

[MrAndrewJ]

11 hours ago, cybersavant said:

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

I love having this experience, too. It doesn't feel like ceding control to the dice. It feels like being gifted with a new set of possibilities.

Again, it comes down to different play styles, reasons for playing, and even expectations of each table.

[Choomie]

TL;DR: Like other users have said, the randomness helps me to 'see' who the character is and can inspire me to step out of my comfort zone to try something new.

I do apologize since my response is kind of all over the place.

I appreciate TTRPGs for their narrative qualities. As a player, I always focus on story and flavor over mechanics. I've never really embraced TTRPGs as games, I've always enjoyed them as collaborative writing projects. I'm not saying that's how they're defined, or should be viewed, just how I enjoy them. The numbers, stats, and mechanics inform me of who the character is. I think that their imperfections make for a more interesting story. It could maybe prompt more teamwork or collaboration. Because I view these as characters in a story more, I find them more compelling when they have struggles. And it's true, it can be frustrating if your character is really, really poorly done. I made the wrong type of character for a dungeon crawl and I don't think I ever had a good roll in combat (but I also could not help roll natural 1s, apparently). I felt like I wasn't contributing to the story and I really didn't enjoy myself.

There's a danger to fully embracing randomness, as your character's incompetence or difficulties could cost the party the game or quest or mission. And while I may enjoy the game for the story, others may enjoy the game part in equal measure if not more, and now they're robbed of the experience. I think the balance with random stats is still making a coherent and competent character mechanically. Doesn't have to be 'optimized', or dare I say 'meta-gamed'. Personally, I never try to min max because in my experience at tables, those kinds of characters have not been very fun to game with or play around. At the same time, I stick very closely to what Stats mean, how they're defined in rule books. I remember getting into an enormous argument with another player in a Pathfinder discord about this, because I was somewhat critical about someone who drops intelligence to gain strength but still wants to be an intelligent person. But representation of mechanics in story is off-topic and this has already become a ramble.

[Aavarius]

Thank you for the continued feedback everyone. A few things I'd like to respond to.

 

14 hours ago, leons1701 said:

Somewhat true. Stats did a LOT less than you might think, mechanically there was next to no difference between Doofus the Nearly Useless with every stat at 8 and Sir Somewhat Exceptional who's every stat was 14.

You are right in that modern D&D encourages certain "builds" more than it probably should. Though really, that's primarily a 3.5/Pathfinder 1/4e problem due to the creation of a LOT of seriously inferior choices and a few standout options, not so much point buy. Even if you roll stats, that can only sometimes make weaker options competitive by rolling really well, otherwise the characters still tend to fall into the common builds because power attacking with a two handed weapon works and sword and board mostly doesn't.

Yes, it's true that older editions had little mechanical difference as you went up and down the 3-18 range. It seems to me that by the time the 3rd edition era came out, the designers were specifically addressing this by making the new ability modifier mechanic go up every other number. Did the correction go too far? Personally, I don't think so, but I do agree with Leons here in that modern editions sometimes have the problem of other class features having clearly superior options, which encourages a "right" way of making a character for optimization's sake. Game balance is hard to do, it turns out. I also agree that this optimization encouragement isn't a symptom of the ability score modifier being what they became.

But on the specific issue of little mechanical difference, doesn't this mean that older edition characters are already naturally "samey" by sheer virtue of the flatter ability score power progression? It seems like these editions have the same basic problem as modern editions, the difference being that the source of the "sameyness" is different.

 

23 hours ago, cybersavant said:

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 )

7 hours ago, Choomie said:

At the same time, I stick very closely to what Stats mean, how they're defined in rule books. I remember getting into an enormous argument with another player in a Pathfinder discord about this, because I was somewhat critical about someone who drops intelligence to gain strength but still wants to be an intelligent person. But representation of mechanics in story is off-topic and this has already become a ramble.

On a related note, I don't agree with the sentiment expressed in here that point buy encourages min/maxing. Absolutely, it enables it, to be sure. But encourages it? I don't think so. I think Choomie has it right here. We seem to agree that interpreting what those numbers mean is very important. An average intelligence of 10-11 means something, and if you're building a character with an intelligence lower than that then you're saying your character is below average intelligence.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But whatever stat you choose to dump, the roleplaying should reflect that accordingly. That feels a lot more like roleplaying than min/maxing to me.

 

11 hours ago, MrAndrewJ said:

I love having this experience, too. It doesn't feel like ceding control to the dice. It feels like being gifted with a new set of possibilities.

You know what, I can appreciate this. It's a good attitude to have. In a vacuum, I'd have to say that I completely agree with it. Unfortunately, as a player I'm still left disappointed when the player next to me is playing an obviously mechanically superior character because he happened to get lucky. It feels like my new set of possibilities is sub par.

But I get it. I really do. I just struggle to think of my play experience independently of the table and players around me. And that may be an Aavarius problem, not anybody else's issue to deal with.

[cybersavant]

18 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

My read on this was that you're referencing the "Kits" of AD&D 2e? I'm hoping so - it was and remains my favorite feature of the rules set. Sometimes I even think about writing a kit book for WWN :D

 

yes, big fan of the 2e kits [ and proficiencies ], and of Pf 1e archetypes; and i'd buy those WWN kits [ for the world i'm developing, i added a human origin package level1 only, and everyone will get 1 origin level free ( development currently on hiatus ) above what the rules state ]

 

and this hasn't been discussed - but regarding random stats - there's too rigid - roll in order, and i agree there should be an out for a very low set of rolls

 

what do you think or variants, such as roll 7x for 6 stats, or roll 5 take best 3, or roll 2d6, add to base #, etc

[rorytheromulan]

Beyond the excitement, there is a chance you could end up with some really, really good results that you won't get in RAW with point-buy. There's risk and reward. I greatly prefer ability penalties too. How are you gonna get a kobold that's as strong as an ogre, just from assigning points? Eww.

At the same time, you may reach a point where you're just tired of rolling and go with the standard array, and that's cool too.

[Basil_Bottletop]

I haven't had a chance to read through the two pages of responses yet, but I saw the OP and thought I'd add my two cents. I'm guessing by now, it's something that echoes other's sentiments and isn't unique to my experiences with tabletop games.

There's something inherently fun about creating something within a set of parameters for me. I don't work very well in a vacuum when it comes to creation both as a player and a GM, but if I have some kind of invisible fence to keep me grounded I can typically get that burn to put my spin on an expected result. It's to that point that I've actually gotten a little disappointed with my live games and their session zeroes. I'm so used to the Game Ad setup on MW now that when a new game is going to start in Real Life, I want there to be a bunch of information I can finger through to see if I can latch onto something. The same thing with rolling dice. I want to roll so that I can see what I'm working with in regards to expectations of competency.

I know there is some talk in this thread about how modifiers have slowly shifted between AD&D to 5e, to PF, etc. I'll have to default to the Mathy Mathersons on that one. We -as creators- often have ideas about what a -1 or a +3 modifier should feel like with our characters. This personal vibe carries through with our concepts too. If I'm rolling and I end up with two significantly lower rolls, I might be tempted to shape those into character traits that I haven't used before, or just up-play the need to overcompensate for them. I could do that with point buy too, but I'm less likely to hamstring my concept as quickly.

[Powderhorn]

Another idea pointed out is just what method of rolling you use:

3d6, in order are RAW for WWN (you can substitute one out for a 14 if you choose this, and there are tables you roll on afterwards that may subsequently increase them more), but are very different than the 4d6v1 (four d6, drop the lowest), assign as desired that we often used in AD&D.

That said too - anyone who played any of the original Baldur's Gate games, or Icewind Dale, and tells me they didn't keep clicking re-roll for their character to get juicier and juicier stats is definitely outside of the experiences I and friends had :D

[cailano]

3 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

That said too - anyone who played any of the original Baldur's Gate games, or Icewind Dale, and tells me they didn't keep clicking re-roll for their character to get juicier and juicier stats is definitely outside of the experiences I and friends had :D

I walk the walk in the Infinity Engine games! I only re-roll if I get under 75 points, which isn't common at all.

Then, I play using Core Rules, as Crom intended.

And it's just stupidly hard, haha.

[Powderhorn]

90+ or bust! :D

[Bobcloclimar]

6 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

 

That said too - anyone who played any of the original Baldur's Gate games, or Icewind Dale, and tells me they didn't keep clicking re-roll for their character to get juicier and juicier stats is definitely outside of the experiences I and friends had :D

Or anyone who didn't use the "adjust attributes" feature in the Gold Box games to max all their stats.

[Aavarius]

16 hours ago, cybersavant said:

what do you think or variants, such as roll 7x for 6 stats, or roll 5 take best 3, or roll 2d6, add to base #, etc

These are good variants, in my opinion. The last one is probably my favorite.

 

2 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

90+ or bust! :D

I'm guilty.