Rolled Stats Are Better

>>49044746
You're entitled to this opinion. I, personally, find random rolls constricting. On the other hand, I tend to play exactly one campaign in any given system and have an idea for what I'd like going in. If I only get one shot, I'd like to play an effective version of my character concept. If I played a lot of games in one system, or if the system was built around it, I could certainly see how rolled stats could give a more dynamic start or breathe new life into a tired game.

>>49044746

What >>49045026 said. Random roll-and-keep is for a very different style of play. If you walk in willing to make anything, and minimal character attachment is a positive (grindy dungeon crawler), then random roll does just fine. It's also advantageous for speedy character creation. If you walk in the door with a character concept, however, a randomized statblock may never meet the threshold necessary to effectively make that character. As you've shown, playing the least restrictive of concepts - vanilla Fighter - can mesh just fine, but by RAW you're not making a Paladin, the end. Also, in a system where suboptimal play is punished, the lack of agency baked into creation will frustrate and turn off the unlucky.

For every random roll success story, I have two of early-game suicide chains in an attempt to actually make the character you want instead of the one the dice handed you.

>>49044746
>guys, rolling stats is superior
>proceeds to give a superficial accessories to a character
>thisisrealroleplay.jpg
You gave the lamest excuse for a reason to roll stats possible, and proceeded to ignore how you will eventually die to a basic poison before level 5 and get a new chance for stat rolls to swing wildly the other direction.

Plenty of games do really well with rolled stats, and a lot don't. Most modern games use a stat array of some kind because it is mechanics that mean little to a character and the designers needed more balanced stats. Some games are like RuneQuest 6 where roles stats can hurt but don't outright cripple a character who can find ways to improve the area's he is really weak. It depends on how robust a system is to asymmetric balance.

>>49045154

Everything you said is true, I would only add that

>If you walk in the door with a character concept,

These folks are frequently awful. Many are nerds too attached to their concept who end up trying to make the game about them.

>For every random roll success story, I have two of early-game suicide chains in an attempt to actually make the character you want instead of the one the dice handed you.

This is just evidence for that. Bringing the game down by killing the character you don't want to get to play the one you do want, instead of either asking the table if it's cool if they swap some stats or reroll, or else putting their concept on the shelf for another day.

>>49046045
op here. i'd like to disclaim that ive played both ways, and I find that the pre-made concept becomes the main priority in the players mind; abopve and beyond playing cohesively with other players[or characters] and above the flow of the game.

i include myself in these players.

i should also note that i have a fairly common house rule/optional rule from early rpgs; the innkeeper rule. if a character lacks a single stat above 12 OR has more than 2 stats below 9, they can name it and turn it over as a potential npc to the gm.

>>49044746
Don't get too attached to Lothar. Con 5 in 2e means his chances of being successfully resurrected even once are slim.

That was the point of rolled 3d6 stats, use the bell curve to not have anything too extreme, hit the dungeon running, wipe, roll new, try again until random success, then call it a satisfying session. A good game for its time, considering the alternative was a game called "take turns kicking each other in the nuts as hard as you can until someone gives up because it's so satisfying when you finally stop"

>>49046925
there's one thing you're not accounting for when it comes to this character; resurrections are for people who die.

besides, if anyone is going to get fucked its the gnome thief who got 2 fingers cut off today.

>>49044746
Did you use 3d6 straight down like an idiot? AD&D should be 4d6k3 arrange. 3d6 down the line is for OD&D and Basic.

>>49047078
method 1 in generating ability scores. 3d6 straight down. i let the player do 3d6 arrange.

even when i allow arrange in my pre-3.0 games, 3 is the number though shalt roll, and the number though shalt roll shall be 3.

>>49047078

Eh, you can do it in AD&D, but yeah, it makes the game much more lethal.

(I've rolled a 5 on a 4d6k3 before)

>>49047117

That's method 1 in 2e, but Gygax recommended 4d6k3 for AD&D, even in the 1e days. Characters rolled that way are more survivable in the long term, because AD&D puts more emphasis on attributes than OD&D or Basic. (But still not as much as 3e+).

>>49047117
>method 1 in generating ability scores.
>actually using Method I
>not using vastly superior Method V
The only reason 3d6 is Method I in 2e (and only 2e) is for improved compatibility with Basic. They didn't change the point at which your ability scores start really mattering to account for the decreased average.

File: card draw or random array.png (310KB, 1696x2502px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1696x2502px

>>49044746
Random but equal is the way to go.

>>49044746

Rolled stats worked back then because unless you rolled really well or really bad, you didn't really get a significant bonus for it.

Nowadays though, the difference between a +2 and a +4 is so vast, you might as well retire the character and hope you roll better next time if you're planning on being useful.

>>49047027

>5 CON
>Not dying

Pick one.