Is rolling for stats bullshit? Seeing how stats are one of the

>>52647086
>Is rolling for stats bullshit?
Yes. Yes it is. Any DM that argues for the ''fun'' factor'' is a dumb fucktard.

Yeah I'm my campaigns I use modified point buy where you scrap the score and everything uses the modify er
So they start at 0 can and the total cannot exceed 4 allowing them to dip into other skills as dump stats

Even if stats WEREN'T very important, picking a few numbers is the easiest part of character creation.
You know what's hard? Personality traits. There ought to be a random chart for those in every game.

>>52647086

I am divided on this. On the one hand, I greatly appreciate the uniqueness and need to adapt that comes with random, or mostly random, stats.

On the other hand, I have noticed the grumbling and general saltiness that can brew within a group as one player rolls significantly better than another.

At the end of the day, I think I favour point buy.

>>52647086
I allow someone to re-roll a bad array (as in 10s across the board) provided they are forced to re-roll all stats

having unnaturally good stats will be re-rolled if both DM or player agree, or he is hobbled with an additional downside to make things fun

>>52647177
> wow I rolled pretty good
> yeah nice! btw since you did too well do you prefer to reroll or take a penalty?

Surely won't go wrong!

>>52647086
Rolling for stats came about during a time when having the majority of possible rolls did next to nothing for every character, with a few stats being better to have higher for certain classes.

It also was a time when dungeon crawls were the norm, and it wasn't unusual to have meat grinder or no-story games where your characters didn't matter at all. If your campaign ended up going well, many DMs included ways of increasing your stats anyway. Hell, even Baldur's Gate has all books for every stat, and multiple for wisdom.

>>52647086
Whoever tells you that "rolling prevents cheating" is an idiot
Whoever tells you randomising the most important character element is "fun" is an idiot
Whoever tells you "but that's what original D&D had, it surely must be good then" is an idiot.

Rolling for stats and generally rolling to randomise your own character defeats the whole purpose, as you end up with a semi-playable (or outright unplayable) character you didn't want to play in the first place, but it was better to make a barbarian with those rolls than the bard you were planning to do.

Rolling for stats works in one and ONE GENRE ONLY - horror games. Everywhere else it's a stupid design mistake inherited from completely different era of playing, when "RPG" was pretty much equal with "that minature game where you fight dragons" and the idiots in tune of modern "git gud" pushed random stats into it.

>>52647197
the downside is agreed upon between the DM and player, something that will prevent someone from making all encounters trivial for everyone else

the operative word, of course, is agreed upon, the game is collaborative, and a player refusing to give an inch for anyone else is a red flag in itself

and if worse comes to worse there is always "bad luck", where the most powerful player takes his time hacking and slashing monsters, while everybody else actually does important things

i cant speak for others, but my players have a lot of fun as they see the flaw they are dealt as a hilarious character trait, rather than as a purely negative feature

>>52647202
This is a good post.

OD&D, your stats barely matter. They sorta matter for skill rolls (since you are rolling under) where each stat is point is 5% more chance of success, but you aren't really meant to do that too often. But otherwise you are very unlikely to get anything aside from a +/- 1.

And there's some ways they are "forced" to matter, like stat requirements and XP bonuses, but they are kinda silly and have been eliminated since.

If you want to generate a character randomly in modern D&D (& spinoffs), where stats actually matter quite a bit, roll random race/class combo. Or randomize an array. Defending random stat rolling as "it forces you to be creative with character building" is trash when those much more interesting options exist.

>>52647086
Not really. It has more to do with players today, more than ever, being focused on absolute control over their game and characters. There is certain charm in playing whatever your stats let you play, but I understand perfectly most people come into a game with an idea of what they want to play and will stick to that.

File: dnd6e.jpg (140KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 720x720px

>>52647086
It depends. If the GM is the kind of person who likes to make players roll over every little thing, then yeah I'd say it's bullshit because one player could just sit there and not be able to make any roll the GM throws at him. If the GM is the kind of person who will let a couple of rolls slide in favor of good roleplaying then I'd say it's great because it can help you to flesh out your character by playing into the strengths and weaknesses in the stats. The player should be allowed a mulligan and be allowed to reroll everything again as long as the second roll is accepted regardless.

>>52647086

Depends on the player. I personally will take what I get my way. One time in a Hackmaster game I ended up with an array of single digits except for somehow one of the rolls being a lucky 18.

I chose to play a magical malnourished autistic Steven Hawking. But i'd understand if people would want a play a bit more a well rounded character that can contribute a little bit to any task or challenge if needed.

>b-but it can lead to bad stats

People always assume their characters are actually GOOD at their job.

>>52647086
>Is rolling for stats bullshit?
I'd say so, but I can understand wanting more randomness in character creation.
There's nothing really wrong with it if everyone's on board with the idea, but it's not something I'd like to use on a general basis. Seems like it would be a better fit for a oneshot over a full campaign.

I can sorta appreciate the novelty for one time games to create a sort of "roleplaying outside your expectations" challenge but even in that scenario its better to have a pool of premades and to roll randomly to see which one you get, as that way the personality and traits you have to try to show are random too.

>>52647086
Not really. It's just like real life. Your genes are a crapshot inherited from your parents plus random mutations. As such, you can say it's more realistic.

>>52647310
If they aren't good at it, what the hell are they doing campaigning? Unless this is a horror campaign (as another anon suggested) this idiot would be better farming potatoes than trying to explore dungeons.

Suppose you have a party with a guy with 18 in every attribute, another with 3 in every attribute. The guy with 3 will be obsolete in almost every encounter. Without adding the fact that in world that guy is unbelievable weak, dumb, stupid, frail, clumsy and repulsive. It would be better for him to commit suicide and recruit a normal human with 10s.

>>52647086
You just have to use a proper rolling system.
For dnd, 3d6 anything below 8 is fixed to 8 and anything above 16 is fixed to 16 works wonders. I've had maybe a bit over 20 player characters rolled in campaigns like this across several editions, and they've all been fine.

Generally speaking, I feel like these groups have had a bit more fun at character creation than my point buy groups.

>>52647439
>Generally speaking, I feel like these groups have had a bit more fun at character creation than my point buy groups.

Which is sort of a who cares thing.

Unless your character creation session take a significant amount of time compared to the actual playtime of the campaign...

Oh, you were playing 3.5, weren't you?

>>52647090
This. The only system where I think rolling for stats is acceptable is Call of Cthulhu, and even then its still a little iffy.

>>52647459
I've GM'd a couple of 3.5e games but I moved on to 4e briefly, then back to a retroclone and later on 5e+a retroclone.

In either case, having fun at character creation generally makes for better characters which makes for a better campaign down the line.
I like to spend a normal session with character creation / background interweaving and introductions.

>>52647374
While it's realistic in real life, it's also realistic that a subpar dude wouldn't be the one chosen to kill the red dragon.

So if you 'birth' character with bad genes, the correct thing is to retire him and then keep 'birthing' until a character with good genes is born.

>>52647086
>Is rolling for stats bullshit?
Depends on the system. Not every game is as focused on combat as D&D, and because of that imbalance between character stats aren't as detrimental.

>>52647569
You also need stats for all sorts of things through.

Have fun falling on your back because you failed to jump a fence or going to jail because you failed to bluff.

>>52647504
Yeah, but rolling just makes it moderately more fun and isn't the source of the entire fun, is it?

I mean, capping it at 8-16 is a good solution if you must roll, but otherwise it seems like a chance for a long term detriment for short term benefit.

>>52647585
Not everyone agrees that there isn't fun to be had in failure and tension.

>>52647086
Depends entirely on the tone of the game.

If it's a group of ragtag survivors trying to make a life, or an occult game with suffering and horror, then yes. It's fine. As long as it fits with the tone of the game.

It doesn't fit the tone of a fantasy epic.

>>52647636
Great tension! You have a fucking -1 to your rolls!

My party is just fine with randomized stats.
It's quick and I think it is fun to have to adapt your rollplay.
That being said if one of my players roll a garbge character I tend to let them roll again on few stats.
>>52647636
This.
The game becomes pretty dull when the pcs can succeed at just about any roll in their specialized stats.

>>52647716
>The game becomes pretty dull when the pcs can succeed at just about any roll in their specialized stats.

Then make the challenges harder. That has nothing to do with randomly rolled stats. You can roll an 18 for your main stat just as easily (or even more easily) as point buy..

>>52647636
I can see that, but there's a vital difference.
I often play shitty characters (compared to the rest of the party) in GURPS because I like the idea of being kind of an amateur. But the thing is that I get to choose to suck, I don't have to. And I can choose what I'm bad at. For example I don't think being bad at combat is nearly as compelling as being bad at other skills, so I can choose to be competent in combat and just kind of trash in most other regards.

I get why people roll for stats, it's fine, but it's not like rolling for stats is the only way to experience tension or the only way to play a bad character.

>>52647086
>forgetting the player experience is entirely customized by the DM

Stats don't mean shit, guys.

>>52647931
>Stats don't mean shit, guys.
>forgetting that not even the DM can save a party with bad rolls, unless of course he starts bending several rules of nature and breaking the immersion

>>52647086
It depends on the system for me, so I don't really have an objective preference. I like stat rolling in the 40k RPGs, but I also like other systems with point buy, like SoS

>>52647086
I haven't played many RPGs, but when I did we'd roll a for stats, but each player would record his stat rolls in a "pool" and then assign those rolls to the stats he favored.

SimpEx: I'm playing Warrior. I have 4 stats:
STR
VIT
AGI
INT
I roll d12 four times, get: 11 / 8 / 7 / 4.
I assign:
STR: 8
VIT: 11
AGI: 7
INT: 4

Now I'm the dumbshit Tank.

This system allowed some played control over stats while also adding an element of randomness.

>>52647086
The trick is to roll 6 numbers, then choose which number goes to which stat.

That way you still have some control over the kind of areas you want to be good at, and can still plan a bit.

I always do this when we roll up Traveller characters, and there's never been a problem. If every score is below 6 or 7 I allow people to re-roll (stats being rolled on a 2D6 in Traveller), but that's never happened.

In D&D we always points-buy so I guess some systems suit points buy more. D&D can be straight up powergaming and total control when you roll a character, wheras Traveller is more like influencing someones life and seeing where it goes - you may not end up as the kind of character you initially wanted to play, but you will always have an interesting back story and some skills. D&D characters start with no back story at all - they're purely numbers, class and race. All the backstory has to come from the player or DM (or both). In Traveller you almost don't need any additional back story as character generation provides your whole life story.

>>52647979
what if the DCs are always really low?

a good DM could make a party work even if no one had a stat over 8

>>52648152
The problem isn't that EVERYONE has a stat lower than 8.

That's very unlikely. What is more likely is that you'll get the occasional superpowered or underpowered character in a party of otherwise average characters.

With a large character turnover rate, or pool of characters, or stats just plain not mattering as much (OD&D is all of the above) this'd be fine.

Modern D&D is none of those.

>>52647086
>>Which is sort of a who cares thing.

Generally my players like it when the game is fun...

>>Unless your character creation session take a significant amount of time compared to the actual playtime of the campaign

>>Ok, this is gonna be the shitty point buy system phase but afterwards everything is gonna be WAYYY better, trust me!

>>52648177
Eh not everything is a stat check, or a will or fort save.

Casters can still cast with low stats, skill points can make up for poor stats etc.

A good DM would also allow someone to re-roll if they got really shit stats.

The game is about fun, if people want to roll stats, let them, if they want points-buy, no problem.

What is the best stat spread for 5e?

>>52648209
I don't even advocate pointbuy, I just think that there are better/fairer random generation methods than rolling, if you want the fun of randomly generated characters without the chance to screw up, one way or another.

>>52648236
It's balanced towards the standard array.

>>52647086
Only if characters are disposable

>>52647231
>Rolling for stats works in one and ONE GENRE ONLY - horror games. Everywhere else it's a stupid design mistake inherited from completely different era of playing, when "RPG" was pretty much equal with "that minature game where you fight dragons" and the idiots in tune of modern "git gud" pushed random stats into it.
I don't know anywhere in the phrase Role Playing Game that implies that the person playing the role MUST be allowed to have total freedom in the role they are playing.
Retard.

>>52647177
Sounds like bullshit. Just do a pointbuy if you're going to punish someone for being lucky, and coddle them if they aren't lucky.

>>52648341
its not for everyone, but it works at my table
i also roll 6 times, and let them distribute, to combine chance and agency

I like rolling for stats because it makes for more unique characters. If I cared about the numbers more than I did about the character I'd play a video game not a TTRPG.

>>52647240
>the downside is agreed upon between the DM and player, something that will prevent someone from making all encounters trivial for everyone else
If I can't theorhetically start play with six 18's due to having amazing luck, I don't really see the point of rolling stats over using a point buy.

Rolling for stats is RNG based, RNG is based off of luck, and if I'm going to get fucked over by a shit roll then I should benefit from an amazing roll.

>>52648365
The funny thing is that most narrative focused systems use point buys instead of rolling while most games that roll for stats are games were character death is expected.

>>52648521
i let people point buy if they want, but rolling for stats is always an option, but they dont play in a vacuum, there are other people to consider, and things have to be fun for all

i try to approach this softly as possible, so that nobody goes home unhappy

>>52648604
If Timmy over there plays a character with 3 in every stat, that's his fucking problem for playing a shitty character in the first place.

If you're going to allow rerolls to offset bad luck, why not just use point buys then since you're obviously dealing with babies who can't handle shit luck in a game full of RNG?

>>52648666
well, i do allow for point buy if they want

but everyone is supposed to have fun, and id someone isnt having fun, i let them have fun in their own way, not force them into anyone elses idea of having fun

they may or may not die, and rolling 6 bad stats will hasten that, but they should never feel left out

>>52647086

My rule is players can choose between rolling or array. Once you made your choice its locked, can't change your mind after the fact.

>>52648666
Because Timmy is a retard and likes rolling dice even when it is inappropriate.

This is basically what it comes down to. There's no logical reason to roll for stats in modern D&D.

Absolutely none. The only reason it's still a thing is because some people just like rolling for stats, because that's how they always done it, or how they saw it should be done.

It's the same shit as the chimpanzee with the ladder.

So, 6 + 2d4? And then apply race bonus for a max of 16 (14 + 2)?

File: bf1.png (419KB, 500x738px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 500x738px

I used to mildly dislike it and now I've caught the /tg/ meme and get mad when anyone uses it. I hate it with all my guts now. And it's all your fault, /tg/.

>tfw literally everyone I play with are retarded and roll for stats

>>52648341
>b-but I need to throw dice for any reason I find, even if the stats are basically default after the adjustments!

>>52647086
>Is rolling for stats bullshit?
>Seeing how stats are one of the most important things in a RPG, I don't think it's right for a player to be favored or unfavored through an entire campaign just for being unlucky.

Is rolling for skill checks bullshit?

Seeing as skill checks are one the most important things in a RPG, I don't think it's right for a player to be favored or unfavored through an entire campaign just for being unlucky.

A far better system is simply letting a player do whatever they want whenever they want while facing no real challenges.

>>52649014
>letting the player do whatever they want whenever they want
yes
>facing no challenges
no

>>52648698
>they may or may not die, and rolling 6 bad stats will hasten that, but they should never feel left out
If they don't want to feel left out then they should've bitten the bullet and gone with a point buy system.

When you roll, but allow rerolls whenever they roll shit, it sets a precedent of "I can make any stupid decision I want and the DM will save me if I'm in over my head."

>>52649042
I wont save people if they do something dumb like drink 330 ml of mercury, or are struck by lightning bolt and dont have enough HP

but i dont want people complaining their guy is useless, even if he is

>>52649101
>but i dont want people complaining their guy is useless, even if he is
If people bitch about being useless, just remind them that they had a choice and that they chose to let RNGesus take the wheel.

It'll prepare them for the moment their special snowflake rolls a "1" and falls off a cliff due to a shitty acrobatics roll.

>>52649014
>Seeing as skill checks are one the most important things in a RPG, I don't think it's right for a player to be favored or unfavored through an entire campaign just for being unlucky.

You fucking idiot.

You roll for skills each time you need to use a skill.

You roll for stats once, at creation.

This is the problem. One unlucky roll at creation can impact your entire character throughout the game. One unlucky skill roll will impact your character for that roll... and he probably chose to make that skill roll, he knew the risks, while you are kinda forced to have stats.

And if rolled stats don't have such an impact... then why roll for stats?

>>52647086
>I don't think dice should be in this dice game.

>>52647086
They need more "Roll for name" charts instead! THAT is something that's hard to do point-buy.

Depends on the game. If it's a high-mortality gritty dungeon crawl in 1st or 2nd ed d&d then yes, roll for stats, it's part of the fun. If not, then fuck no.

File: bait.jpg (26KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 308x308px

>>52649209
Because that's *exactly* what OP meant.

>>52649014
>comparing something that happens only once to something that happens several times
Kill yourself before your stupidity spreads.

File: 1466555320420.jpg (49KB, 560x373px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 560x373px

I make players roll 3d6 down the line, no special treatment. They fucking like it because they aren't all bitch babies like you folk.

>>52649283
You could do it point-buy

1 point for names like Chungledore and Flimspoth

2 points for Biblical and other common names

3 points for names that sound like they'd go in LOTR

4 points for names like Fuckslayer and Lord Humungus.

>>52649178

Lew Pulsipher was designing RPGs while your parents were still in diapers. Here's a little bit of what he has to say about the current crop of TTRPG players:

"In olden days you had to “train” players to accept limitations. I suppose that’s true today as well, but contemporaries strongly dislike constraints, and often want this kind of game to be a playground, not a game where you have to earn something."

Whether you can understand it or not is another question.

>>52647113

Personality should flow more or less naturally from mechanical choices (class, skill set, etc) and character motivation. For example, if being a Wizard requires years of rigorous study and training, then it requires someone with patience and self-discipline. Adventuring is dangerous, so the character is doing it because of a sense of duty, or because he wants to get rich, that goes a long way towards building that character's personality.

>>52647374

I once saw a ruleset where each player rolled up six entirely random, expendable characters who were supposed to be ordinary townsfolk, adventuring in dungeons for whatever reason. The idea is that you could very well roll characters with bad stats, profession, etc. but they would be weeded out by the highly lethal nature of the game. It might have been good for a laugh or two, but there's a reason most RPGs skip that step.

>here, roll up a cavalcade of ordinaries who get slaughtered until you get someone who actually has business adventuring

Snore. This is basically encouraging everyone to be that guy who commits suicide by monster because his rolled stats were poor. I even saw someone who rolled up a shit array make a Commoner who tried to murder the party in their sleep with deliberate ineptitude on the first day when they were all complete strangers.

>>52647716

They should succeed at routine things in which they're specialized. Too many games go the other way I found. In D&D 3.5 random ass village blacksmiths have to be level 7 just to have enough skill ranks to have a high enough Craft Blacksmithing roll to be taken seriously in his trade and not fuck up constantly. Savage Worlds characters who push one skill all the way to d12 still fuck up routine checks 1/3 of the time, and those with d4's chain explode often enough that they succeed challenging checks by sheer luck fairly regularly. And then they put in the Benny system to patch over the randomness overload with generous amounts of rerolls.

>>52648341

>had one DM who hated point buy and was proud of rolling in order like a proper old school gamer
>had a roll system so lenient that most people end up with great stats anyways
>one guy still manages to roll a shit array (on his third try because the first two were absolutely horrible) while everyone else is rocking 16-18 in four stats

>>52648365

Not an argument.

>>52649765

The old "previous generations weren't such coddled brats and actually worked for things" meme, that's an old meme but I'll give you it, it's one of my favorites

>>52650203
>The old "previous generations weren't such coddled brats and actually worked for things" meme, that's an old meme but I'll give you it, it's one of my favorites

It's only a meme because it's partially true.

I remember playing "Steading of the Hill Giant Chief", the 1st Against the Giants module, soon after it came out. We had a TPK about 20 minutes in thanks to completely overmatched characters. What did we do? Why laugh, roll up characters at a higher level, and start again.

This fall I ran the same module at a FLGS game night and had two players quit in tears when their PCs were merely wounded. I had another stormed off during "Caverns of Chaos" when I imposed encumbrance penalties because he wanted to collect and carry around the heads of all the creatures he killed. I could list dozens of other anecdotes but you'll claim anecdotes aren't evidence.

When you essentially "learn" how to play TTRPGs from playing Super Mario Brothers and First Person Shooters, you really don't learn how to play at all. Couple that with the infantile narcissistic mindset of many millennials - not all and not most, mind you, just many - and you've a group of people who simply don't play well with others and within constraints.

I'll leave you with this one last thought: Many people playing TTRPGs today think they are SUPPOSED to succeed and succeed no matter what. They never learned to lose as children so they're unable to do so as adults.

>>52650440
>roll up characters at a higher level
>implying random stat GMs would allow that

>>52647086
Is the game a one-shot? Then rolling may be appropriate for silly fun. Certain games like Maid make great use of random chargen.

Is the game meant to be longer and ongoing? Probably use another stat generating method. Players don't want to be stuck with weird stats for months at a time, especially if it prevents them from playing what they want to play, or they rolled very poorly. Fairer all around to use a more consistent method.

>>52650525
>>roll up characters at a higher level
>>implying random stat GMs would allow that

You'd be surprised, my little greentexting sperglord. The real world doesn't fit neatly into your "boxes of irony".

We rolled random stats because that's what the game said to do and that's what we always ddi. We then applied the various bonuses and bennies accrued at each level. So, random stats with a bit of "point build' slathered on top.

IIRC, the TPK party had been on the low side of the recommended levels so we aimed for the middle in round two and began playing again.

As a player, I definitely prefer rolling for chargen. Sometimes I come to the table with a character concept, and then have to adapt it to the stat's I'm given. I think this results in more organic-feeling characters than just making the character I want with the points I'm given. Of course, some systems do this better than others. One character for Traveller that I made was going to be a clumsy swabbie, but then got into university on the lifepath charts, studied computing, and became |_33+#@><><0|?. To this day she's one of my favorite PCs. That's something you can't get without rolling, but also something that you can't get with just rolling for stats either. It has to be handled interestingly.

One problem I have with point buy is that it introduces a charop challenge into the game right from the get-go. When you're rolling for stats, nobody is going to feel the responsibility to make sure their character is as competent as possible.

>>52650673
What system was this?

Just asking because OD&D is lenient as shit with stat rolls as explained in >>52647202 and >>52647258

To the point where it's basically all but pointless, compared to your class and level (with the exception of having a shitty CON, that's rough).

So yeah, old systems where you were supposed to die handle stat rolling better. This is not an issue. The issue is that new systems that aren't built with getting killed and rerolling every 5 minutes handle them badly.

>>52650728
>One problem I have with point buy is that it introduces a charop challenge into the game right from the get-go. When you're rolling for stats, nobody is going to feel the responsibility to make sure their character is as competent as possible.

Nah.

>munchkin feels like playing a Cleric
>stats don't support it so he makes a Wizard instead
>munchkin pores over the material looking for ways to offset bad stats

File: tumblr_mlb7xykotw1s65cbio1_1280.jpg (791KB, 1280x1707px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1280x1707px

>>52647086
I use character creation to set the tone of the game.
Since I prefer highly lethal situations and open rolling, my players roll 3d6, six times. They have the option of re-rolling up to three dice in an attempt to boost their score(s). After that, they can assign the six scores to whatever stats they want.

I've met too many point-buy players that "end" the game at character creation and just roll dice through every encounter. Playing a suboptimal character either forces them to think, or forces them out. I'm good with either.

>>52650440
This is true in that players shouldn't associate the character with themselves so much all the time and instead try to fucking roleplay.

>>52647086
They force people to adapt. There's a series of combinations and values that people would never have, unless the fair hand of luck handed it down to them.

I'm not saying it's always the right thing, but there is value to "working with what you're given"

>>52650829
>Playing a suboptimal character either forces them to think, or forces them out.
Or they do stupid shit to purposefully get themselves killed, even if it ends up fucking everyone else over at the table.

>>52650864
see >>52650871

>>52650440
Your are conflating two issues.

A person rolling for stats is okay with unfairness.

A person okay with characters dying is okay with challenging/punishing gameplay.

The two overlap, but just because you spend an extra minute rolling your stats instead of using an array doesn't make you more hardcore, it only makes you less concerned with fairness.

Which is fine. It's okay to take it easy sometimes, and it fits some type of games with a more unfair tone.

>>52649982
These are called funnels, they are common in OSR games.

>>52650871
In which case you're playing with cancer, and there's no point in playing with them from the get go.

>>52650784
>(with the exception of having a shitty CON, that's rough).

Guess what rolling random stats occasionally gave you? I played a low CON PC for many times. Having a "glass jar" forced me to think about my actions and choose my fights.

>So yeah, old systems where you were supposed to die handle stat rolling better.

You weren't supposed to die as much as you were supposed to think and be challenged. Death or, more accurately, the possibility of losing has to be a credible threat if there is to be any real challenge. As Lew Pulsipher explains"

"Much of this tension is lost in single-player video games because you can save your game, and try over and over again until you like the result. In a board game, you can LOSE, and (in most cases) you can't call "REDO".

When you can reboot without penalty or construct precisely what you want, you aren't challenged at all.

>Itt we turn this game into even more of a hugbox

>>52649667
This. You guys don't want challenge. You want to have your hands held during the entire game because you just might lose! Oh no!!

>>52650942
>Guess what rolling random stats occasionally gave you? I played a low CON PC for many times. Having a "glass jar" forced me to think about my actions and choose my fights.

*glass jaw

Having a challenging game should do that regardless of your stats.

If you need a low con to be forced to think about fights, your game is weak.

>>52650890
>A person rolling for stats is okay with unfairness.

Life is unfair, Skippy. Tension and challenges are unfair too.

Focusing on "fairness" means you're like the kindergarten teacher who says no one can have gum unless everyone has gum.

>>52647086
set of cards, faggot
checks the archives

>>52647086
>Is rolling for stats bullshit?
Absolutely not. The only people that cry about 'bad' stats are whiny millennial types that feel that they have to be given everything for nothing.
Bad stats add role play and character development opportunities, and more importantly add verisimilitude to the game world

>>52650981
>Life is unfair, Skippy.

But games don't have to.

Or if they have to, they don't have to be in a way that can only be remedied with the character getting killed off to roll a new one.

>>52647086
It adds a certain element to the game. It happens to be an element that I don't like at my table outside of one-shots, so I generally don't allow it at my table.

File: angel summoner and bmx bandit.jpg (26KB, 396x222px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 396x222px

Far as I'm concerned, the problem is less with a shit-stated party and more with a horribly unbalanced party. If the group is low-powered then the campaign can be gently tweaked around it so that they're not TPK'd off the start-line and fun can be had in tackling the force of evil goblins when you're closer to regular joes than your average adventurers.

But if some people roll powerful characters and some people roll shitty ones, then encounters are either going to be painfully easy for the powerful ones so that the shitty ones can survive or unbearably difficult for the shitty ones so that the powerful characters are challenged and don't effortlessly bulldoze any impediment.

Party balance is an important facter in making sure everyone at the table is having fun.

>>52650898
To be fair, if a DM didn't let me reroll when it was obvious that I'd be the towelboy for the rest of the campaign, I'd probably work towards sabotaging game too.

Either I die and get to make a new character or I don't and I fuck over the DM's narrative. Either way, I still win.

>>52650980
>If you need a low con to be forced to think about fights, your game is weak.

No, it means the game isn't stuck in a power spiral. Having that glass jaw meant the DM could challenge me without having to engage in the constant Four Color one-up-man-ship too many games devolve into.

>>52650942
>"Much of this tension is lost in single-player video games because you can save your game, and try over and over again until you like the result. In a board game, you can LOSE, and (in most cases) you can't call "REDO".

You know that not rolling for stats is not a save game, right?

Like, the two aren't even related.

This is what I mean when I say you keep conflating two different set of issues.

>>52651026
>No, it means the game isn't stuck in a power spiral. Having that glass jaw meant the DM could challenge me without having to engage in the constant Four Color one-up-man-ship too many games devolve into.

Okay, please explain what any of this means.

>>52650789
Which never happens. Great example, retard.

>>52651026

The so-called "one upmanship" is a feature of games in which you start out as one stop short of a commoner, then work your way up to being a hero of legend. It keeps the riff raff out of high level play.

>>52651024
>Either I die and get to make a new character or I don't and I fuck over the DM's narrative. Either way, I still win.
You are seriously what's wrong with gaming these days. You see it as not fair to you personally, so you basically nofun the entire game because you're buttflustered

>>52651048

>It never happens because I said so!

>>52647086
3 d6 for go-to easy to make characters.

Pointbuy for actual roleplay.
It's that easy, really.

>>52650942
Even if you restart from your save, you'd still need to git gud in order to make any progress towards the end of the game.

Besides, if you need to have shit stats in order to think smartly in how you progress through the game, rather than doing that regardless of how high your stats are because everything else is just that much better than you, then your game is devoid of real challenge from the get-go.

You challenge people when they're at their best, not when they're weak or have no idea how to progress through the game.

>>52650942
But is that role-playing anymore? You just rerolled new guys on the spot without any thought about their backstories and personal storylines and everything that makes a character a character instead of a stat array. Characters should be crafted with time and thought so it fits the GM's campaign precisely, and it saddens me that you haven't learned to appreciate craftsmanship like that over your long career of what sounds beer and pretzels games.

Depends on the game. If you're playing modern D&D, then absolutely. If you're playing Paranoia or OD&D and still bitch about having randomly generated stats, then you're a whiny bitch.

>>52651024
>Fucking the dms game up
>Considered winning

I hope I get to play with you someday! I bet you're the funnest fun of all fun guys to play RPGs with, like, ever.

>>52650789
Can confirm. I am that player.

Can't wait till level 6 where my build takes off!

Roll 3d6, 3 times. Your other scores are 24 minus each other score rolled, so if you rolled a 6 you get a 18, if 10, a 14 and so on...

>>52651027

You simply cannot understand the point I'm making, can you? You're so much of a literal thinker, you can't even comprehend how both are different aspects of the same issue.

Saving games, rebooting games, and not wanting to roll stats are all symptoms of the same "I cannot be allowed to lose" mindset.

Burning through extra lives in Super Mario Brothers, complaining about "fairness", and wanting to play only flawless characters who cannot be hurt are all the same thing under the hood. It's a desire to play in a hugbox and not to be truly challenged.

And, like, quit, like, posting, like, you're, like, Shaggy from Scooby Doo. It makes you seem stupider than you actually are.

>>52651060
>>52651102
Hey, it's not like I'm going to be doing anything worth while when my highest stat is a 13 and my lowest is like a 7, so I might as well go out of my way to play my character like a cunt with a lack of self-preservation since someone who sucks that much wouldn't be an adventurer in their right mind anyways.

If the king takes my character and hangs him for trying to shag his daughter, cool, I'll get to reroll a new character that I actually give a shit about. If the DM is a pussy and hand-waves the whole thing, I'll escalate until he, or the party, is forced to kill me to save their own skin. If the king decides to TPK the party, that's the DM's fault and we probably shouldn't be playing with him anyways.

So really, shit stats just means that I'll never actually lose because the goal of the game is to die to reroll.

>>52649667
I had a DM like you once(emphasis on once). Fucking riot that guy was.

>No, we're rolling stats because genetics and it's fun and not everyone has good stats
>No you can't point buy, stop being a baby
>No allocating after rolling, you roll down the line
>I don't care if you roll bad, what you roll is final.
>Woah woah woah hold the fuck up, did you just roll 3 18s?
>No, you gotta reroll that, you can't have a character that much better than everyone else
>I don't care what I said, you can't play that character
>Why are you all leaving? Get the fuck back here.

>>52647392
Some folks do stuff cuz they enjoy it, yknow. Even if they aren't especially good at it.

>>52651072
Nah family. I'm not a betting man? But I bet no one here can come up with just ONE example of what you're talking about, not ONE. 99% of the time these are outlier cases and you know it. Sure it could happen. I could get hit by an asteroid on my way to work, too. I could also get hit by a truck at the same exact time while scratching off a winning 100,000 shekels lottery ticket. It's extremely unlikely to understate it grossly and ya know it, big guy.

>>52651129
>Burning through extra lives in Super Mario Brothers

When you do that you know you have to try again, right?

You could have 99 extra lives, until you get good, you are not getting past that level.

You can't say, reroll as higher level characters if you'd die.

You disgust me...

But I assume this was your goal, so kudos.

>>52651136
>proving my point entirely
I say again: you are an entitled little petulant child whose single mother babied them to the point of becoming a complete waste of space.
>if I'm not the best character at the table I'll sabotage the game
vs
>challenge accepted for the fun of it
I fucking hate kids these days

>>52650829
>I've met too many point-buy players that "end" the game at character creation and just roll dice through every encounter.

Most games are ended just by picking a spellcaster class. The only stat those need is their main casting stat. Rolling stats just hurts non-casters who NEED multiple stats good to do anything.

>>52651152
Yes, and they are properly irrelevant.

>4d6 six times drop the lowest
>what is rolled is what the entire party has to work with
Did I make rolling fair?

File: nkp6egYMIZ1r3wwhp.gif (2MB, 380x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 380x270px

>Preferring a balanced party where everyone can contribute and nobody is made redundant/useless is a controversial thing apparently

>>52651129
>Saving games, rebooting games, and not wanting to roll stats are all symptoms of the same "I cannot be allowed to lose" mindset.
You can still lose even if you're playing a game with save states or extra lives, it's just that the point of video games is to progress, so having infinite lives isn't going to help you if you're stuck on a particularly difficult level.
>It makes you seem stupider than you actually are.
The correct word you're thinking of is "dumber," but that's moot because you misspelled the word anyways.

>>52651129
>and wanting to play only flawless characters who cannot be hurt

Has it occurred to you that I may be playing a game that's challenging without having to roll stats?

Think about it.

>>52651191
Yes.

But then you could have just assigned arbitrary numbers like 'put one 17, one 15, one 13, two 11 and one 9

>>52651136
>gonna be That Guy
>sees nothing wrong with it
If you accept rolling for stats you accept any bullshit that comes with rolling like shit

>>52651191
Considering that for martials to be good, they need multiple high stats while casters need only one, no it's still not fair.

>>52651093
Oh Lord. You're wrong, too. I can roll my character *and* carefully craft his background until he perfectly fits in the dms campaign. I honestly like when players make me as a DM come up with the reasons how their character fits in my story. That's fun, too, because it is an idea that came from them (!) and not me. Dms desperately need to be challenged too or you will lose your interest in the whole shebang.

>>52651129
>wanting everyone to start the campaign on a stable footing is wanting flawless characters
You just can't make this shit up.

>>52651222
It's fair in the sense that everyone knows whatthey are working with.

So if you make a martial, it's your fault.

Check mate, atheists!

>>52651039
>Okay, please explain what any of this means.

Sorry, generation gap.

Four Color one upmanship refers to the formulaic plotting of 1960s/70s superhero comic books. You know the ones, they're the source of all the brain dead capeshit movies you millennials love.

The easiest way to keep challenging the hero and to keep the reader interested, was to use a power spiral. Fantastic Four was especially notorious for it. Every villain they faced was "just" a little more powerful and threatening than the last until the villains reached such absurd power levels that the F4 basically prevailed due to constant "deux et machinas".

When your TTRPG is primarily or just mostly focused on "leveling up", you fail into the same one upmanship trap.

>>52651233
>Dms desperately need to be challenged too or you will lose your interest in the whole shebang.
Truer words etc etc
I like you, I'd buy you a beer at the tavern for sure

>>52651255
>When your TTRPG is primarily or just mostly focused on "leveling up", you fail into the same one upmanship trap.

But isn't that what OD&D is?

The entire reward cycle rests on going to dungeon->getting treasure->getting EXP->leveling up->going deeper into the dungeon->get more treasure->get more XP->etc...

>>52651248
This tbqhdesu

>>52651240
>>wanting everyone to start the campaign on a stable footing is wanting flawless characters
>You just can't make this shit up.

There's a huge difference between a campaign with a stable footing and wanting only flawless characters. What's more, you know there is a difference. So stop pretending you don't.

File: 119wjdw.jpg (41KB, 569x428px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 569x428px

>>52647086
>Is rolling for stats bullshit?
It depends on the system.

>>52648365
This guy gets it.

My current ranger is terribly built, based on certain ideas. Noblemans son who has had DONE with civilization. Not a charmer, doesn't particularly care for a bow, but he is clever and knows how to use things around him. I narrate my trap building, my acquisition of tools from raw nature, and so on. Not great at the ranger thing, he, but particularly good at surviving in harsh situations.

>>52651255
I seriously want to game at your table. We are cut from the same cloth and are probably both ancient by this board's standards.

>>52651310
>There's a huge difference between a campaign with a stable footing and wanting only flawless characters.
How is a character made with point buy or 17,15,13,11,9 flawless?

>>52651233
Yes, but when you play against the giants and your first party died, you stopped role-playing when you whipped up the second party. They were just game sprites with stats, not real characters, made on the spot and on higher level with nary a thought about their place in the greater world and story.

>>52651328
>17
>15
Looks flawless to me m8

>>52651129
You're just making it seem like the actual challenge of 3d6 players is their stats, not the actual game or whatever the DM puts in your way.
You're just minmaxing like a common robot, except you have to wrestle with your rolls to get to your target of a "perfect" META character.
It's pretty sad how some people are so deep in the lowest level of roleplaying that they are no longer able to understand how to actually play. Has it even occured to you that perhaps some people actually have creative ideas in mind and build their character according to their instincts rather than tryharding their way into the perfect bland self-insert persona? Hell I even purposely dropped some points when I was building a character that I felt didn't need to be any stronger at anything, because I actually knew what my character was and therefore what his stats would be before I got some random dices thrown into my face and "fuckoff now you're a dwarf brawler let's roleplay"

>>52651345
>having a strong stat while having a weak stat makes you flawless
GG

>>52651278
>But isn't that what OD&D is?

No, it wasn't. Look at how far the levels climb in OD&D and compare that to 3.5E, Pathfinder, and 5e. Look at the recommended XP rewards in the classic modules too.

Leveling up changed from one aspect of play to the ONLY REASON to play. Stats, skills, levels, feats, and whatnot exploded in nearly all TTRPGs during the 80s. I suspect it did so in part due to video games.

Video games also helped foster the hugbox mindset I've been posting about.

>>52651371
Damn straight! Racial mods could potentially bump both of those stats to above +4 and +3. Very solid character.

>>52651395
So? +4 is the bare minimum for a competent character, and that's just in one stat. That anon's array is very balanced and good for low power campaigns imho.

>>52647086
It's fine for goofy one shots.

In a campaign: The power disparity between players kills the fun of whoever rolled shitty, as he gets to play the dead weight holding back the team.

If you don't want the optimization of point buy, there are other much better options than normal rolling:

>Give them the same array, or a couple arrays to choose from.
>12 cards, numbered 3-9. Only one 3 in the deck, and no more than two 9s. Cards add up to 78 (medium-strong). Shuffle and draw pairs. Players can mess with how many of each middle card to include if you like, or you can just come up with one 12 card set they use. Shuffling and drawing pairs generates an array that sums to 78, has an overall average stat of 13, and good stats mean having shitty stats somewhere else. They can take their array, or the array of someone adjacent to them, or one provided by the gm (4 relatively balanced arrays to choose from), each player has a slightly different selection.
>Have them roll to build a pool of arrays to choose from. Practice this a few times. I figure you'd want at least 5 rolled arrays to choose from. Like the card method, but simpler and shittier balanced. Odds are there will be stinkers nobody will take.

>>52650728
Man wow someone else still speaks |_33+.

Good on you.

>>52647086
Depends on the length of the campaign.
Rolling is acceptable for short games.

>>52651376
The reason they exploded like that is because it was already a big portion of the game. Leveling up allowed them to tackle bigger challenges, collect bigger rewards, and eventually take on things like titles, keeps, and followers.

>>52651395
>I'm using a racial mod to bump a stat so I have everything positive
>Instead of using it to help the stat that I will use the most
Are you retarded?

I prefer to see what I'm working with before making my character, rather than coming to the table with something already in mind and trying to wrangle mechanics into it.
This applies for both fixed stats and rolling.

Yeah, kinda. It only really works in games where they have such a minimal mechanical impact that you may as well not bother with them at all.

>>52651173
>I say again: you are an entitled little petulant child whose single mother babied them to the point of becoming a complete waste of space.
If I'm still alive after telling the king that I want to have sex with his daughter, that's more the DM fucking up than me at that point.

I mean really, I've played with some pussy-whipped DM's before who let his players get away with murder (literally) and the game ended up dissolving because we literally couldn't do wrong.

I'll gladly accept any challenges thrown my way but only if I can feasibly handle them, otherwise it's not so much a challenge as a foregone conclusion.

>>52651174
>Remember when Priests had to pray for their spells?
>Remember when Priests would lose all divine rite and become a "gimped-fighter" if they pissed off their god.
>Remember when Wizards had to locate their spells and copy "travel spellbooks" to go adventuring?
>Remember when multiple sessions would be devoted to a spellcaster hunting down a single ingredient to craft a high level spell, only to have it fizzle with a 20% success rate?

Casters didn't break anything. The WotC just doesn't have the balls to tackle the men in pointy hats.

>>52651468
Anon the stat I will likely use most is going to be the 17 bumped up to 19.

Just do it like Gamma World 7e does.
>Your primary stat (from class) is an 18
>Your secondary stat (from race) is a 16
>If they're the same, you get a 20 in that score
>Roll 3d6 in order for the rest

>>52651077
You challenge people.

End of.

If they're not at their best, stab them in the face. If they are, stab them in the back. Or, even better, poisoned arrows from a sniper. If they can't figure out how to live, they need to die.

>>52651328
>How is a character made with point buy or 17,15,13,11,9 flawless?

So now we're going to use the literal definition of "flawless"? Sorry, I'm not going to walk down that spergy path.

Random rolling imposes a flaw not of your own choice. A flaw you then need to compensate through actual role play.

Point build lets you build what you want. It lets you "paper over" flaws you don't want to deal with or, more likely, flaws you're unable to deal with.

Point build and similar methods mean you'll usually play the "same old same old" PC, employing the same strengths, avoiding the same weaknesses, and side stepping any actual challenges.

The last point is one too many TTRPG players fail to understand. The game is supposed to challenge YOU the player and not your character. The tension and the reward have everything to do with how YOU rise to meet the challenges your character faces.

>>52651344
>Yes, but when you play against the giants and your first party died, you stopped role-playing when you whipped up the second party.

How do you know we had no backstories for the new characters? Or that some of us created characters in different classes than our first? Or that some of us kept using the new characters in later sessions?

>>52651531
Exactly, which means your lowest stat is 9. Ergo your character is not 'flawless'.

>>52651217
>Not letting people reroll when they're crippled.
>Not killing off someone for fucking the princess.
>Not just using point buy or arrays in the first place.
THAT DM deserves it desu.

>>52651186
Unless someone decides to sit down and narrate the life of this mysterious funhaver in some sort of game.

I just lost The Game.

>>52651543
>It's not my definition!
>Flawless is actually having a character that makes sense
>Because random schmucks would be the one chosen to save the world
Kek.

>Random rolling imposes a flaw not of your own choice. A flaw you then need to compensate through actual role play.
Which roleplay you use to compensate the fact your rolls have -1?

Must be the same roleplay that is lost when you have a +2.

>>52647090

I think a good GM offers an array and/or pointbuy and lets players decide if they want to roll instead.

In my current campaign the other players chose to roll so I did too. I rolled amazing, like.. in D&D terms I had more than half my stats 18. It's nuts. Now, a year later, my character is just... good at everything. Others have weaknesses, but he really doesn't. Not one stat was "10" or below, while others did have" 8-10s".

>>52651535
>If they're not at their best, stab them in the face. If they are, stab them in the back. Or, even better, poisoned arrows from a sniper. If they can't figure out how to live, they need to die.
THAT DM detected.

A proper challenge means that you can throw a problem with an obvious solution at the party, yet still kick their ass even though they know what they're supposed to do.

It's the difference between "I Wanna Be The Guy" and "Battle Kid and the Fortress of Peril."

>>52651316
Same. This guy seems great.

>>52651543
>Random rolling imposes a flaw not of your own choice. A flaw you then need to compensate through actual role play.

Not that guy, but not necessarily. I've rolled plenty of characters over the years that had no real flaws, and had stat arrays that just tended towards average all around, and a few that were just all-around exceptional.

>Point build lets you build what you want. It lets you "paper over" flaws you don't want to deal with or, more likely, flaws you're unable to deal with.
>Point build and similar methods mean you'll usually play the "same old same old" PC, employing the same strengths, avoiding the same weaknesses, and side stepping any actual challenges.

That's a problem with bad players and bad ability score systems. There shouldn't be obvious dump stats, and players should be designing their characters as actual characters. Further you shouldn't be taking your character's personality and flaws from his ability scores, you should be giving them actual personalities. There was nothing wrong with Marcus Aurelius physically or mentally, but he was still more of an interesting man than your fighter with a low constitution or whatever.

>>52651316
>I seriously want to game at your table. We are cut from the same cloth and are probably both ancient by this board's standards

Thanks, and i suspect we both are relatively ancient.

Leveling up has taken over the game sadly as the release of various ACKS systems certainly show.

I like the ideas behind ACKS and it clones and I did level up characters, but harvesting XP and leveling up weren't the sole reason I played or the sole reason my characters were adventurers.

While the literal minded will quickly hammer those statements into their usual binary boxes, I'm not suggesting that someone should never level up or always level up.

I'm talking about the amount of emphasis any one facet of TTRPG play should receive and I'm suggesting that leveling is currently emphasized too much.

File: ohkw6ssbYo1raqdrd_500.gif (1MB, 354x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 354x200px

>Bob gets lucky and rolls very high for his ranger
>Dave is unlucky and rolls very low for his cleric
>Any fights that challenge Bob's ranger will destroy Dave's cleric
>Any fights that Dave's Cleric can overcome are effortlessly steamrolled by Bob's ranger
>Dave has a choice between being dead and being redundant
How is this fun again?

>>52651528
I'm starting to remember why I stopped playing D&D in the first place.

>>52651543
>How do you know we had no backstories for the new characters?
Because you told us you made them up on the spot. You need at least two, three sessions with the GM and the players to craft real characters for role-playing.

>>52651625
Dave should clearly learn how to roleplay better, this way his rolls will somehow roll higher.

>>52651613
I actually know the guy who made IWBTG.

There's method to the madness, despite the reputation it has.

>>52651523
How's the basement?

>>52651467
>The reason they exploded like that is because it was already a big portion of the game.

It was a portion of the game. It was not the biggest portion of the game however.

More importantly and unlike how TTRPGs are played by many currently, it was not the ONLY portion of the game.

>>52647086
Point buy. Maybe class based bonuses or different number of points based on class on top of the race bonus to support the weaker classes

>>52651623
>that post
At the risk of sounding like a complete faggot, are you me?

>>52651662
I know, I've beaten it several times, and it's one of my favorite games of all time.

The point was demonstrating the difference between a challenge that's honest and one that's challenging due to subterfuge.

Also, did that castlevania game ever take off or is it still a concept?

>>52651696
I saw a new demo a few months ago.
I don't think I can dig it up, sorry.

>>52651344
That's happened to me so many times. The Night Below. The $#@&+(?!$* manscorpion encounters in nwn shadows of undrentide and friendo, that*was* a computer game. None of my PC's were nameless sprites but that's because I wanted it to be that way. For me it is the most fun way to play.

I cut my teeth on mythal runs into myth drannor. If you can survive that BS with a smile, you can rp anything.

>>52651657
>Because you told us you made them up on the spot. You need at least two, three sessions with the GM and the players to craft real characters for role-playing.

I'll bet you think you need tables to make up backstories too.

>>52651676
>It was a portion of the game. It was not the biggest portion of the game however.

Dude, it was literally the function of the game. You killed things so you could level up, take on bigger challenges, and then eventually become some schmuck with a title and a plot of land. If anything it was more of a function of TTRPGs then than it is now, since we actually have a bunch of RPGs that ask the question of "what more is there to games than getting loot and power?" Take your fucking rose-tinted glasses off.

>>52651523
>missing the point entirely
>it's the DMs fault
>I enjoy a challenge
yet
>I'll sabotage the game like the nofun bitch that I am

My wife just told me you should take your fucking panties off and grow up, or just print out your very own bitch certificate cause you've earned it

>>52651136
I had a friend who could make your loser character the star of the party if he so wanted. You doomed him from the get go because to you, he's a loser. That's part of your prob. Any character can be the hero. Will you sometimes be outshined by the pally? Yes. So fucking what. Have you seen the pally's charisma? Are you even aware there are other ppl here wanting to play too? Do you give a fuck?
Work on your shit attitude. My table would go gentle on you but on the 4chan you're not going to get much sympathy.
(Tried posting this several times but 4chan thinks it's spam?)

>>52651709
It's cool, tell him to keep up the good work though. Also tell him congrats on getting a cameo in Super Meat Boy, that must've been fucking awesome.

>>52651613
I must disagree there; a proper challenge requires skill and cleverness to get past, as well as alertness to ones environment. If you can't manage that, well hm, seems like you're not as intelligent as youd like to believe AND you're humping the other players. Please go. As of yet I've not had issue with this in meatspace, and have been complimented on my style. Granted, if I am a player, I'm the player with a ten foot pole ALL THE TIME. Marbles, rope, &c &c.

I want to play with smart people. If I wanted to play with the mediocre I'd play a video game.

>>52651736
>Dude, it was literally the function of the game

No, it wasn't. That's the disconnect at work here.

Leveling up has been over emphasized for so long that many people sincerely believe it and XPs are the only reason for the game.

>>52651762
Isn't it a bit unhealthy to refer to inanimate objects as people?

Also, the game is only sabotaged if the DM goes out of his way to never kill me. If I know I'm immortal, why should I not do whatever the fuck I want?

>>52647086
It's fine in B/X and other games where stats don't matter that much

>>52651788
>No, it wasn't.

Okay, what was it then?

"If go to dungeon, get loot, level up, go to the next _level_" wasn't what the game was built around, what was?

>>52651795
>Isn't it a bit unhealthy to refer to inanimate objects as people?

Speaking of stats, your reading comprehension seems to be a 3 or 4

>>52651764
It's not a question of "should I?" it's a question of "whose gonna stop me?"

Because if nobody slaps my shit and leaves my dude hanging in a tree somewhere, I cannot be responsible for any issues that come about because they just HAVE to have this caustic loser following them around, even when he's being an active detriment to the group and the narrative.

>>52651788
>No, it wasn't. That's the disconnect at work here.
>If I assert it hard enough, it will be true.

Prove it or fuck off. Because in OD&D, you literally gained social rank for leveling up, and you leveled up by acquiring treasure; the very idea of doing it (or for that matter doing anything else) through story or the like wasn't part of the game.

>Leveling up has been over emphasized for so long that many people sincerely believe it and XPs are the only reason for the game.

That's something literally no one thinks you lying shit. People game for grand adventurers, beating badguys and shit. When you ask people for gaming stories they wont give you "and then I got 1000 XP for slaying Balzak the Awful, they'll tell you about how Balzak the Awful was trying to make a titanic golem out of dead babies and they stopped him.

>>52651784
No. If your character is dumb then you're not roleplaying him properly by making him act cleverly. You need to separate you and your character. If a player suspects that there's a trap ahead (because he sees his GM smiling or something) but his character had no way of knowing that, then it is metagaming if he doesn't walk straight into that trap without taking precautions. You *must* make stupid decisions if your character would make them, or you're not roleplaying.

>>52651625
>Cleric not being one, if not the most, powerful members of the party
Wis 9? Lol at the risk of sounding trite, you might be playing d&d wrong?

>>52651784
You can only challenge your players by making every odd step into a hidden trap. That's not D&D anymore, it's just minesweeper with stats.

>>52651523
>If I'm still alive after telling the king that I want to have sex with his daughter, that's more the DM fucking up than me at that point.

It's the fault of both of you because TTRPGs are collaborative.

DMs have become more "pussy whipped" over time because players have become more and more "special snowflakes". I've seen players walk away from a campaign because a MD either imposed the consequences their actions deserved or merely called them on their shenanigans.

Groups aren't that big anymore. If one or two petulant children storm off, the game ends for everyone. Because of that, DMs coddle and, because they coddle, petulant players push more.

It's a viscous cycle sadly.

>>52651837
Hey man, I'm just saying that a blowup doll isn't a lady no matter how many times you dress it up in your mother's clothing.

>>52651850
>Prove it or fuck off.
I'm not the guy you're replying too, but there's nothing to prove. You have no fucking clue what playing OD&D was like back in the day.
Trust me, I sat at Gary's and Kuntz's tables respectively and played plenty of BX, and it was never 'Just about leveling' you insufferable faggot

>>52651871
That's a bunch of bullshit, and besides it's vicious not viscous you retard.

File: 1487645263928.jpg (34KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x333px

>>52651891
>I've been made to look like a bitch
>I am a bitch
>time to start going full on pic related

>>52651897
Also not the one you replied to, but WHAT IS IT ABOUT THEN?
You only say 'it isn't X', WELL WHAT IS IT?

>>52651871
So I'm correct in my assumption that I am immortal and can do whatever the fuck I want since nobody is going to stop me, lest I walk away from the table or some shit?

I mean, I just want to kill off my character and I know that he'd deserve it because he acted like an asshole. If nobody punishes my character for being an asshole, he has no reason not to go out of his way to be an asshole.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

>>52651897
No you didn't you lying piece of shit.

In OD&D you went to the dungeons to get loot, and loot gave you XP, that was the entire fucking game revolved around. No one went dungeon delving for fun, you went in for loot and loot gave you XP.

>>52651918
>Misses the point
>Accuses others of having shit reading comprehension.

>>52651931
Everyone is missing the point of RPGs in general:

THE POINT WAS TO HAVE FUN, ROLE PLAY AND DOWN SOME BEERS AT THE TABLE WITH FRIENDS!
It was about solving problems, thinking past your stats and solving puzzles and shit.
I could go on but you still won't get it

>>52651897
I don't give a shit what you did, either prove your proposition or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

>>52651827
>Okay, what was it then?

It was a type of war game. A collaborative one with a referee who made rulings rather than imposing rules.

Levels, which didn't go that far, were a way to encourage long term thinking. Your character isn't merely canon fodder to expended in this one encounter. You needed to succeed and survive. Many times you succeeded through avoidance and retreat.

Players even routinely retired characters which had reached certain levels and - gasp - began again.

Can you imagine a current player saying "Whelp, my mage had reached level 8, time for him to retire and his apprentice take over."

>>52651963
>moves goalposts
>still projecting
I'm done with you, it's a pointless debate at this point

>>52651965
THAT'S THE SAME FUCKING SHIT WE DO NOW YOU OBNOXIOUS CRETIN.

>>52648209
>Casters can still cast with low stats,
Not in D&D they can't.
>skill points can make up for poor stats
Only if you dont get your number of skill points from your stats.
3.5 made the game too stat dependent.
It works okay in other games.

>>52651996
No it's not. When you get told about a puzzle, you cry, and moan, and bitch, and cunt, and whore your way into the entire session being ruined because you're a little faggot who only wants to play his stats and not his character.

I could throw an enemy at you with -3 max HP, and a total immunity to all instadeath or damage above his max HP, and you will cry, and cunt, and whore, and bitch because you might pull a muscle in your brain.

>>52651945
Is it so fucking hard to believe that as a lad of about 16 growing up in Wisconsin, in fucking lake Geneva no less, that I got the opportunity to play with legends?
It is the internet so I guess so, but frankly I don't care what you think you know. Talking to kids like you is pointless, as with every younger generation, you always seem to know everything yet nothing at the same time

>>52647086
I think the best system is make it according to character story. A spoiled noble shouldn't get the same experience of a kid born in the streets. You just have to give other bonus or other gifts to the player that got "less experience".

>>52652033
What are you even on about at this point?

>>52651944
>Do you understand what I'm saying?

Yes I do, very much so.

I will point out however that it's still your choice to act like an asshole.

The DM is weak and the group is concerned of the game falling apart. Does that then mean you should take advantage?

TTRPG is meant to be collaborative, not selfish.

>>52651993
>"Whelp, my mage had reached level 8, time for him to retire and his apprentice take over."

>Players even routinely retired characters which had reached certain levels and - gasp - began again.


In current times, we call this "finishing a campaign".

>>52651995
>Misunderstands argument due to shit reading comprehension
>"Muh goalposts"
Cool mate, see ya next thread.

>>52652068
I think he's saying that the current generation of gamers are all whiny cunts.
Most are, unfortunately, but not all... Then again most people are cunts

>>52652075
>I will point out however that it's still your choice to act like an asshole.
Clearly, but it's only under the assumption that I'd eventually be punished for my actions.
>The DM is weak and the group is concerned of the game falling apart. Does that then mean you should take advantage?
Absolutely, because I want this shitty character to die and it'd be in everyone's best interest if he does.

ITT: stop liking what I don't like

>>52652039
>Is it so fucking hard to believe that as a lad of about 16 growing up in Wisconsin, in fucking lake Geneva no less, that I got the opportunity to play with legends?

Not for me. I played with them too, despite growing up in New England. I was stationed at Great Lakes in the late 70s, joined a war gaming group, and drove to Lake Geneva several weekends to play.

Anyone who thinks Gygax & Co. were "all about the XP" is sorely mistaken.

>>52652039
>calls other kid
>acts like a petulant child
wow son

Still haven't proven your point, I notice.

>>52652102
I saw a thread years ago derail into attacking the DM because he didn't let a guy's reflex save avoid a ceiling trap that encompassed the entire room.

Pants on head retardation caused by people getting what they want by screaming.

>>52652147
Sorry I didn't fire up the 8mm handicam and the reel to reel for audio for you

>>52652145
What other possible reason there is to risk your life dungeon delving than loot and xp you got from it? That's what the entire game is built around, have you you know looked at the box? It reads DUNGEONS and dragons.

>>52652084
>In current times, we call this "finishing a campaign".

True, but at what level do you finish the campaign?

>>52652126
>Clearly, but it's only under the assumption that I'd eventually be punished for my actions.

Why did you feel the need to be punished? Why were you making "meta-game" decisions about your character's in-game conduct?

>>Absolutely, because I want this shitty character to die and it'd be in everyone's best interest if he does.

I don't believe that. If the character was that crippled you should have refused to play at all rather than purposely sabotage the game for everyone else.

>>52652165
There's about 30 published adventures for OD&D. Show me at least three of them with a dungeon with no loot whatsoever, and I'll change my mind.

(protip: you can't because you're full of ~shit~)

>>52652145
Wait a minute.
Are you that geeky navy guy with the overly curly hair?
The one that argued with GG about half orcs should have a soul?

>>52652218
>if I keep saying it, it's true

>>52652033
Yeah, I'm sure you were so fucking hardcore back in your days.

>>52652126
Sometimes your character concept just doesn't fit the game youi are playing, it fit the game you thought you were playing. As a result, you have to either change the character (hard), chage the character concept (usually impossible in a system where concept+chararacter=mechanics) or retire them. And death is a great retirement for a PC.

>>52652145
This. If it was all about leveling up and getting more stuff, they couldn't have based entire worlds off of what they characters did and achieved.

How do you think the histories of Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms were built? they weren't built out of whole cloth, they were the results of PCs activities and achievements.

>>52652102
What's funny is he's being a whiny cunt to prove it.

>>52652135
With a side of "STOP NOT LIKING WHAT I LIKE!"

>>52652216
>True, but at what level do you finish the campaign?

When it feels right to finish.

My last one that finished finished at exactly 8. I had one that went 12 before that. I think 16 was my highest, and I was a monty hauling, munchkining teen then.

>>52652174
>What other possible reason there is to risk your life dungeon delving than loot and xp you got from it?

Saving the kingdom. Recovering the artifact. Finding the scroll. Because your liege ordered you to.

You know, silly inconsequential shit like that.

>>52652244
That's what you're trying to pull. Your obvious lie goes against the entire gameplay concept of OD&D yet you keep lying and trying to appeal to authority.

>>52652273
>I think 16 was my highest, and I was a monty hauling, munchkining teen then
Nice, I remember those heady days of the very early 80ies...

Smug, self-righteous oldfags are literally the single worst aspect of gaming. I'd take an entire group of autistic furries than sit at a table with even one of these losers.

>>52652252
Yeah, and those activities were in pursuit of loot, and those achievements came from being high level. Gee what a mystery, could 1+1 be 2 !?

>>52652223
>The one that argued with GG about half orcs should have a soul?

Not me. That was a guy we drove up with once.

>>52652294
You don't have to believe me, idgaf.
It doesn't matter what you think of me. Read up on the history of the fucking game yourself.

>>52652284
And you conveniently forget to mention the 500 GP reward for recovering the artifact hmmm this really activates my almonds!

>>52652327
Christ on a rubber crutch that guy was fucking hilarious

>>52652338
Haha let's take a look of your favorite adventure, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. There's literally TENS OF THOUSANDS worth of XP in loot in that adventure. Sure you have gone in like a good scout boy without a single dime to be gained from the dungeon...you can't even keep your lies straight anymore : DD

>>52652251
I didn't roll dice and say "I solve the puzzle!" like you.

>>52652284
That the window dressing is inventive is another matter entirely. But the game mechanics were all made to reinforce the leveling cycle.

Or did those characters not advance in levels and take on tougher and tougher foes?

>>52652339
>And you conveniently forget to mention the 500 GP reward

There's always a reward, right?

You never recover the artifact because doing so might be an obligation to your liege?

>>52652367
>that module
>my favorite
Well, that's where you're wrong kiddo

>>52652392
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons

>Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and gather treasure and knowledge.[4] In the process the characters earn experience points to become increasingly powerful over a series of sessions.

But it wasn't abut getting loot and XP :DDDD

>>52647086
I think rolling for stats would be fun for a campaign where the players are expected to play many different characters over its course, so the variation in stat arrays for each player will eventually balance out according to the Law of Big Numbers.

>>52652391
Show me a published dungeon with no loot whatsoever, then.

>>52652431
>Wikipedia is right about everything
Please go on, I'm sure Wikipedia is more correct than wjat I lived through

>>52652367
>Haha let's take a look of your favorite adventure, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief.

That was me. You've been arguing with the other oldfag.

>>52652376
>Or did those characters not advance in levels and take on tougher and tougher foes?

They advanced, just not as far or as fast as many current players would think is "correct".

You're falling into an all or nothing mode of thinking. As I explained earlier, I'm talking about a matter of emphasis. Currently, leveling is over emphasized.

Hey oldfag, I know the internet is a big place, but are you, perhaps, the DrDeth guy from the Paizo forums?

You are doing the same brand of condescending nostalgia, although you had not claimed yet that you have helped make the Thief so I'm not sure.

>>52652450
What you claimed to live through, you meant. Let's face it, you're barely in your twenties, you were never part of the OD&D history, and you don't know what you're talking about.

>>52652375
Yeah, instead you just gave your DM a handy to solve the puzzle.

>>52652470
>Currently, leveling is over emphasized.

Then why do like, 80% of campaigns not go over level 10 in 5e?


there's surveys about this shit.

>>52652470
>Currently, leveling is over emphasized.

Except it isn't. In 5th edition, the gap between high level characters and lower level critters is quite small.

>>52652481
>implying
Please, keep going mr all seeing and all knowing

>>52652473
>are you, perhaps, the DrDeth guy from the Paizo forums?

No, I'm not. I don't play or use Paizo products.

And before someone has a shit fit, I don't play or use Paizo because I think they're somehow bad. I just don't use them. That's all.

>>52652508
>You don't have to believe me, idgaf.
>It doesn't matter what you think of me.
>replies
>still replies
>still replies with tears in his eyes

Sure you don't care, big boy : DDDDDD

Anyhow, take a look how it actually worked back then, you might learn something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons

>>52647231
I have 20 back up characters that I have premade via random dice rolls for basically every part of the character.

For example, I would start with race, (roll 2d12,) and go on to class (1d12), with stats being 4d6 (drop lowest) and me deciding where the stats fit.

I mean sometimes I make characters that will rock a goblins face lvl 1, other times I have a character that needs to take things easy and use common sense.

The point I'm getting at is, during my off time I'm making characters that I would never usually make. I like my beefy fighters and paladins, with orcs, goliaths, and half Orcs. But by this, I'm making half elf bards, Yuan ti warlocks, gnome fighters, etc. So though your main point is correct, people should have freedom in having fun, I like to have my fun determined by the dice. (So to speak)

>>52652492
>80% of campaigns not go over level 10 in 5e?

>>52652505
>In 5th edition

There's more to TTRPGs than 5e or even D&D.

Once again, this is meant to be a general observation about TTRPGs as a whole.

Look at >>52652449 for example. He cannot even imagine an adventure which doesn't contain XPs. It's inconceivable to him. Every time he sits down at the table he simply MUST earn XPs or else the game was a waste.

>>52652587
Same is true for most editions AFAIK. There's a very small group of people who play higher levels, but they usually _start_ at higher levels to begin with, which means they have less levels to level up into.

> He cannot even imagine an adventure which doesn't contain XPs. It's inconceivable to him. Every time he sits down at the table he simply MUST earn XPs or else the game was a waste.

That's... not what he's saying. He's saying that published adventures all hand out XP, because it's an integral part of the system.

And it is.

>>52647086

Yes

>>52652316
>not realizing that the achievements are what gained the XP, not vice versa
You're the kind of person who believes that creating, staffing, and protecting a monastery isn't a roleplaying exercise that can earn you XP, aren't you.

>>52652625
>He's saying that published adventures all hand out XP, because it's an integral part of the system

The operative word there is "published".

XP, loots, and levels are integral parts of the system. They are, however, not the ONLY parts of the system.

I'll repeat this again: I've been talking about emphasis. I've not been talking about some binary, yes/no, up/down, one/zero equation.

XP, loot, and levels are part of the game and belong in the game. In play they are currently over emphasized. Not bad, not wrong, just over emphasized.

>>52652749
Dude, people just want to argue and shit all over opinions they don't like... it's pointless to try and talk to anyone here rationally at this point.

Take >>52652546 for example. Just can't fathom that they're wrong, or that things happened to others. Granted, the oldfag was probably full of shit, but instead of asking any questions or whatever, it's all /pol/ tier shitposting and name calling.

>>52652749
They are the core reward mechanic. Yes, it's not the entirety of the system, because that'd make it a cow-clicker.

No RPGS are _just_ their mechanics, because they are also what the players and the DM put there. And also the publishers of settings I guess.

But saying that somehow modern D&D, or modern RPGs in general are more about leveling up than old oines, when the XP cycle got relegated to an accidental thing that got carried over because of legacy (to the point where many games don't even use XP, even D&D 4e and 5e using a milestone system as one of the default options) is ludicrous, and demonstrates fundamental lack of understanding regarding of either the old or the new school RPG design, or possibly both.

>>52652102
I find most of the whiny cunts I run into being DMs to be honest. Still not all that many desu, mostly just the type that insists on playing 3.PF because they know nothing else, then throwing a temper tantrum because everyone's playing spellcasters and "powergaming." Or wants rolling for stats because "stat buy is for powergamers" and throwing a fit because someone rolled high stats and doesn't want to reroll them.

>>52652828
>it's pointless to try and talk to anyone here rationally at this point.

Too true sadly.

Sometimes, though, you read a post or three that makes you think, smile, and nod. And sometimes you're able to post something that makes someone else think, smile, and nod.

Time to go. Thanks for your thoughts and have fun playing.

>>52652587
>He cannot even imagine an adventure which doesn't contain XPs. It's inconceivable to him. Every time he sits down at the table he simply MUST earn XPs or else the game was a waste.

I mean, I can't exactly blame him. That's how D&D's been since it's conception. Players since AD&D have been trained that loot and exp are the only thing worth accomplishing.

>t. AD&Dfag

>>52652966
Nice, couldn't have said it better myself.
I just wish that a stupid disagreement, over a fucking RPG no less, wouldn't cause such vitriol and shit flinging.
I swear 99% of the anons on here actually hate playing RPGs and just shitpost, cause everyone misses the point of rpgs, video games, movies, you name it... it's to have fun

>>52651897

>Trust me, I sat at Gary's and Kuntz's tables

MY DAD WORKS AT NINTENDO YOUR GETTING BANNED YOU CHEATER!

Nice, informal fallacy: Appeal to authority.

>>52652625
Dude, TTRPGs these days include things like Fate or NWoD, which while they do have advancement systems, are by no means structured around them. If anything, it's less emphasized these days than it ever was.

>>52649209
>Because this game uses a random resolution mechanic for actions, everything else also has to be random

>>52655153
When it makes sense why not.

>>52647086
>Seeing how stats are one of the most important things in a RPG
Not inherently. Depending on the system special abilities or equipment can be vastly more important than good stats.

>>52651173
>being useless and not being the best are the same

>>52655224
>Depending on the system special abilities or equipment can be vastly more important than good stats.

Which makes rolling them kiiiinda pointless.

>>52647086
Depends, really.
It's fun to build a character from the ground up, but it can also be fun to roll a character and figure out how they got to that point. Personally I'm cool with either.

I think the real problem people have with rolling stats is DMs forcing it on people who don't like it, which is poor form.

>>52648805
>So, 6 + 2d4? And then apply race bonus for a max of 16 (14 + 2)?
What's the fucking point at that point? That's even worse than 5e's point buy suggestion which itself feels incredibly gimped over rolling. The end result is that it forces players down a specific path unless they want to be gimped into near uselessness.
>Want to play a barbarian
>Roll a 14 in one ability score
>Gonna put it in con
>If I go half orc I will only get a +2 and won't get 20 con until level 12
>If I go dwarf I can start with a +3 and can have 20 con at level 8
>If I choose hill dwarf I can get an extra hit point every level
>At level 12 I can also get tough, shield master, or start increasing other ability scores
If you are going to use point buy or pseudo point buy at least let people get high ability scores instead of making them a bunch of random losers who are barely above average in their best ability score.

>>52655335
Its faster than point buy since you already have your numbers in front of you, your only choice is which stat is first, second, third, etc. instead of what score each individual stat gets relative to each other. Besides many people like the randomness factor especially since they can help decide characterization or be cool.
>Player rolls great for stats
>Character is a smug asshole whose better than almost everyone and won't shut up about it
>Player has two really bad stats but one or two great stats
>Character is an idiot savant or a clumsy 7 foot slab of muscle
>Player rolls pretty average
>Character is an average joe who got caught up in an adventure
>Player rolls below average in several stats
>Character is just a loser who lucked into his position and is determined to prove himself

Ultimately fun triumphs all and I generally let players use either or unless a system wasn't designed for a certain way at all. If you want to roll, go ahead just preferably do it in front of me or someone else in the group, if you want to do point buy go ahead. My only rules are don't waste too much time in game over stats and have fun. I'm not going to let you reroll a billion times, if your highest ability score in say DnD over 10 sets of rolls was a 14 than I will tell you to keep what you have, use point buy, or maybe use a standard array, I don't want to watch you roll the same dice all day.

>>52655564
>Its faster than point buy
But it's not faster than 17/15/13/11/9 or other arbitrary values.

>>52647086
Yes it is. First of all, there we be a lot of fucking rerolling, which completely breaks the entire point in rolling at the same time. Second, someone will always how poorly, and another will roll just too good.
The only time we used this rolling method was in a D&D 3.5 game, and one guy rolled three 18, two 14 and one 15; in retrospect another guy biggest stat was 11. Guess what happened? We all rerolled and we couldn't matched that guy stats, so the DM let us use the same stats he had. And then I ask you: Why the fuck we we're rerolling at the first place?

>>52655622
True but when you use point buy you generally don't just say 17/15/13/11/9 and be done with it.

>>52647439
Just roll 1d8 then, and get some actual distribution going.

>>52649101
Drinking mercury is largely harmless, actually. It's inhaling it you gotta watch out for.

>>52647086
>roll for stats once
>the entire party uses that array, assigning to where they need to

>>52649793
That sounds like a good way to end up with generic flat characters.
Do all wizards in your world have the exact same personality?

It makes sense in stuff like D&D Basic where characters are quickly made and easily disposed of. It doesn't in many more systems however.

File: Probability.jpg (261KB, 900x1542px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 900x1542px

>>52647086
>Is rolling for stats bullshit?
I would say yes but it is the kind of bullshit that exists on a scale where there are degrees of acceptability. 4d6 drop the lowest is fine by me if the GM insists, rolling stats down the line with no choice of where the rolls go is absurd in my opinion, and anyone who does 3d6 down the line with no chance of changing it is either a masochist or just looking to revel in the randomness.

Additionally even if I find whatever dice rolling mechanics are being used acceptable I would still rather choose how to allocate my stat points.

File: 1460848154532.jpg (91KB, 800x615px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x615px

>>52651148
The man you describe can go climb a wall of dicks for all I care and I'm glad you left him. If a player rolls good, then they get good stats whether or not it's disproportionate to the other players. That's what "no special treatment" means.

>>52655879
Right, but the point is, it's not the fastest method. You aren't only contending with pointbuy, you are also contending with arrays, or even randomized arrays for extra "fast but balanced".

Or systems where there are just no stats, or stats are determined by your class/race without rolls.

>>52647086
I don't know, I kinda feel like anyone whos overly concerned with optimazation shold play at least one game of 5e D&D with random stats just to see that it can still be fun..

>>52662502
Of course one session can be fun. The problem with random rolling is long campaigns after you have rolled poorly or extremely well.

And even those can be fun.

The question is if the fun of rolling for stats is worth giving up the ease of getting challenges right with arrays, even after the novelty wears off.

>>52647086
Depends. Most games I say point buy, but in games where a high character turnover rate is likely, I run rolls.

Whether you go Rolls or Point Buy, it won't stop certain stats from being dumped anyways.

>>52648299
>If you want to roleplay as X, surely you don't mind having stats of Y
>This will totally enhance your game experience!
Kil yourself