/tg/ do you prefer rolling or point buy

>>53177842
Rolling though many games don't allow that.

>Controlled character generation
Good

>Random character generation
Good.

>Rolling for stats
Dated. Only persists for nostalgia. Still fun at times.

Stat arrays. Gives the players choice, without letting them put everything into a few stats while dumping the rest.

>>53177842
Do not respond to this man, he is a terrible GM.

File: notice.jpg (31KB, 530x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 530x300px

>>53177842
I don't even bother to join groups where the DM says we're rolling for stats. It serves absolutely no purpose except barring you from playing characters you're actually interested in roleplaying, due purely to luck. (or causing players to get their characters killed on purpose until they get an overpowered-as-fuck character).

If you roll for stats, you're a fucking retard, end of discussion.

File: 1384634121146.png (310KB, 1696x2502px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1696x2502px

>>53177842
It depends on the type of game, really, though I'm not a big fan of the standard methods of randomization. Randomization is cool--it leads to more diverse and interesting characters, rather than everybody being optimized in similar ways--but it sucks when one person's character ends up with much better stats across the board, so I prefer a method of random generation that at least somewhat levels the playing field. Pic related.

>>53177842

Player driven character generation, all the way.

Randomgen can be fun, whether it's part of a quirky comedy game like Maid or more in depth like Traveller or Infinity's Lifepath system, but even then I still prefer to have an option to just fully pointbuy a character.

Sometimes, I am not sure what I want to play when joining a game, so randomgen or some sort of systemic method for generating ideas is good. But most of the time, I will have a specific concept in mind, and I'll want to be able to tune the mechanics to best represent the character I wish to play.

>>53178553
I will say that randomness in distribution as opposed to generation is the important thing, and virtually all systems that only do one get it wrong. I'd much rather have people buy their stats then randomly distribute them, than roll their stats and choose where they go.

>>53178553
i use a similar system in my game for rolling stats of 72d6 assign 1's to strength 2's to dex and so on and then allowing players to trade there arrays between them; if you want to make this fairer you can have stats over 18 over flow by re-rolling overflow until everything is 18 or less, granted i play online with friends making this easier.

>>53179363
That's pretty cool, though the number of dice is a bit crazy. You should start out attributes with a base of 3 though, if only to reduce the number of dice you need to roll by 25%.

>>53179452
I have done it by hand it's o.k. if you can do it in 3 blocks of 24 and as a filthy ex tau player i have the d6's for that.

>>53177842
Rolling for one-shots, high-lethality campaigns, or otherwise any game with many characters per player or minimal play time per character. Point buy for games with fewer characters per player or longer play time per character.

>>53179512
Not even this, because it just means the best way to play is to meat-grind your characters to death until you get all good stat rolls.

Rolling for stats is an instant red flag that your DM has no idea how to run a fun game.

2d6+6

End up with lowest stat of 8 and highest of 18. Nobody is useless and nobody (if you assume average rolls on the d6) is OP.

File: wizard.jpg (67KB, 710x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 710x960px

>>53177842
Pointbuy was a little boring for my taste, but rolling led to some fucking stupid characters, so my group settled for 2d6+6

File: C&C stat generation.png (42KB, 1310x362px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1310x362px

>>53179363
>>53179497
I have something somewhat similar: for an overly-complicated system I'm not satisfied with designed to link attribute scores in Castles and Crusades with the primary/second attribute designations.

>>53179527
>Not even this, because it just means the best way to play is to meat-grind your characters to death until you get all good stat rolls.

Quite wrong, because the guy with all good stat rolls will be only slightly less likely to die himself.

File: stat array.png (7KB, 194x199px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 194x199px

>>53179527
>>53179512
for high lethality campaigns I like to roll an array of 6x6 3d6

They pick a starting spot and direction and follow the line, assigning stats in order. (STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA)

For example if someone wants to play a an eldritch knight they can pick the rightmost 18 and then assign from left to right, giving
18 str
14 dex
8 con
15 int
10 wis
7 cha

Someone else can want that 18 for Charisma, so he would pick the 11 above as starting point, going top to bottom, looping around when he reaches the top, giving

11 str
11 dex
13 con
8 int
15 wis
18 cha

somewhat convoluted, but it works for us

>>53177842
Rolling, with some leniency if your scores come out crap.

Point buy is fine, I just like the random element.

File: attribute generation methods.png (6KB, 243x220px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 243x220px

Some different methods for stat generation and the averages they produce. Numbers with asterisks are calculated, while the others are derived from a bunch of simulations (meaning they're close, but not necessarily exact right).

Point buy is better in games where ability scores really and genuinely make or break your character - 3rd edition and later. Before that, you might as well roll and get a bit of an additional random element to the game, some more unpredictability to work your way around.

It's quite fun, even if the stats end up being shit: you'll just be playing medium-hard mode.

>>53177842
Rolling for stats only makes sense where such deviations aren't that significant overall, like the 40K RPGs.

Pretty much every other RPG I play though requires points buy or point allocation. So really, yeah. Fuck rolling.

>>53177842

I lean towards point-buy because it lets me play the character I have in mind before I come to the table, which is how most games are run.

However, if everyone's going to roll stats, I'm going to also roll for race and THEN pick a class and distribute stats.

File: 1475339386314.png (195KB, 417x578px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 417x578px

>not rolling stats
>playing whatever you want to play
Millenials are at it again.

>>53177875
Most boring.

>>53179713
>Not rolling for stats, getting shitty strength, and playing a fighter anyway - he'll just be a slightly weaker fighter that compensates with smarts and cunning
Unimaginitive plebs.

File: bluh.gif (35KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 650x450px

>>53179713
>>53179731
>Still playing games where a character can have low stats without being instantly wrecked
>Submitting to not being allowed to play what they want

Face it, old man - your time is over. No one wants to deal with your shit anymore.

>>53177842
Rolling is great if you balance it properly.
>3d8, anything below 8 set to 8. Anything above 16 set to 16.

>>53179643
Needlessly convoluted, but for alot of people that's half the fun, so who am I to deny you that. Afterall, it still sounds like something fun to try out at least once.

>>53179788
Are you an actual retard?

>>53179810
I meant 3d6. Applicable to 5e DnD. For other games, this type of rolling for stats may not work very well.

File: 2d6+4.png (35KB, 950x386px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 950x386px

>>53179788
2d6+4 gives you a pretty nice curve in a similar range.

>>53179621
>>53179788
>>53179893
If you want to roll, you might as well go the whole hog and roll with 3d6s. Otherwise everyone's just going to get the middle stats and they end up right back to the boredom you were trying to escape from in the first place.

>>53179940
Eh, it's not that different. Your chance of getting in the 9-12 range on 3d6 is 48.1%. Your chance of getting in that range on 2d6+4 is 55.6%. And preventing scores over 16 or under 6 makes your stats more appropriate from direct d20 checks.

>>53179940
You're not supposed to have stats below 8 or above (normally 15, I chose to stretch it to 16) before racial modifier in 5e. Otherwise you're risking the balance of the game.

Rolling is nice because it gives you more organic characteristics, instead of
>15
>15
>15
>8
>8
>8
or maybe 15 15 12 with the last points spent as 'fluff'.

>>53179940
No no, you must roll a single 1d6 for each stat. 1, 2, and 3 become 4, 5, and 6 - while 4, 5, and 6 on the roll become 15, 16, and 17.

That way there are no middle stats anywhere and everyone can be a colossal minmaxed fuck-up!

>one fighter has 14 strength
>another fighter has 15 strength
>wow, it's like they're completely different people! cant do that with pointbuy

The poll is pretty interesting, the results have been a solid 70/30 in favour of pointbuy since I started monitoring the results.

>>53180357
I don't know if it's that interesting: rolling your stats generally requires a very specific type of a game, of system and play style, both of which are kind of niche - and worse than that, go against both the feelings of power, wish fulfillment, and fairness ("He rolled really high while I got shit!"), that a lot of people here like.

The results are entirely unsurprising.

>>53180402

I'm more surprised that rolling is still so high.

>>53180413
Fair enough. Maybe it's the Dark Heresy fanbase.

>>53179713
>Not just using point buy because "muh sacred cows"
>Risking an imbalanced party just to spite people who you'll never meet.
>>53179731
Fighters literally get no compensation for having high INT, even the skill points they receive will still make up less than most other classes in the game.

If you roll up a high INT character, just play a fucking wizard you pleb.

>>53180529
Depends on the system. In my experience, advocating rolling stats instead of point-buy comes with the unspoken addition that you're playing a system from before 3rd edition - especially if we're also talking about doing them in order, as the fighter example clearly did.

I'm all for rolling stats because I like those games, but what kind of a retard would make his players roll for stats IN ORDER in 5e or Pathfinder?

>>53180568
The kind of retard who starts shrieking when mechanics are brought up in any context other than blind jerking to them.

I really like the 5e stat array the 15,14,13,12,10,8 it forces everyone to be bad at at least something to allow other members in the group fill in the gaps, I've found the games where we used this tend to be the most balanced and fun

>>53180357
I am honestly a bit baffled with this result. You're playing a roleplaying game where by it's nature you're not always going to get what you want, if just for the fact that you're playing with at least 1 other dude.

I mean come on. Why does every character has to be a special snowflake? Why would enforcing a rule make you the antichrist? Seriously. You're playing a tabletop RPG. A game that relies on imagination, so why not strain yours a little and adapt to the fact that your character is not exactly 100% what you want it to be.

I mean what's next we stop rolling for actions because it's too random?

>>53177842
Rolling/randomized I prefer, however, it sucks when you roll three eighteen and a pair of fourteens, and another player doesn't roll above 12.

>>53177842
Point buy for crunchy and heavily mechanical games. Also the ones in which I want a deep character with a developed backstory
Rolling for more narrative based and lighthearted games

>>53181012
its closer to 45/55 now
so its actually fairly even

>>53181036
I've seen the issue from both sides of the fence, and I can say that if the entire party acknowledges the problem from the start and agrees to go for it anyway, it's still quite fun.

It's a bit like gambling. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. In point-buy, meanwhile, everyone wins. Sometimes you want everyone to win.

>>53178198
>Here is my retarded opinion guys!
>"End of discussion." Because my opinion is superior and anyone who thinks otherwise is a retard.

This is why I'm really starting to hate /tg/. The amount of vocal retards is too much.

>>53181132
I mean I sort of agree with him yet I feel ashamed to.

>>53181132
Welcome to anonymity.

>>53181215
It's not about anonymity, it's about having a discussion instead of a shitflinging contest.

>>53177842
I don't go for roll for stats for any D&D beyond 2e.

Even if not for the fact that WotC editions are basically designed around having good stats in the right spots, I also find a lot of DMs simply don't know how to deal with it, or just want players with garbage stats they can kill at any time.

>Ok guys we're rolling for stats
>Just 3d6, none of that drop the lowest horse shit.
>If you can't handle a little party imbalance, maybe you should leave.
>No rollbacks, you roll it, thats your number, no changes
>Wow wait wait, hold the fuck up
>Did you just roll 3 18s?
>Nope, sorry, you're gonna have to reroll that, you'll be too overpowered
>I don't care what I said earlier, I can't have you outshining everyone else
>I'm revoking the no rollbacks rule then
>Wait you guys stop rolling again, I'm just revoking it for him
>Why are you guys leaving?

I'm simplifying this a bit. This ended up eating 2 hours of what was supposed to be a 3 hour session because he couldn't handle that someone actually rolled good stats. Dude even offered to just play a Monk, which set the DM off even more because he thinks Monks are busted in 3.PF (which was another red flag that made us all wary).

>>53177862
>Dated. Only persists for nostalgia. Still fun at times.

OSR games are "dated," they are still good fuckwit. Stop getting mad just because your DM is shit and won't let you reroll when you got all 7s, the fucking book says you are supposed to reroll if your stats are too low.

>>53181132
First day on 4chan?

>>53178198
>It serves absolutely no purpose except barring you from playing characters you're actually interested in roleplaying, due purely to luck.

No, it serves the purpose of giving you a unique set of stats (or, at least one of 34012224 possible sets assuming 3-20 range including racial mods). Stop strawmanning rolling for stats as 3d6 straight down, you can roll 4d6 to get six numbers then assign them. There's a slim chance you might not get what you want, but it's unlikely. I personally always offer both as an option when I DM. Characters almost always pick rolling.

>>53178600
>rule of cool crapshit
>session zero shilling
>reddit spacing

Damn.

>>53179512
lol no. The longest campaigns I've run have been D&D campaigns, and they rolled for stats. Rolling for stats has NO EFFECT ON LETHALITY OF THE GAME. THAT IS BASED ON THE SYSTEM YOU ARE USING.

If you roll for stats in 4e and do point buy in fucking AD&D, the 4e campaign will "last longer" because characters are more durable in 4e. Stop using this shitty "argument."

>>53181168
That's because while his point is fine he made it like an asshat.

As for my 2 cents, it depends on the system. If attributes are so powerful a few points shifted one way or the other can make or break a character then rolling is just asking for somebody to have a bad time.

>>53181262
>I don't like a certain mechanic because I played with a shit DM once.

I don't get it what you're trying to say, Anon.

>>53181304
>Hahaha he wants to actually discuss something in 4chan instead of just shitposting and "my opinion>your opinion" discussions! Must be a newfag!

Not a newfag. And no 4chan wasn't a cesspool of retards since time immemorial. Not outside of /b/.

>>53179713
This. People who insist on point-buy are entitled cunts who want to play THEIR character EXACTLY as they imagined him (read: copied him from the char-op forums). They are spoiled infants who tend to play the same self-insert character over and over. When I DM I always try to kill point buy characters first. Meanwhile they have shitty stats because a lot of the players who rolled tend to either roll shit (entitling them to a reroll AS PER THE RULES) or roll really good stats. So, point buy niggers lose either way.

>>53181380
>I intentionally make the game shittier for players

>>53177842
Both have their places.

If you run a game of desperate individuals cobbling together a life, rolling is great. You get rich characters with deep flaws, and the desperation comes out in the mechanics of the game and the build of the characters.

If you play a fantasy setting where the heroes are expected to do great things, do point buy. They're supposed to be good at the things they do.

>>53181387
No, I just don't baby them. You want to point buy? Then you are trying to optimize your character the best you can so you can be MAD or SAD or whatever the fuck for your obscure build. Guess what fuck cunt, you're going the fuck down hard.

>>53181380
>>53181399
Stop it, I like rolling too but you're making us look bad.

Leave the angry bitter trolling to the young'uns.

>>53181399
No, you're definitely making the game shittier.

>>53181378
>I don't get it what you're trying to say, Anon.

Mostly roll for stats is bad for D&D outside of OSR editions because the new D&D editions(3.PF, 4e, and 5e) aren't designed in a way to handle Rolling for Stats well. That and most people who want the party to roll for stats don't seem to understand it very well. What I posted was the worst I've bumped into, but it's far from the only time I've seen it happen, to the point where "Roll for Stats" is on my red flag, stay away from list.

>>53181012

Because that's not the game I want to play?

Your point doesn't really makes sense. I create a character while having complete control over them, because that's my role as a player- To control my character. For their internal and pre-game stuff, I have as much authority as the GM does over the game as a whole.

Rolling for actions creates tension and uncertainty in how their story plays out, which is fun and enjoyable. But when I have a specific character concept I wish to play, uncertainty is pointless, unnecessary and adds nothing.

I'm not against randomgen entirely, and I'll play with it on occasion if I don't have any other ideas, but wanting to play a specific character is not 'special snowflake', unless you wish to completely destroy the definition of the term.

>>53181356
>reddit spacing in his response
damn

>>53181380
>>53181399

Except this argument is bullshit.

Pointbuy doesn't enable minmaxing, it allows you not to. If I can select stats suitable to my concept, I'm more free to take non-optimal options and flavour stuff with the knowledge that I'm not screwing myself over by doing so.

With rolled chargen, if I get bad or even average results my choices are significantly more limited, if I want to pull my weight I have to be efficient with any choices I have to make, rather than being free to choose something flavourful and interesting, or the system will punish me for it.

>>53181551
>>53181356

When did clean formatting become 'reddit spacing'?

>>53181570
Well, if people know if from reddit (because they come from there) they'll of course call it that

>>53181563
>Pointbuy doesn't enable minmaxing, it allows you not to.

In theory, maybe, but in practice I've never seen anyone do this. Meanwhile, it's point-buy where people tend to not care for the numbers or efficiency, still going on as a fighter even if their strength ended up as mediocre and their charisma or wisdom higher.

Also, what system are you talking about exactly? I remember the last time this talk came up, less than a week ago, and even back then no one ever brought up the system - they just sperged on without any common ground whatsoever.

>>53181586

It's just weird. People have been posting like that for donkeys years, but only recently people have started to call it out, as though wanting your post to be easily read and understood is some kind of treachery? Confuses the hell out of me.

>>53181036
Which is why I always adopt the policy of "If your stats are shit you can reroll if you want".

I've had players decline that option.

>>53177842
I usually roll or use the stat array if I'm feeling lazy. When my group rolls stats we roll 4d6 and you discard the lowest of the four.

>>53179776
Lol you do realize rolling for stats is still a really huge thing, right? Unplug your xbone, man. There's a whole world right outside the door.

>>53181609

I've only ever been in one 2e D&D game, and that used point buy too, but I've been in rolled stat games of Dark Heresy, Traveller, Anima: Beyond Fantasy... I think a couple of others.

And I guess it also depends on the players intentions. If someone wants to optimise, nothing you can do will stop them (save for perhaps sitting down and talking it through with the group to establish a common ground). Pointbuy might let them get closer to a perfect character, but they'll still do the best they can to make the best use of any stats they roll, good or bad.

But in cases where I roll bad stats, I feel forced to optimise. An RPG is a cooperative experience and it's designed around the idea of everyone being able to contribute. If I end up with a bad or very specific statline, even if it's less fun for me it's better for the group if I use it efficiently. Meanwhile, people who roll well are more free to split their focus or choose less optimal options because they won't let the side down (and perhaps be less than optimised intentionally in order to not outshine other people.)

In general I just find the disadvantages aren't worth it, outside of very specific systems/playstyles or systems with balanced lifepath and randomgen, which randomises what you get while ensuring everyone still ends up at roughly the same level of general competence.

>>53181674
Maybe there's still old folks doing that, but that won't last - I'll just need to wait a few years until your grandson finally decides to pull the plug off you, oh ancient one.

>>53181563
>With rolled chargen, if I get bad or even average results my choices are significantly more limited, if I want to pull my weight I have to be efficient with any choices I have to make, rather than being free to choose something flavourful and interesting, or the system will punish me for it.
Christ, I was wondering how much would I have needed to scroll down before seeing this post. I don't get how people fail to realize this, really. Rolling stats points you toward minmaxing way more than point buy does.

>>53181431
And these are all fair points. It's just that the majority of the point buy camp makes out rolling to mean that you'll always get a completely random character that is nothing like you want, and the only good way of playing is to get EXACTLY what you want.

Which to me suggest that saying no you can't to these people leads to arguments as I had with a guy once (TPK due to player stupidity, rerolling characters, not getting as perfect stats that were still above average by a mile, flips his shit out).

>>53181757

Well, in essence that's true, but that's more a conflict of playstyle and system than anything else.

If someone comes into a game wanting or expecting player driven character creation, and is told to roll stats, they will not be happy. Rolling stats requires an entirely different mindset when it comes to character creation, and someone not expecting that or someone who simply doesn't enjoy that will probably be unhappy no matter what they roll.

This doesn't mean either side is implicitly wrong, just that being aware of your own preferences and the traits of a system or group you're joining are important, and that if they don't line up in a few important ways you're likely better off not playing at all.

>all these risk averse pussies

Go home and fiddle your little diddle.

>>53177842
Standard array. Saves time, saves effort.

>>53177842
>>53177842

I currently dm a second edition game and a 5th edition game and roll stats in both. 4d6 drop lowest. If a player doesn't get the prereqs stats for a second edition class I will gladly bump up .

I would gladly do Point buy if it was a high-level game though.

>>53177842
140 to 151 in favor of point buy.

That's really about what you'd expect. There's a slight lean towards balance and control over the system, and all things being fair, but again, given two options, /tg/ will almost always be split down the middle, usually complain that there's not four more listed.

That's really why we have such heated arguments, we're passionate about Shit we like, to the point that we've approached Siskel and Ebert in the way that we argue.

>>53182474
I notice the point-buy folks tend to be a lot angrier and more passionate on average. They're the ones that go on about how rolling for stats is inherently terrible and shouldn't ever work on anything. On the other side you get a couple guys that claim they're big coddled babies, but most of the rolling ones seem to perfectly acknowledge that sometimes point-buy is quite fine even if they themselves wouldn't prefer it.

>>53182544

Given that my experience is the reverse, how about we assume that the asshole to decent people ration roughly evens out on both 'sides'?

>>53182565
Probably about two or three out of those hundred-and-half that voted for each side, yeah.

File: dice.jpg (38KB, 594x397px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 594x397px

>>53177842
I prefer rolling but I realize it's partially nostalgia and flawed because nobody ever plays flawed characters as flawed.

Arrays are too Harrison Bergeron so I have to go with point buy, even though I like rolling as an idea much more.

>>53182544
Because rolling for stats can fuck up a game and a lot of the DMs who are rolling purists are fucking idiots, like the rare retard who makes you roll 3d6 for anything after 2E.

File: elfarcherfighterscholar.png (952KB, 1800x2313px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 1800x2313px

>>53177842
3d6 straight down, in order
then pick class and play to your strengths
when you die (and you will) repeat for new character

it's fucking evolution. and no dorthy, you don't get to decide to play a bard and then stack charisma. that's where rolling, point buy and arrays get it wrong.

>>53182711
>Because rolling for stats can fuck up a game and

bad players fuck up a game
mediocre players can't handle rolling

>>53182723

Both playstyles are equally valid. People having a different preference to you is not a bad thing.

>>53182751
Clearly >>53182711 disagrees.

>>53182736

Nope. Dicerolls can, in and of themselves, fuck up a game.

If you're in an edition where stats are more significant (post 2e), rolled stats can dramatically increase any potential imbalance in the party to the point that it's even more of a chore for the GM to deal with.

>>53182757

No? They specify that pre-2e it's okay, because those games assume a different playstyle.

>>53182544
>>53182624
The problem is that they're the most vocal, and the ones most likely to stay in the thread and argue about it.

File: method 1.png (147KB, 441x458px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 441x458px

>>53182723

>>53182736
No, rolling for stats can fuck up a game. I'm not abandoning that point no matter how hard you want me to.

>>53182895
Allright then. Defend your point.

How and why can rolling for stats can ruin a game?

>>53182895
And his point is that bad players ruin the game.

If you have really good players, how could rolling for stats still ruin it?

>>53182932

see

>>53182763

Depends on the campaign. I prefer rolling if I do not expect to be with the character for six+ months. For longer campaigns I prefer control during character creation so I know I have a character I'm satisfied with going in.

>>53182953
That is neither an example nor is it a reason.

All that says is that it might be bad. So you're effectively now saying that rolling for stats ruins the game because it has the potential to lead to imbalance.

>>53182932
Inappropriate usage of rolling, like someone deciding it's a really good idea to roll for stats in GURPS, using the wrong method of rolling for a game, players getting stuck with characters they aren't going to have fun playing because of their character's incompetence or because they're stuck with a class they're not interested in, and the real winner is when you roll bad stats to the point where a party member's animal companion beats you in every way.

>>53182952
Bad players ruin a game regardless of whether you're rolling stats or point buying.

Because a good player can still not have fun when they're stuck playing something they're not interested in.

>>53183007

You didn't say 'ruins the game'. You said 'can ruin the game'.

That example is a way in which rolling for stats can ruin a game, if it exacerbates systemic imbalance to the point the GM can't deal with the inconsistency in the party, unable to challenge the high end without making it impossible for the low end, unable to challenge the low end without making it pitifully easy for the high end, etc.

This isn't something that will always happen, and in a system suited to the playstyle it is unlikely, but it remains a valid example.

>>53183018
Most of these are not really the fault of the method. They are caused by the faulty enforcement of them.

> Inappropriate usage of rolling, like someone deciding it's a really good idea to roll for stats in GURPS, using the wrong method of rolling for a game

This needs no explanation. This is the fault of whoever decided to fuck with the system in a way that is incompatible.

> players getting stuck with characters they aren't going to have fun playing because of their character's incompetence or because they're stuck with a class they're not interested in

This holds a bit more merit. Rolling down the line requires a bit of a different mindset and I agree that it's not good for everyone. Most often though systems that actually require you to roll down the line either have built in safeguards (ie Stars Without Number) or the stats don't matter all that much to begin with. If you're enforcing rolling down the line in a system that it's not designed for and you don't put in safeguards then again we're back to issue 1. GM/Player incompetence

> where a party member's animal companion beats you in every way

I don't know of any system in which an animal companion is useful for anything outside combat/tracking plus maybe a couple of minor things. If you mean this as in "the animal companion's stats are better than the character's then I think the problem is with your perception of the importance of stats.

>>53183058
>You didn't say 'ruins the game'. You said 'can ruin the game'.

Allright my bad.

I've never ever heard of systematic imbalance that caused problems because of the stats. As in actual problems. I've seen some discrepancies and wierdness, but nothing in the way of what you imply here. The only imbalance I ever encountered was caused by a selection of abilities/traits that was simply overpowered to deal with fairly, and it had absolutely nothing to do with stats.

I prefer rolling. I have several character ideas at any given moment, so rolling helps me choose one. Explaining any oddities my character might have as a result of random stats give me ideas that I might not have thought of on my own, usually leaving me with a much more organic character than if I had built them from the top down. In general, I find using some degree of randomization makes for a more interesting story.

Rolling stats is only an issue if you have the wrong mindset. Instead of "How can I make the character I want with these stats?" it should be "How can I use these stats to make a character I want?"

>>53183291
And if the answer is "I can't"?

>>53183315
Be more creative.

>>53183291

Neither mindset is 'wrong', it's just about which style the group prefers and the system is best for.

>>53183244
>I've never ever heard of systematic imbalance that caused problems because of the stats.
3.PF. 14 STR Fighter vs some level 1 Druid's 20 STR spinosaurus. You can't keep pace with their animal companion in a fight, you'd still suck even if the animal companion didn't exist,AND you're almost certainly useless out of combat.

>>53183408
That discrepancy would still exist if you'd be a 18STR fighter. The problem is not with rolling for your stats. It's with that abomination of an option.

>>53183401
I didn't mean it was the wrong mindset in general. I was supposed to be more "if you are rolling stats, this is not a great mindset to have."

>>53181356
That's not the argument. You mixed up cause and effect. He said he likes rolling/point-buy because the game is this way, not the game is this way because of rolling/point-buy.

>>53180636
I do as well. No one gets to be OP and no one lags behind. There's enough variance so you have at least one character flaw but can be generally effective in 2-3 stats.also makes it easy to make new character mid seesion in case of death or to introduce new people to the game.

>>53183741
>you have at least one character flaw
>8 in an ability score
>not in the lower average range
>flaw

>>53183741
>5% less chance to succeed at a task
i am quivering in my boots

I like rolling random in roguelikes, so if i was playing on glorified roguelike then maybe yeah. As it stands i usually play GURPS which doesnt even have random stat rolling to my knowledge, mostly because you can make interesting flawed character in more ways than just "how big or low are your numbers."

>>53177842
>Not rolling a d20 for each stat

Casuals

>>53184722
>Not rolling a d100-50

Pff.

>>53185804
>Not roll 10d2

Pthbpthbpthb.

>>53186080
>Not roll 20d1

Bltttrrrr

Rolled 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 3, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 5, 6, 3, 1, 1, 4, 6, 3 = 70 (20d6)

>>53177842
Attribute array with random placement. For D&D I recommend a starting array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 8. Roll 1d6 multiple times, assigning values from highest to lowest to those stats, ignoring re-rolls. 1 is STR, 2 is DEX, 3 is CON, 4 is INT, 5 is WIS, 6 is CHA. Class is chosen after rolling. You can have players determine their race before or after, whichever you prefer. I recommend making them choose before so they can't intentionally min-max their stats to give themselves a 17 in something to start. I'll demonstrate right now with a Male Half-Elf using 5E rules.

>>53181132
There's no less vocal retards on any other board, they're just easier to disregard because you recognize the user name or run the place so you get banned for disagreeing with them.

>>53188726
15 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 13 Wis, 10 Cha, plus the two +1 to stats. I realized my mistake in choosing a Half-Elf immediately so I chose Dex and Con to boost before looking at the roll, thus my character would have 13 Dex and 15 Con instead. This character would make a pretty good Barbarian, Fighter, or Monk.

Randomly assigning a starting array is by far my favourite method of generating attributes. Nothing starts too high or low, the sum total of stats is even between every PC (before race), and there's a good mix of strengths and weaknesses.

>>53180636
I find stat arrays exceptionally boring. You don't get the variance of rolling for stats (not a fan, personally), and you don't get to make what you want (point-buy). If you have enough arrays that it doesn't really matter, then why have arrays at all and not just use point-buy?

Furthermore, I take issue with stat arrays because every character now has to fit into, say, one of several arrays (assuming there are multiple arrays). That's extremely limiting on player freedom, and on character types. I want to be allowed to make characters that don't fit the mold.

>>53181610
It's an internet tribalism meme but retards started believing it unironically.

>>53177842
Rolled stats is masturbation. No one wants to play a gimped character so most DMs just add in shit like 'drop lowest' or 'roll three stat lines and pick the best' all these mental gymnastics to justify allowing players artificially inflated stats. I say cut the foreplay and just give them a point buy with enough points to make a decent character, more if you want to make them stronger.

>>53189731
>No one wants to play a gimped character
Like 600+ votes say otherwise.

>>53189746
It's not that they want to play a gimped character, it's that they want to play an overpowered one that rolls better than what could've been achieved with pointbuy. It's using an inherently unfair system in order to have an unfair advantage over the rest of the world, but it only turns out that way for a very few number of characters. It's basically capitalism.

>>53189787
No, it's gambling. Unlike with capitalism everyone's got precisely the same random odds: you might get good rolls or you might get bad ones, but in the end randomness makes it in fact entirely fair, the very opposite of what you're claiming it is.

>>53179650
This chart. I love it. As if I didn't know rolling was already superior...

>>53177842
Point Buy, unless a player needs a new character stat.
Rolling and Point Buy are effectively the same, except rolling punishes your honest player when he shows up a mediocre character, while everyone else is a "lucky" minmaxed fucknugget.

I instate rolling for quick replacements both because of the reduced time, and to emphasize the ad-hoc replacement.

>>53179713
This.

I will roll given the chance because I'm not a fuck head. I do give my players the choice though.

>>53189835
What he's saying is that, despite the fair odds, players LIKE rolling because they want to roll above-average (which is an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the game world.) No one likes rolling below average, just like no one enjoys losing money at the casino. But the idea of "winning" makes up for the risk of losing, so simply pointing to the number of votes as evidence that it's a better system is naive.

Point buy is more fair for everyone and easier to balance.

BOTH

First roll for 1 year dex
((3d6*3) /20)
If 0 you have (the cost of going from 9 dex to 10 dex * -1) 'extra' points
If 1 you have 0 extra points.
If 2 you have (the cost of going from 10 dex to 11 dex extra points)

Then roll 1 year int
((3d6*3) /50)
If 0 you get no points
If 1 you the amount of extra points you get is the amount needed to go from 10 int to 11 int

Then roll 1 year str
3d6/10
If 0 you get (the amount of points needed to go from 9 str to 10 str * -1)
If 1 you get no points

To con you roll
3d6/5

0 means you get (the amount of points needed to go to 8 con to 10 con * -1)
1 means you get means you get (the amount of points needed to go to 9 con to 10 con * -1)
2 you get 0
3 means you get means you get (the amount of points needed to go to 10 con to 11 con)

Wisdom works like con


Charisma works as normal.

After all this mess you start with 10 in all your stats being able to use points to increase it or reduce the stats to get more points.

My group insists on rolling, I'm fine with it although I would rather a point buy because it ends up with extremely imbalanced players, unless they do like drop the lowest or whatever.

I like do 6d20 straight down the line.

I love how rollfags come up with ever more complex "fair" ways to roll instead of dispensing the bullshit and just going to an array or point buy.

File: 5e Roll All The Dice Character Generator.pdf (664KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1x1px

Roll for everything. Including race, class, and personality.

>>53181692
Well aren't you just Mr edgy faggot. Go toddle off elsewhere if you can't handle actually having to play by the rules. Carebear bullshit is what's killing the fun in this hobby.

>>53193628
How is it impacting your fun? Surely your game group has a similar playstyle to you with similar tastes, and you have systems to play, so there's no real way for any community at large to affect you, is there?

>>53193672
Hi. If the game companies start pandering to the carebear mentality (it's actually already started happening) them yeah it does affect me and my group since we actually, you know, buy product.

Dude said he couldn't wait until my grandson took me off a ventilator. Fuck that and fuck him. This is over rolling for for stats or point buy? Tf outta here with that bullshit. Crybabies!

>>53193809
>Dude said he couldn't wait until my grandson took me off a ventilator. Fuck that and fuck him.
Sounds like you're the carebear crybabby around here faggot.
>"Wah, how come you guys are so mean to me? I thought 4chan was PC like muh subreddit said it'd be."
You gotta go back!

>>53193809
>buy product
I'm sure there are still creators out there catering to your tastes, because others share those same tastes. Aren't there any communities for your style of play? And there's always making things yourself. It doesn't really seem like that big of a deal. RPGs aren't like videogames where there's a significant investment to make things, you just need a pencil and paper to write your own game and material for it.

>>53193837
Nahhh, I think I'll stick around just to annoy you. Bigm, faggot.

Imagine having an ego like this faggot >>53193979 where you think "man, it's impossible for two people to dislike my retardation."

I don't know whether to be jealous or saddened.

>>53193921
My style of play? YOU MEAN ROLLING FOR STATS?

What is this world coming to?! Lol seriously I don't give two tin shits if someone used point buy for their character. That has little to nothing to do with my personal preference FOR ME.

Not him or him or him or her. Just me. Why is this even an argument?

>>53194011
Ego has nothing to do with it but you just keep thinking that, sunshine. It suits you to be this ignorant.

>>53194016
Yes, rolling for stats is a style of play, just like stat arrays and point buy. Do you think all three give the same experience?

>>53194034
There he goes again, let us bask in the spastic glow of this lone faggot.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

>>53177842
Why not let the playerd choose individually? I personally prefer rolling because of the fun in chance but I would never have a problem if the guy beside me wanted to point-buy instead. What's the deal?

>>53194042
Considering I've done all three since oh, ’85, I'd say, anecdotally speaking, the end result is largely intact. 20th level is still 20th level regardless of what stats I had getting there.

Booyah, grandma, booyah.

>>53194055
There can be an issue when you allow both in a game. For example, someone might roll low or high, skewing the party average and can lead to that player feeling like their character is too weak, or that the other players' characters are as they didn't roll well. Just from a balance perspective, mixing the two can be a problem. Of course, it depends on the group.

>>53194073
20th level is 20th level regardless, but it's not really a great indicator of the feel of stat generation because stats become much less meaningful at such a high level. What about at low levels, especially level 1?

>>53194049
There he goes again posting? Oh lawd. Are you the 4chan police? Lol
Something tells me you're really invested in point buy. I don't know what that could be except your vast projection. I disagree with you. Boo hoo! So fucking what? Is me disagreeing with you triggering you, friendo? I'm just going to keep doing because you're obviously one of those have fun my way or else kinda guys.

What point buy does everyone generally use? My group always uses 25

>>53194125
I'm thinking 64.

>>53194125
Usually 250 but sometimes we go down to the 75~150 range. At times we'll go up to 350 for street-level supers.

>>53194100
Point buy makes everyone generic, especially first level. You want that? Go for it! I'm not fussing over what method YOU use for YOUR character. Isn't that a bit (a lot) asinine?

>>53194173
How does it make everyone feel generic?

>>53194186
Point buy forces builds. Stat rolling (to ME, in my OPINION) makes room for creativity.

I once had an algahai fighter with a 3 Dex. Yup. He thought falling on people was a viable attack. It helped that he weighed almost 500 lbs. With point buy that character never would have existed or entertained so many players. Etc etc blah blah blah. I get the feeling you know where I'm coming from but this insistence that point buy is ""balanced"" and ""fair"" has captured your complete attention. Every one who plays a wizard shouldn't have an 18-20 int. Would you have more fun if you did play a wizard with that int? Maybe! Maybe not! While point buy isn't detrimental to your enjoyment it's not necessarily helping it any, either.

>>53194266
>Point buy forces builds. Stat rolling (to ME, in my OPINION) makes room for creativity.

You can have opinions about facts but it doesn't really change anything. You could say that in your opinion smoking is healthy, but that doesn't make it so.

>I once had an algahai fighter with a 3 Dex.

Awesome, so you had DEX as your dump stat on a class that doesn't really need DEX. Having 2 less bonus in a stat that you don't use than that other guy who doesn't use that stat sure made your character unique.

>Yup. He thought falling on people was a viable attack. It helped that he weighed almost 500 lbs. With point buy that character never would have existed or entertained so many players.

Why not? Do you need to roll for stats to make a clumsy character? A 500lbs character?

You project your own creative limitations onto others. You need rolling as a crutch, and assume so does everyone else.

>>53194266
The concept of point buy in and of itself is fair, but I don't agree with D&D's implementation of it (or any part of D&D, really). I'm a fan of systems where everything deducts from the same pool of points, so you can make your low-to-average INT but brilliant wizard by pumping points into spellcasting or what have you. I'm not a fan of cookie-cutter stat blocks, either.

I'd say that point-buy definitely helps my enjoyment by letting me make whatever character I want to play. There are times when rolling is fun, but usually I'm approaching a campaign with a specific idea of what I want to play. Rolling and getting screwed over by that would be detrimental to my enjoyment in that case.

>>53194266
Point buy unquestionably helps the fun level. I don't need "+20% chance of failure on everything forever" to make a unique character.

Given that its already hard to succeed in most RPGs (in this case, D&D) why do you need high rates of failure to roleplay a damn character?

>>53194322
Ok so it's a fact that rolling for stats is more fun.... FOR ME. If it's not for you, I'm so sorry. You can always try Parcheesi or something like that.

Actually Dex wasn't my dump stat for him (it was charisma duh) and having your Dex that low PENALIZED your ac.

See I actually play these games. I'm not a whiterooming, thoerycrafting faggot like most of tg so your arguments are really falling flat. No I didn't need to roll for stats to make a clumsy character but function followed form in this case. If my guy has an 18 int I'm sure as hell going to try my best to play him as actually having an 18 int. Is that so hard to understand? If my guy has an 18 con am I going to portray him as a sickly, anemic mess? No? Could it be because he has an 18 con? Probably! I DID roll his weight and height. I like to stick to the paradigms (mostly). Tell me again how this is a crutch and how I'm projecting that on others when I don't care if you use method I or method VII during character creation?

>>53177842
Both are fine. It depends on the system and the players.

I'm fine with rolling, as long as I can allocate those rolls how I see fit. Games that use this method usually have lots of ways to manipulate those numbers anyway.

Point buy is fine if you're playing a game where you want to really control all of the fine details of character design.

>>53194322
The thing is, it doesn't work like that in real life.

When buying, you normally can't go below 'slightly below average' in a stat. And for every point you want to invest in a non-vital stat, you must deduct from a vital stat. Yes, most people are maybe willing to use a few points on 'flavour', but I find it hard to imagine that a majority of players would have more than 12 in a non-vital stat. And if they do that, they will probably have two 8s or an 8 and a 10.

I have never seen anybody raise a non-vital stat above this at character generation, and I have played with a several point-buy groups. Some online and some in person.

The only system that does point buy well IMO is world of darkness. You have to spend some points in another category.

Meanwhile, if you roll you pretty much always get a more organic line of stats. Some highs, a lot of mediums, and some lows.

I will say that rolling for stat has its problems. It can create party imbalance if most of the party rolled low / high and one guy rolled the opposite. Depending on the system you're playing, this might be more or less of a problem.

Also, if you roll extremely poorly you might not feel like the character is worth playing. So the GM has to step in and let you roll a new statline.

If you prefer point buy for its balance, versus rolling for its organic feel, that's totally fine. I'm pretty much 50/50 on the subject.

>>53194418
>Ok so it's a fact that rolling for stats is more fun.... FOR ME.

Never said it wasn't fun for you. You are seeing things I don't say. I was just disputing "Stat rolling forces creativity". It doesn't.

>Actually Dex wasn't my dump stat for him (it was charisma duh)

Was your CHA lower than 3? What do you even define as a dump stat?

>and having your Dex that low PENALIZED your ac.

>See I actually play these games. I'm not a whiterooming, thoerycrafting faggot like most of tg so your arguments are really falling flat.

Cute. The post you are replying to was my second post in the thread. The first post was >>53177862. I'm playing DCC every Friday (except today).

Assuming you know better than everyone else doesn't make your arguments a whole lot of good.

>No I didn't need to roll for stats to make a clumsy character but function followed form in this case.
> Tell me again how this is a crutch and how I'm projecting that on others when I don't care if you use method I or method VII during character creation?

It mostly comes from >Point buy forces builds. Stat rolling (to ME, in my OPINION) makes room for creativity.

Unless you actually didn't mean what you say.

You make two (false, if for nothing else for how absolute they are) statements that can be objectively proven/disproven, and then try to to mask that by calling it an opinion, when what you actually mean is "based on my limited understanding and ability". You then assume that everyone else's limit is the same as yours.

Because YOU can't not "build" or "optimize" or whatever when you pointbuy, doesn't mean nobody else can't.

Because YOU need random rolling to "make room for creativity" doesn't mean everybody else does.

You are basically championing around your disability as if it was something to be proud of. Like those fucking fat acceptance idiots.

>>53194525
>The thing is, it doesn't work like that in real life.

Depends on the system used, sure. But saying rolling is better or more creative, because the pointbuy (in a particular case) is badly done isn't really logical. For example:

>When buying, you normally can't go below 'slightly below average' in a stat. And for every point you want to invest in a non-vital stat, you must deduct from a vital stat. Yes, most people are maybe willing to use a few points on 'flavour', but I find it hard to imagine that a majority of players would have more than 12 in a non-vital stat. And if they do that, they will probably have two 8s or an 8 and a 10.

Use higher point values. With more points to spend (and keeping the same stat limits, i.e. 15-20, depending on game), players are more likely to put points into things they don't need, even if they are optimizing.

Alternatively, play a game where every stat has a use, and there's actual choice/costs involved in leaving stats low/dumping.

>If you prefer point buy for its balance, versus rolling for its organic feel, that's totally fine. I'm pretty much 50/50 on the subject.

"Organic" is a good way to describe the benefit of random generation methods. And I don't mind random gen. I just feel that rolling is a meh way to do it, generally, especially in non-OSR games.

>>53194605
Objectively disproven? When? Where? You've yet to do that, first off. Secondly, it's a fallback for you to go oh oh projection, isn't it? Someone disagrees with you so they simply must be projecting, right? Right. Honestly any stat can be a dump stat. I was using the complete book of humanoids at the time (yeah it's shit but I didn't really know that at the time. Sue me?) And there's this little thing called monstrous charisma. It took five off your finalized charisma stat. Gasp! I bet that fucks up point buy now, doesn't it? Also what difference does how many posts you've made in this thread make? Did I call you personally a whiterooming, theorycrafting faggot? I did not. I'm pointing out that you're not replying to someone who's never used point buy unlike some of the posters here who are against it. I've used it and I don't like it. If you can make point buy creative that's more on your strengths as a player and no indication if it's good or not ""OBJECTIVELY'".
I never once said I know anything better than everyone else. Again, you're projecting. I know what I like and I opined on it. Don't like it? That's too bad! No one states an opinion with an opening line like this: "based on my limited understanding and ability". You certainly wouldn't because your head is so far up your ass. Are you really so married to point buy you want to argue over if people optimize or not using point buy when you know good and goddamn well they do? And rolling for stats does force you to be more creative because you didn't get EXACTLY the character you wanted to play?

Have a great night!

>>53194719
>Use higher point values
"Yeah, dm? I know everyone else is using 25 points but I really need 48 and I swear I'm not using the extra points to optimize my character! Honest Injun!"
Yeah, no. You don't get to tell the DM how many points you're going to use for your point buy.
>Non-OSR games
Holy crap. Just feel this: you're an elitist idiot. It's an objective opinion if that makes you feel any better.

>>53194806
>Objectively disproven? When? Where?

The moment anyone made a character that was not "forced into a build" your statement is logically false. The moment anyone made a character who was constrained into being a fighter (because he didn't roll good enough stats for anything else), stiffling any creativity he may have had, makes your second statement logically false.

Do you want to claim that neither happened in the history of RPGs?

The rest of your post can be summed up as being upset, which I don't see a point in engaging with. However, I found this funny:

> Are you really so married to point buy you want to argue over if people optimize or not using point buy when you know good and goddamn well they do? And rolling for stats does force you to be more creative because you didn't get EXACTLY the character you wanted to play?

You keep inadvertently proving my point that you can't even imagine everyone not optimizing when given the opportunity, and that your creativity is so limited, so barren that you can't imagine doing so without rolling.

>>53194836
>"Yeah, dm? I know everyone else is using 25 points but I really need 48 and I swear I'm not using the extra points to optimize my character! Honest Injun!"
>Yeah, no. You don't get to tell the DM how many points you're going to use for your point buy.

I meant for everyone, not a single player. I thought it was easy you could infer that from context, but I guess I should have fool-proofed myself, just in case.

>Holy crap. Just feel this: you're an elitist idiot.

Because I play non-OSR games? Or because I know what OSR is?

>It's an objective opinion if that makes you feel any better.

It made me smile, that's for sure.

>>53194963
>The moment anyone made a character who was constrained into being a fighter (because he didn't roll good enough stats for anything else)
Watch out for all those "just fight smart" posts.

>>53194985
I meant that in some versions in D&D you literally could not become anything else but a fighter with certain stat rolls, because there were stat requirements on classes.

I just find it amusing that someone defends rolling for stats (and other attributes) as enabling creativity when it can literally remove all the choice from your hands.

>>53177842
Rolling. It's faster.

>>53194963
Your cases are outliers and ya know it. Sure it's happened but the converse happens quite a bit more but you probably know that. If 99 experts say one thing and one expert says the opposite, treating both sides are equal is the definition of misinformation. Again, something I'm sure you're aware of, not that you give a flying fuck.
I can imagine it fine but it's just not that likely, no matter how hard a spin you put on it. You can point buy a character and not optimize. I never said otherwise. I said point buy forces builds. Those are my exact words but you want oh so badly to play other meanings into it. Hi. Go right ahead! That doesn't mean you're right or even close. Stat rolling makes room for creativity does not equal whatever bullshit you're trying to say I said.
Wew, lad. You project as much as you accuse others of doing. Hilarious. Keep smiling!

>>53195070
>Your cases are outliers and ya know it. Sure it's happened but the converse happens quite a bit more but you probably know that.

Of course, you have to think this. You have to think that the majority holds your opinion, for this to work.

>If 99 experts say one thing and one expert says the opposite, treating both sides are equal is the definition of misinformation.

Can it be tested? If yes, then it doesn't matter how many people are on either side. Only the truth matters. If 99 experts said a false thing, and 1 said the true thing, you'd still want go with the truth.

>You can point buy a character and not optimize. I never said otherwise. I said point buy forces builds.

What is the logical difference between these two statements?

>>53194266
>He thought falling on people was a viable attack. It helped that he weighed almost 500 lbs
Did you also roll randomly to generate weight?

>>53195146
There wasn't a table for it but yes I did. I used the range they gave for the algahai and determined his weight randomly.
>>53195130
Moving the goal posts! A time honored classic move on the part of yet another thing poster. That -never- gets old. I hope you're still smiling. Let's assume all 100 experts are experts... For a reason! You're basically taking my view now. All the other experts must simply be wrong. Why? Cognitive dissonance!

Just for fun let's say all 100 experts are right to some degree. How far will you go to agree with the one who agreed with you? Would you suck him off? I'm not a betting man but I think you would!

>>53195199
Mate, you have been trying to pass off not agreeing with lots of people just because there's more of them as "the definition of misinformation".

I literally can not stop having fun with how stupid you are. It's like logic is some sort of alien concept for you, that just happens to other people.

>>53195239
You mean the lots of people who prefer point buy over rolling? Where is your evidence of these people? Is every single one of them in this thread 'cause if so, I have some bad news for you. There are sixty-nine posters and not even all of them agree with your opinion. So yeah, just keep smiling. It suits you!

>>53195278
There's literally a strawpoll in the OP.

Apparently, there's at least 761 people who prefer point buy over rolling.

I'll keep smiling, as long as you keep making a fool out of yourself.

>>53177842
This poll needs an "I Like Both" and "I Don't Care" option.

>>53195334
a poll needs two options in order to have a majority

>>53195308
Oooo 761 people! On a strawpoll! On 4chan, no less!!

Oh yeah, making a real valid point there, mister.

>>53195425
dont like the poll, make a new one

>>53195425
As opposed to the post count?

This consistency thing, I hear it enhances your arguments, have you ever thought about trying it?

>>53195440
It's not that I don't like the poll. It's that I'm not going to let someone's opinion sway mine without some kind of meaty argument behind it. So far all I've heard is that I'm completely clueless concerning stat generation because I happen to prefer rolling my stats over point buy. Ad hominem argument if there ever was one.

>>53195447
Yes yes yes, despite your precious post count and super duper poll there are people, far more than 761 souls, that prefer rolled stats. I don't know how you're going to live with that very, very salient fact. Try drugs?

>>53195530
I don't have a problem with your preference. I have already told you this.

I have a problem with attributing properties to rolling/not rolling that are only true for a subset of people (for example, you).

There's no problem with saying "I prefer rolling, because it helps me make more creative characters".

There's a problem with "I prefer rolling, because pointbuy forces builds and rolling makes room for creativity.", because logically, they are false.

It's like saying "I prefer lemons to oranges, because lemons are sweeter" vs "I prefer lemons to oranges because I prefer how lemons taste".

I have been consistent with this, see >>53194605
>Never said it wasn't fun for you. You are seeing things I don't say. I was just disputing "Stat rolling forces creativity". It doesn't.

------------------------------------------

>Yes yes yes, despite your precious post count and super duper poll there are people, far more than 761 souls, that prefer rolled stats. I don't know how you're going to live with that very, very salient fact. Try drugs?

You asked for evidence, and I pointed out that there's one right in the OP. Would you like to give evidence of rolling being an extreme majority (which is what you are trying to you imply)?

Sometimes 4d6 drop the lowest, sometimes 3d6. If someone rolls an 18, I let everyone else in the party bump their highest stat up to an 18 as well. Keeps everybody happy and on the same playing field if they're low level.

>>53177842
I used to think that rolling was dumb, just potentially barring you from playing what you want when you think "Yeah, I fancy being a [wizard-archetype class] this game!" and then roll yourself an idiot beefcake, but there are always measures to prevent (or make incredibly unlikely) such a thing. The DM should always be happy to look at someone who got so unlucky with their roll that they're just not going to have fun and let them re-roll, anyway.

On that note, however, my friends and I always operate a points buy system. I consider that ridiculous min-maxing leading so unrealistically un-rounded characters could be possible with such a system, but we typically just trust each other not to make a 2 int, 10 str warrior-type, and if anyone ever did they'd definitely be expected to justify it to the GM somehow and then role-play as an absolute dribbler and intentionally make pants-on-head decisions. You could always have max starting stats, perhaps based on a multiple of your lowest starting stat, to counter such things in a point-buy system. Both are capable of avoiding the typical issues associated with them and leading to decent character creation, really.

>>53195751
>The DM should always be happy to look at someone who got so unlucky with their roll that they're just not going to have fun and let them re-roll, anyway.
So why the fuck roll in the first place?

>>53190029
Well, that's not the reason I, or most others I've played with, like rolling.

>>53195755
Because most of the time those guys don't want to reroll.

They see those bad stats, they tell me they love that shit, and they insist on sticking with it.

Yeah, people do that. Can you imagine?

Stat rolling is only good when it's a legitimate part of the game and not tacked on because OSR games do it

Traveller is a prime example of a great randomised character generation

DnD 5e (when using roll rules) is an example of a shitty, awful version

File: 4th doctor.jpg (39KB, 442x536px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 442x536px

The entire question is flawed to begin with, because it brings up nothing about systems or play styles or anything else like that and attributes both rolling and point-buy as a blanket statement that's supposed to apply to everything.

Then the faggots in this thread run with it and apply their favorite system on top of it, and you've got assholes arguing for point-buy for PF or 5e and another set of assholes advocating for stat rolling for AD&D and Dark Heresy, and both of them see the other side as literally wrong because it wasn't made to work on their systems.

And of course no one ever brings up these details so you can argue about it till the end of time and never ever be even remotely shaken, coming to consideration that you might be wrong or the other guy might be on to something - because holy shit, that guy's talking about adding stat-rolling to MY 5E!!1

You're all fucking retards and would have so many better ways to spend your time. Like jumping in front of a train, for instance.

>>53196577
Well then I prefer rolling because I tend to gravitate towards games where rolling is the preferred method.

>>53177842

I've realised in 5E bonded accuracy , as well as stat increases on level up , means even large variations in stats are almost irrelevant so I feel rolling is fine in the system to actually add some kind of variety as otherwise the characters come out as even more bland than usual.

I tend to advocate 4d6, remove the lowest, choose where they go so that players can still play whatever character they want.

File: 1479323938211.png (41KB, 293x270px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 293x270px

>some people can't be creative on their own
>so they rely on dice to make the character for them

>>53196979
Go away, we already said everything there's to be said about that shit.

Wait until the next thread.

>>53177842
Bounded randomness is the best choice, and our group has used it now for ages with no intent of ever going back. You generate the first three stats by rolling 2d6+6, then derive the other three by deducing them from 26. That way you get a nice spread of high and low numbers to keep things interesting, but everyone still has equal stats and rolling a sucky 8 isn't that bad because you get rewarded by 18 in another stat.

>>53197006
See >>53190239

GM rolls a single 3d6. Each player has to choose a stat on which they put that point. Then he rolls another 3d6 and you repeat, until everyone has a full set.

That way you've got the exact same stats for everyone, which is fair, but you also maintain the random-roll angle of organic character creation, and also bring in a whole new element of gambling: do I want to put this 15 to my main stat or do I wait and see whether one of the remaining rolls is going to be even better?

It can actually get pretty tense.

>>53190239
Arrays and pointbuy is for millennials that think they're playing table top wow and bitch about muh class balance and muh min maxed perfected hero instead of just having fun with your frien- oh sorry, forgot the fact that they rely on playing online or with random people exclusively because they have no friends.

>>53198028
D&D has been tabletop WoW since WotC got a hold of it. You also can't min-max with point buy/arrays.

>>53197038
That seems cool, but if I were to do it I'd probably just roll all the stats then make people assign.

Not too fond of the gambling element.

>>53198099
You can min max with point buy ( and that's what most people who play with it do ) and arrays exist for the sole purpose of shutting up those kids who bitch about getting a character with one or two stat points less than the other player

>>53198149
>You can min max with point buy
Not really. At best you'll have what you need and be average at best in everything else.
>arrays exist for the sole purpose of shutting up those kids who bitch about getting a character with one or two stat points less than the other player
Actually they exist as a faster variant that helps keep people at the same power level by default.

You are all like babies.
Watch this.
>Point-buy, but you roll 9d6 for the amount of points you get to spend.

>>53200906
That was how Mekton worked. You rolled 10d10 for the number of stat points you get to make your character. In our first game I rolled a total of 14, I didn't even make the charts in most attributes.

>>53200906
Eh. It's not good.

Rolled 1, 6, 1, 1, 4, 6, 1, 1, 3 = 24 (9d6)

>>53200906
Let's try this again

>>53200998
Mekton sounds painful.

Literal worst of both worlds. You don't get the speed and "organicness" of rolling, and you don't get the balance and control of point buy.

Rolled 4, 4, 3, 5, 6, 6, 4, 2, 2 = 36 (9d6)

>>53201320
Lower than average, straight to the trash!
>>53200906
rollin!

>>53201355
Now we're fucking talking! Higher than average!

>>53201327
Mekton and similar systems (Cyberpunk 2020, for instance) are god-awful, yes. The worst part is that your stats matter more than your skills, so if you don't have Agility 10, you may as well not be a pilot, since 75% of your pilot shit comes from Agility. Buying up skills isn't an option because of how fucktardedly expensive it is.

>>53201376
>calls others babies
>rerolls because the stats were too low

What's the fucking point of rolling for stats if you just reroll if you don't like it.

>>53201398
Because this is a game grandpa, keep up. Besides, I'd honestly just throw myself into the grinder until I died if you didn't let me reroll so this will save us time and paper in the long run m'kay?

>>53201398
You may still not get the exact stats you want but you can get something you can live with, is the reason. You don't literally roll until you get the exact stats because you might as well just forgo rolling & point buy entirely and just write down what you want.

Our gm uses 4d6 drop lowest but let us roll three pools, we can use the pool we want the most.
Has worked surprisingly well for us

>>53177842
4d6, drop lowest master race.

>>53201439
>I'd honestly just throw myself into the grinder until I died if you didn't let me reroll so this will save us time and paper in the long run m'kay?

Dave, it's been 5 sessions, when are you going actually stick to your character? We're getting kind of annoyed having to justify why these random fucks keep popping out of the walls in the middle of the dungeon.

>>53201439
>Besides, I'd honestly just throw myself into the grinder until I died if you didn't let me reroll so this will save us time and paper in the long run m'kay?

Why? Isn't the whole point of good stats to not die?

What happens if you actually survive with those shitty stats of yours? Then obviously they were good enough.

>>53202031
Honestly, every time I get one of those fuckers that decides "Hurr durr I'm gonna just suicide until I get a character with epik stats," I specifically go out of my way to make sure they never die. They either sit there seething, learn to stop being an idiot, or leave. All positive outcomes as far as I'm concerned.

I roll 3d20, and take the middle value

>>53202005
>Dave, it's been 5 sessions, when are you going actually stick to your character?
When I roll up the spread that I deserve bitch!
>>53202031
>What happens if you actually survive with those shitty stats of yours?
Nope, I'd an hero the first chance I got. Eventually one of these traps, or the party, or the enemies, is going to knock me down to death.
>>53202111
Yeah, I had a moron like you too. It was fucking great, I derailed an entire campaign and literally everyone but me lost a character. DM also banned PvP so they couldn't even touch me after I caused a chain reaction that set off a trap that mauled the Fighter and killed our (first) wizard.

My backstory was that he wanted to die clearing a dungeon as his bucket list but then over the course of the campaign, he gained an overinflated ego because knew that he became functionally immortal.

Of course, after the campaign disintegrated, everyone decided to go with point buy exclusively, I miss playing Murphy /tg/ :'(

Rolling for stats is a TSR relic, which is a nuance most people in these arguments miss. Rolling for stats on 5e can easily result on you being gimped or hideously OP for the whole campaign, whereas that isn't a problem on OSR systems because the bonuses from stats aren't that much of a big deal and if you roll low enough for your character to be literally unplayable (as in you don't qualify for any class) you're supposed to reroll.

>>53202434
>Nope, I'd an hero the first chance I got.

Why? What's the point? Why not see how far you can get with these stats?

Listen, the only reason you hate having low stats is the survivability. If you affect on that yourself, then there's no point.

>>53202434
>I derailed an entire campaign and showed everyone how objectively shitty rolling for stats is, I'm awesome!

Yeah, I'm sure that happened too.

>>53202465
>Why? What's the point?
Cutting out the middleman, haven't you been paying attention?

>>53202513
Basically your point is "I can't survive with these stats, so I WON'T survive!" And then you just off yourself purely out of spite. It's like deliberately crashing your car as soon as you find out there's some flaw in it.

Whatever you think of rolling or point-buy, that's just incredibly petty.

>>53202487
>Yeah, I'm sure that happened too.
Believe me, any other campaign, I'd been dead by the end of the session when I got the party ambushed by wandering orc or when I propositioned the princess for a BJ in front of the King and Queen.

It was just the right amount of fuckery to let it happen because the DM was too strict to allow rerolls but too stubborn to let me die. Literally everyone was begging him to let me get killed from PvP but every single time, he'd say "not in muh table" until everyone realized that nobody in the party had any idea of what sort of BBEG we were fighting anymore mainly because I never told their new characters about it because he was too busy being immortal.

Although y'know what, Murphy the gnome was my favorite character to play so I guess rolling does have its place if you don't give a fuck anymore.

>>53202557
>Basically your point is "I can't survive with these stats, so I WON'T survive!" And then you just off yourself purely out of spite.
Exactly, why wait X sessions just to find out my character's worthless? If you're going to spite me in not letting me reroll, I'll spite you into coming up with convoluted reasons for why several lone adventurers are traveling through this abandoned tomb forgotten by modern society.

Hell, I'll even have them all wear a red shirt just to make it seem as though you've planned this the whole time, because I'm a nice guy like that.

>>53202627
Just -how- bad were your stats, anyway? Nothing over 14, anything with 5 or less?

>>53202458
Another thing is that attributes applied only to certain actions. At most you have a 15% better chance to hit than the guy who rolled completely average, or you'll be able to have more hirelings, or simply more languages. The only real difference is that characters with higher stats will level up slightly faster. Otherwise, Lance the 10 Str Fighter could be just as effective as Thog the 16 Str Fighter while adventuring. Once attribute scores started to affect everything your character could do, their importance made alternate means of character generation necessary.

>>53202659
When I made Murphy, my highest stat was a 14, my lowest was a 7, and over half my stats were lower than a 12 (including the 7).

I made him a failed wizard apprentice because his stats were so garbage that he wanted to die in a dungeon like everyone else. I put the 7 into his CON, so even if I'd rolled the highest HD rolls possible, he'd still only have 2 HP, and I put the 14 into spells, not that I expected to ever use them.

The DM purposefully made enemies target everyone but him and my character would spend every other round cowarding behind the rogue's hideout (because how was he going to know he was there?) or giving out enemy tips so that the enemy could fuck up party members more effectively since everyone was some weird monstrous race or some shit.

Then after coming out the end of the tunnel unscathed, he decided to test his luck by triggering a trap by stepping on a pressure plate. Everyone but him took damage, so he decided "I'm immortal."

The rest is history.

>>53202833
But 14 in intelligence is perfectly good and 7 is absolutely not terrible.

I was willing to give you a benefit of the doubt in case your stats really were legitimately bad, but I'm taking your DM's side on this one. You were just a little bitch.

>>53202876
Yeah well I derailed a whole campaign and had shitloads of fun doing it, so in the end, did anyone really lose this one?

I mean, I guess all the other players but who cares about them? They were mostly furfags anyways.

File: 1491613005637.jpg (43KB, 680x499px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 680x499px

>this fucking thread again
Both have merits, and anyone who says one method is wrong instead of the other is just arguing badwrongfun, and has no fucking leg to stand on. At the end of the day, the method of character generation depends on what the players want. If everyone wants to roll, then rolling is better, if everyone wants point-buy, point-buy is better.

It's really not hard.

>>53202910
>Digging a ten-year-old meme out of the grave to justify shitting on the entire group

Yep. A little bitch.

>>53202935
>Furfags died out 10 years ago.
What? I fucking wish. The moment the DM discovered what PF was, literally everyone was playing a snowflake race that were just monstrous races w/o the level adjustment.

If anything, they've only ramped up in recent times.

File: nerds.jpg (230KB, 758x1280px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 758x1280px

>>53202982
No, the furfag -meme- died out ten years ago.

You do understand the whole thing was basically Something Awful stirring up shit and 4chan for some reason following them up on that?

It's just another group of weirdos, as if we didn't have like ten such groups on /tg/ alone, and both of us probably belonging to about half of those. Don't get your panties in a twist for them.

>>53203019
How new are you? I don't mean to 4chan, I mean to the internet as a whole. Furries are absurdly notorious for making their fetish their entire persona on the internet, and sometimes even in real life. Mind you, there has to be some who just jerk off to the porn and go about their day, but then you very well wouldn't know they're a furry, would you.

Shit is so fucking common that you'd have to be amish not to know this shit. I mean hell even the horsefuckers manage to stay in their designated quarantine zones pretty reliably.

>>53203019
>No, the furfag -meme- died out ten years ago.
Oh you precious child, I'm happy that you avoided the worst of it and remained pure.

Shine on you crazy diamond!

>>53203098
I mean obviously furries are common, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm talking about the irrational hatred towards them. You notice there's very little of the whole "fursecution" thing going on these days? It's because Something Awful moved on, and as such, so did 4chan, and as such, so should you.

It's not an excuse for you to be a dickwad.

>>53203130
>irrational hatred towards them
"I don't like these people, and don't want to have anything to do with them" isn't irrational. Furries are pretty fucking high on the list of people that I'd really rather not have anywhere in the same hemisphere as me. Just because they're (usually) not worse than child rapists doesn't constitute a sterling endorsement of their character.

>>53203130
Oh my precious child, the only reason why "fursecution" is rare on /tg/ is because we're /d/-lite.

Try posting fur shit outside of /b/, /vp/, /tg/, /d/, or /mlp/ then tell me that furfaggotry is a meme, assuming you don't get banned for illegal content.

>>53203170
Yeah, but just because they roll up snowflake races doesn't mean they're furries. Otherwise you'd be accusing the entirety of PF's playerbase - including myself, though it's far from my favorite system - as being degenerates, and if you wanted nothing to do with any of them it'd mean you to have very few friends.

And if these guys really were all but wanking over their characters at the table, you know you could've just left the game?

>>53203215
>Otherwise you'd be accusing the entirety of PF's playerbase - including myself, though it's far from my favorite system - as being degenerates, and if you wanted nothing to do with any of them it'd mean you to have very few friends.
Typical degenerate, thinking his mental illness is normal just to make himself feel better.

Sad...

>>53203296
All I'm saying is that PF is a pretty popular game. If you're accusing -all- of its players to be degenerates, then there'd be rather too many of us to be that weird, and the tables would turn.

Instead of us being degenerates, you'd be the intolerant bigot.

>>53177862
>>53177875
It comes down to whether you want your character concept to determine your stats or whether you want your stats to determine your character concept.
The improvisational spirit of rolling a character and making something of it can be fun but I usually have really specific concepts in mind and I want the stats to reflect what I've conceived within whatever bounds that game imposes.

most other systems are only point buy, and no one gets bent out of shape about it
I just don't get it

>>53203332
>All I'm saying is that PF is a pretty popular game. If you're accusing -all- of its players to be degenerates, then there'd be rather too many of us to be that weird, and the tables would turn.
PF is a quarantine zone for THAT GUYS who'd ruin other campaigns. If you feel comfortable around those types of people, that speaks more about you than me.
>Instead of us being degenerates, you'd be the intolerant bigot.
There he goes again, conflating everyone who doesn't agree with them being bigots.

Seriously man, you destroyed your argument in three post, just slink away back to /pfg/ and we'll pretend this whole conversation never happened.

File: Hashut.jpg (20KB, 239x340px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 239x340px

Rolling.

It leads to more interesting characters and less min-maxing. Arbitrated by the GM, the argument that "My character is just plain bad!" is fucking nonsense, and if the creation rolls are enough to make or break your character completely, you're playing a supremely shitty system.

Rolled 4, 5, 1, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4 = 71 (18d6)

>>53203406
Rollin

>>53177842
>>53203406
Also, you forgot the third obvious option; statblocks.

Which just leads to cookie-cutting.

>>53203406
>if the creation rolls are enough to make or break your character completely, you're playing a supremely shitty system.
I'm playing a shitty system
Please recommend good systems I can live out rolling for stats in

File: 1446770240298[1].png (304KB, 550x2500px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 550x2500px

>>53203130
>furries are common

What kind of fucking echo-chamber safe-space do you live in? And it's not fucking irrational, it's pretty fucking rational.

>>53203428
STR: 12
DEX: 12
CON: 14
INT: 17
WIS: 9
CHA: 10
Awesome, with the right racial modifiers, I could end up with a 19 INT and 16 CON.

Thanks RNGesus!

>>53203432
AD&D, all the Basic D&D systems, WFRP and Dark Heresy and such.

>>53203432
WFRP2 is pretty great, but it requires a GM that isn't shit and that actually uses the difficulty modifiers appropriately. The randomness of character creation is fucking top notch.

>>53203498
I've been wanting to get into WFRP
Do you have any tips or common pitfalls to avoid?
>>53203536
Awesome, thank you.
There's a 2?

>>53203462
There are a lot of things to hate in the world, many of them worse than furries.

You might just want to, you know, not give a shit?

>>53203618
I wish I could, but they keep showing up and touching everything with their semen-crusted fur-gloves. If they kept to their own fucking basements and left the rest of the world alone, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

>>53203662
>they keep showing up and touching everything with their semen-crusted fur-gloves

That sounds like rather an exaggeration.

>>53203549
Yes, 2nd Edition is the best edition. 3rd Edition is terrible, and double so because it never refers to itself as 3rd Edition, it just calls itself Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Here you go: https://mega.nz/#F!t9JUmCjS!PXWc0WhB-z21Bjk6FRGI6Q

>>53203618
How about you stop injecting your fetishes into every facet of your life then maybe people wouldn't be so averse to dealing with you?

I mean, I have some weird fetishes too, we all do, but I don't go out of my way to these fetishes known the moment I hang around people and most people don't do that shit either.

It's always degenerates who think that anyone else wants to know what they beat off to because they're so starved so attention that want to feel like they belong to something, even when it's with other degenerates.

>>53203670
>That sounds like rather an exaggeration.
If anything, it severely undersells how gross the average furry actually is. You pray that wash their hands but then they're the type who thinks that axe body spray is a good alternative to a shower.

>>53203684
Thank you very much

>>53203689
>How about you stop injecting your fetishes into every facet of your life then maybe people wouldn't be so averse to dealing with you?

But... I'm not?

At worst I might occasionally roll up a kitsune because I like the race background and the mechanics.

If that's "injecting my fetishes into every facet of my life" then maybe you should calm the fuck down.

>>53203708
As if your average fa/tg/uy neckbeard wasn't precisely as gross.

Rolled 1, 1, 4, 5 = 11 (4d6)

>>53203792
>Look at how terribly I rolled! Rolling for stats is objectively garbage!

>>53203737
Again, /tg/ is one of those furry containment boards so it wouldn't surprise if /pfg/ hasn't taken a shower since the early 00's.

Rolled 4, 1, 1, 2 = 8 (4d6)

>>53203854

>>53203721
>At worst I might occasionally roll up a kitsune because I like the race background and the mechanics.
That's already more than enough, especially on here.

>>53203954
Then, as I said, you should calm down a little.

>>53203954
That right there is where this whole bullshit gets irrational. You're basically saying you're not allowed to like anything half-animal to be a furry. You're saying that, for instance, liking to watch Bugs Bunny would make one a degenerate.

That at the very least is irrational.

>>53203981
No, how about you go a bit without referencing anthros?
>>53204025
There's a difference between referencing Bugs Bunny and your pretty pretty kitsune cocksleeve waifu furfag. There you go again, trying to normalize your mental illness in a bid to appear like less of a degenerate.

You both sicken me.

>>53204090
Yeah, I can hear you foaming from your mouth from here.

Seriously, calm down, before you have a stroke.

File: 1486573608192.jpg (31KB, 304x301px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 304x301px

>>53203098
>Furries are absurdly notorious for making their fetish their entire persona on the internet,

Futafags have taken to this shit recently, interestingly enough.

>>53203954
You're one of those "there's no reason to play anything but human because every culture is based on an IRL human culture" kind of dudes, aren't you?

>>53204136
Not even him but this post amounts to nothing. It's not a conversation, its middle school passive aggressive bullying.

>>53204286
Which one of us is the bully, though? He's very clearly exaggerating and strawmanning everything I say and essentially shutting down half the character races from himself - and from all others at the table - because of some absurd le internet meme bullshit.

I mean if I'm just rolling up a guy, minding my own business, and suddenly he smashes his hand at the table and is like "You can't do that you furfag yiff in hell reeeeeee", which one of us would be the faggot disrupting the game with their own weird state of mind?

>>53204319
It doesn't matter who the bully is, you are in middle school.

Stop acting like a bunch of children.

File: 1484723902884.png (72KB, 397x261px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 397x261px

>>53204286
Neither did the previous post. The only sentence worth extracting was
>There you go again, trying to normalize your mental illness in a bid to appear like less of a degenerate

And not because it has merit, but because it paints the picture of how this guy feels about the other guy.
>You have a mental disorder and are therefore a lesser person to me
And that's not even based on whether the guy is or isn't a furry. Just the assumption that he is, because he wants to play a monstrous race.

>>53204358
Nigga, where the fuck do you think we are? Some place where we're obligated to be nice to each other?
Do you want acknowledgement for how above this shit you are or something?

>>53204358
>The entire furry/anti-furry argument in a nutshell

>>53204403
>Nigga, where the fuck do you think we are?
In a 18+ website. Where do you think you are?

>>53204457
4chan. Why are you trying to command some level of respect by pulling "hurr act ur age not ur shoe size" shit?
Let them argue about banal shit and insult each other, we're 290+ posts in. Who fucking cares?

I love how I derailed a thread just by calling my fellow players furfags.

I guess Murphy still lives on in our hearts after all.

>>53204529
>we're 290+
We could be around 150 if it wasn't for you. Take a look at how you type, it screams underage.

You claim to know you are in 4chan, a +18 website, while on the /tg/ board which features people old enough to have vivid memories of the 80s. Start acting like a functional adult, even if you aren't one, for the sake of every reader out there that has to put up with your constant childish posts.

>>53204627
>Start acting like a functional adult
Tall order for a furfag chief, they're basically SJW's if they wore mascot costumes.

>>53203684
>Yes, 2nd Edition is the best edition. 3rd Edition is terrible
After learning more about D&D 4e, I suspect you're full of shit.

>>53204659
Funny thing is, I don't even think there are any furries in this thread right now.

>>53177842
>Rolled stats for all four of my characters
>They all had fantastic stats with a +1 at worst and my current one is 12/13/13/14/16/16 before race
I give my faith to the RNGods

53204627
>you're a child you're a child you're a child
Wew lad.

See, people like you have gotten used to the smell of your own farts so much, you honestly think your shit doesn't stink anymore. Nobody is obligated to do anything except follow board rules, and even then that's at a stretch, and they're certainly not obligated to act or talk in a way that has to pass your respectability test. You're not that important.

You're not even worth a (you).

>>53204694
>I'm going to get triggered over someone claiming that my mental disorder is a mental disorder
>but I'm not a furry though tee-hee
Sure anon,

>>53204829
Well, okay, apparently your definition of a furry is "plays Pathfinder", so yeah I guess there's no escaping it then.

>>53203406
>It leads to more interesting characters and less min-maxing.
Arguable.

A character can be min maxed and still be roleplayed well.

And rolling doesn't always stop min maxing either, just gives you different numbers to work with.

Point buy.

I'd just like having control of my character during character creation.

>>53177875
>whitout letting them dump
What about that 8, anon?

I don't play DnD

The system we play uses mostly rolling (though theres also point buy) but stats arent very significant, the system is roll 8 d10, at the end change whatever roll into a 9 and another into a 7, assing as you like.

>>53205221
What do you play, then, and how do you create characters in those systems?

>>53205390
In the systems we play stats arent as relevant as in DnD so doesn't matter what system for generating attributes we use at all.

>>53204690
2e is best OSR edition.
4e is best WotC edition.

3.x changed the game enough where they're barely comparable sometimes.

>>53205557
That's Warhammer though.

>>53205622
Fair enough.

These days when I say "#e" I just assume it's D&D done it usually is.

>>53190168
WTF