| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).
I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people like the random chance, others could find it as better means of representing diversity, either way it's as simple as some people like things and some people don't.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care for the randomness of rolling stats either. If you end up with a s%%@ array then you have to wonder why said person feels he is fit to become an adventure in the first place. That's assuming you are playing with straight rolls. In most cases I see DMs modifying the stats after they are rolled anyway ("oh wow you got screwed, make that those two 4s and that 7 into a 14, 15, and 14"), which defeats the purpose. Point buy or just offer everyone at stat array to assign as they choose.
HP is bleh as well, but I never did anything about that. If I ever run again maybe I will.
others could find it as better means of representing diversity
That always gets me as by default adventurers are above average simply because if they are not then they are not adventurers for long. If you roll up straight below average stats then maybe your character shouldn't be an adventurer as he, unless he is very deluded or put the 3 you rolled into wisdom, knows that while some people are badasses, he is not. In which case the best roleplay move is to say "nah man, I don't think this job killing things for money is for me" as he leaves the tavern everyone starts in.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).
I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.
Well, in my case I really enjoy constraints when creating a character. I dont even assign my stats when I roll - I take them in order and see what class/race "makes sense" with the array I end up with. That's partly because that's how I've always done it, but is also just a mindset: I dont regard myself as creating a character and then beginning play - I regard the generation of character as the start of the game (and it is governed by luck, just like the rest of the game).
When I end up with a sub-par character, it's a similar thing - I enjoy trying to get them to survive within the constraints of the bad luck I've been given.
One thing I think is relevant is that my workday is full of legislative interpretation, optimisation decisions, number crunching and risk analysis. I generally avoid games with those features - and when I do play them, I just tend to ignore those elements. When I play pathfinder, for example, it's quite common for me to try a fighter with an 18 charisma (or similar) - I dont have a lot of energy for sifting through the books looking for 'ideal options' and synergies across multiple features - I do that at work so it doesnt really feel like a fun thing to import to my hobby.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know that our PCs are very accurate at estimating what their stats are. It's generally amusing in the "What are your real life stats?" threads, just how highly people tend to value their own abilities. There's reasonably well established research that shows we tend to put our successes down to skill and our failures down to bad luck - I suspect that our PF characters would suffer the same bias and the low-stat adventurer would just think he was really unlucky..
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i started forcing pointbuy, man i got so much flak for that. they kept saying that point buy (20) was too low, and i'm just sitting there going... you don't need an 18 in my campaign's power level.
i started forcing pointbuy, man i got so much flak for that. they kept saying that point buy (20) was too low, and i'm just sitting there going... you don't need an 18 in my campaign's power level.I also hate low point buy. XD I run my games 30 points 1:1 ratio. With low point buy you limit character concepts so hard. That monk and that cleric just cannot exist on this points. I could barely get a decent Warpriest :/ Not saying you're wrong XD just that I like a campaign where I'm suitable heroic. Not some commoner scrub who lucked into a big boy class.
cleric's stats can be all over the place and still be effective. a monk just sucks without archetypes, with archetypes same thing. zen archer is still wrecking face in my campaign.
20 point buy allows 2 16s, 2 12s a 10 and a 7, before racials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that our PF characters would suffer the same bias and the low-stat adventurer would just think he was really unlucky..
I see your point, but I imagine the low stat adventure really wouldn't have much time to consider how unlucky he is considering the high possibility that a few rats are feasting on his brain after defeating him in a fair fight.
I think a lot of people would be willing to say that yeah, they could probably take down someone in a knife fight, but I would see that confidence evaporating when confronted with someone who takes them up on it and asks if they want to do so for real. It's the difference between idly bragging in a tavern about how you ain't scared of no orc marauder and actually saying it to that orc's face as he rages and runs at you with a falchion. Most people without experience or at least some external confirmation of their perceived skill ("I'm the best warrior in my village of 15 peasants!") would nope the hell out of that situation, and I think the guy with straight 10s would fit into that "most people" category.
When I end up with a sub-par character, it's a similar thing - I enjoy trying to get them to survive within the constraints of the bad luck I've been given.
I can see how trying to survive with severe limitations could be amusing, but I see that as most likely a short term pleasure that I have to be in the mood for. Sometimes I would rather just get rid of the joke/challenge character that I shouldn't bother getting attached to because of his 5 constitution and get on to a character I can actually have some emotional commitment to.
I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me
In my experience the people who tend to say that character power doesn't matter to them tend to say it at the theorycrafting stage or character generation. Then we get to actual play and they get frustrated when they realize that they never hit the enemy, their spells never take effect, and their skills never work. I personally don't have fun when, try as I might, my character just fails to be competent at anything.
That said, games I play in tend not to have DMs who adjust so weaker PCs can still do their thing. Expect table variation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the feeling of watching a character grow by itself and the rolling process is almost like watching its birth. I like it when this thing almost has a life of its own and I am simply trying to and imagine what its decisions and actions would be as opposed to my own.
Perhaps it comes from a time when it was very taboo within the roleplaying game community to get too close to your character. In the past it was widely believed that playing these games led people to cross that line between what was real and what was fantasy. You constantly saw warnings within the literature to not confuse yourself with your character.
Quite often people (myself included) roleplay an assortment of characters but in the end they're really just playing the same persona over and over again just with different statistics bolted on around it, and that persona is really just themselves.
Now I'm not trying to criticize people. I'm just pointing out what I've observed in myself and others. And I'm not saying you can't have your cake and eat it to. What I'm saying is that what appeals to me is not so much making a story that fits the character, but rather discovering the story that makes the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that our PF characters would suffer the same bias and the low-stat adventurer would just think he was really unlucky..I see your point, but I imagine the low stat adventure really wouldn't have much time to consider how unlucky he is considering the high possibility that a few rats are feasting on his brain after defeating him in a fair fight.
I think a lot of people would be willing to say that yeah, they could probably take down someone in a knife fight, but I would see that confidence evaporating when confronted with someone who takes them up on it and asks if they want to do so for real. It's the difference between idly bragging in a tavern about how you ain't scared of no orc marauder and actually saying it to that orc's face as he rages and runs at you with a falchion. Most people without experience or at least some external confirmation of their perceived skill ("I'm the best warrior in my village of 15 peasants!") would nope the hell out of that situation, and I think the guy with straight 10s would fit into that "most people" category.
It's kind of an "adventurer's anthropic principle" at work:
Clearly a greater proportion of adventurers with poor stats are going to die than of those with great stats. However, once they've made it up a few levels I think the gap is going to close as WBL kicks in and the low-level variance recedes - as such, some of them are going to make it through and I daresay they're going to be just as cocky and arrogant as thrillseekers in real life tend to be - regardless of their natural talents, I suspect they'd be pretty darn impressed with themselves.
Granted we each have different triggers for "verisimilitude" - learning languages is what always drags me out of an RPG. I've never seen that done well. The gormless git ploughing on into battle rather than retiring with his first few hundred gold pieces just doesnt rub up against my 'reality filter'.
When I end up with a sub-par character, it's a similar thing - I enjoy trying to get them to survive within the constraints of the bad luck I've been given.I can see how trying to survive with severe limitations could be amusing, but I see that as most likely a short term pleasure that I have to be in the mood for. Sometimes I would rather just get rid of the joke/challenge character that I shouldn't bother getting attached to because of his 5 constitution and get on to a character I can actually have some emotional commitment to.
Yeah, I personally think you're in the majority. Nonetheless, purely in the interests of answering the OP's "what's the point of rolling?" query - that's a big part of it for me. Seeing how far I get with a handicap (not that a truly handicapped character happens often with 4d6, drop the lowest).
I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother meIn my experience the people who tend to say that character power doesn't matter to them tend to say it at the theorycrafting stage or character generation. Then we get to actual play and they get frustrated when they realize that they never hit the enemy, their spells never take effect, and their skills never work. I personally don't have fun when, try as I might, my character just fails to be competent at anything.
Well I dont really "do" theorycrafting, so all I have is experience at the table. I've certainly seen some strange "rolling" conventions though that lead me to suspect you're correct about many - like "Roll for stats and if you dont like them you can use pointbuy..." which seems a little odd to me.
That said, games I play in tend not to have DMs who adjust so weaker PCs can still do their thing. Expect table variation.
Indeed. We also all tend to die when we play pathfinder at around about 8th level or so (we just run PF adventures as written and generally run into something that wipes us out near the end of the second book of an AP). Given I enjoy low level play a lot, it's probably consistent of me to favor a PC-generation method in which I'm quite likely to die... :o
The gormless git ploughing on into battle rather than retiring with his first few hundred gold pieces just doesnt rub up against my 'reality filter'.
I know I'd personally cash out at that point, but my character just has a metagame it and proceed knowing that he will literally cease to exist if he doesn't continue down the path of continually reinvesting his wealth into better tools of murder. Such is life in fantasy RPG.
Yeah, I personally think you're in the majority. Nonetheless, purely in the interests of answering the OP's "what's the point of rolling?" query - that's a big part of it for me. Seeing how far I get with a handicap (not that a truly handicapped character happens often with 4d6, drop the lowest).
Fair enough. I've had fun playing an NPC class in a party of normal characters, but truthfully I enjoyed the smug feeling of being able to over perform even with literally having no class features. It was like an optimization challenge for me, but there's also just the joy of watching every thing that can go wrong go wrong, about watching the game turn into a comedy of errors, and joke characters excel at making that happen.
Well I dont really "do" theorycrafting, so all I have is experience at the table.
I'm not trying to talk about you here so much as just my own observations with people I play with. I tend to see people build their characters and get all excited about their choices and what they should be able to do, but then have it fall flat once they put it into practice. Understandably, that can be frustrating.
In my groups I tend to be the biggest optimizer as well as the one who knows the rules best. Sometimes people ask me about their build or I hear them talking about it all excited and I just know it is not going to meet their own expectations. So then sometimes I caution people about their choices and to consider other options to better fit the concept they are trying to build towards. Sometimes I get told they are trying to have "fun" and aren't trying to "win," but in my experience those two tend to be at least somewhat mutually exclusive to most people including the people telling me that they aren't.
Losing horribly due to your own ineptitude can be amusing every now and then. To most people it loses its charm if it happens the majority of the time, especially when other people are doing just fine. Just sucking all the time can suck the joy out of things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, there are happy mediums. It doesn't have to be random vs point buy. In my home games I have each player roll 4d6 drop the lowest six times. Pretty standard. But then I allow anyone to use any set that was rolled regardless of who rolled it. This creates more organic characters while also ensuring that everyone will have a set they can be satisfied with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I hate weighted point buy with a passion, so I just came up with a roll method that tends to make medium to powerful characters.
(Also, rolling the standard 4d6, I tend to get characters that would be 25-35 points. Thus a 20-point buy always feels weak to me.)
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dice rolling is fun. I don't know why I gotta have a more complicated reason than that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We roll until we have a good one at my table. We set a minimum point value your roll must beat before you are allowed to stat your character.
We also bump up any low HD rolls to half the HD. 1 becomes 4 on a D8, 3 becomes 6 on d12, ect.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hah, people calling 20 point buy low and I've made players use 10. HAH.
Anyways, I use point buy and average HP because the video gamer in me likes the act of building a character and making pieces fit together and tweaking little details. I like more levers to play with.
i started forcing pointbuy, man i got so much flak for that. they kept saying that point buy (20) was too low, and i'm just sitting there going... you don't need an 18 in my campaign's power level.I also hate low point buy. XD I run my games 30 points 1:1 ratio. With low point buy you limit character concepts so hard. That monk and that cleric just cannot exist on this points. I could barely get a decent Warpriest :/ Not saying you're wrong XD just that I like a campaign where I'm suitable heroic. Not some commoner scrub who lucked into a big boy class.
So you dont like Rolling and you only like higher point buy than the books suggest?
Pehaps you just like to win. Nothing wrong with that but it is possible to make perfectly good characters with 15 points or the heroic stat Line.Edit: next time you Roll stats come her and ask for help with building the character and i am sure we can help you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hah, people calling 20 point buy low and I've made players use 10. HAH
Lol...I love how you say that like it's a good thing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling stats and hit die? It's not fun or interesting. You either have a godlike character that dumps on everything, or one so weak you might as well do better things with your life. I seriously left my last 3 games because of it then the GMs wasted my time asking why. *sigh* I just want to play the game without being completely crippled by stupid, arbitrary rules from a bi-gone era that force me to either waste my time completely or leave, still having wasted time on it in the first place. The worst part is when the game isn't advertised as such so I show up with no idea it's going to be bad.
Sometimes it's fun to have a character that's so full of stat points he doesn't even know where to start. Paladin? Easy. Monk? Don't be silly. Three way multiclass? Hmmm, lemme think.
And strange as it may sound, often it makes a challenge all in itself, living up to be the legend that the statbloc promises.Sometimes it's fun to have a character whose statbloc makes him incredibly impaired compared to the average of his companions - but he succeeds and survives nonetheless, with a little help.
Is he older? Younger? Cursed? Is he just unable to survive in the darwinistic fantasy world or has he some interesting tale to tell?
Sometimes it's fun to have a character with a stabloc that includes good values and abismal ones - I know my half-orc grappler monk is one of them.
And it may even happen that the dump stat is not really the one you'd have chosen in a careful plan, but you have to roll with it (no pun intended), and you find it even enjoyable.
Having a balanced character (math/point wise, that is) surely eliminates some nasty problems and some annoying stuff, but does not always equate to more fun or more useful in the party balance - including those with low stats.
Stat rolling is fun, but I rarely like the results. Let me roll a sample real quick:
= 15
= 12
= 12
= 14
= 4
= 12
Believe it or not, besides the 4 this is better than what I roll on average when I roll for stats.
Would be fun to stick that 4 in Cha, roll up a Dwarf, and have roughly the same force of presence as a crocodile though.
Ah, right.
I need to go to sleep. Can't even add/subtract.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the appeal. I tend to prefer arrays and point buy, yet I see the appeal of rolling.
Some people really enjoy the gambling aspect of it, the idea that you could roll all 5s or 6s. If people didn't think they would "win", there would be no one playing the lottery. Every die roll is your potential to be awesome. Every lottery ticket is your potential to be a millionaire. Cold reality says you will be struck by lightning three times before being a millionaire, and that dice rolling stats will make some....interesting characters.
At least you don't have to randomly roll a background like Traveler and potentially die at character creation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling Stats
PRO:
- Diversity to imitate a real-life group of travellers, who might not be of comparable mental/physical prowess
CON:
- Can create disgustingly weak characters that burden the party until their untimely demise
Controlled Stats
PRO:
- No worthless characters, player has control
CON:
- Suddenly everyone has 12+ CON and at least 10 DEX. No variety.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling adds a layer of fun, randomness, and that sort of "organic" feel to your character that runs counter to the slightly "mass produced" feeling you can get from a standard point buy. That said, most folks dislike it when fate decides that your character gets to be far below par.
I made a compermise for my game. Rolling with a threshold. My players did the usual 4d6 drop lowest six times. But the catch? If their generated stats ended up below the value of a 20 point buy, they got to reroll. This way it gave a generous stats and the choice to have a focus in a secondary or tertiary stat without having to let their main stats suffer.
I'll admit that as a GM I lean on the generous side.
I let the players choose between rolling HP and using averages. They chose to roll. Everyone is at or slightly above average. Means I get to throw meaner things at them!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the point of rolling anything?
To inject randomness and keep everything from feeling boring/predictable.
The entire game is based on rolling dice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
When I end up with a sub-par character, it's a similar thing - I enjoy trying to get them to survive within the constraints of the bad luck I've been given.I can see how trying to survive with severe limitations could be amusing, but I see that as most likely a short term pleasure that I have to be in the mood for. Sometimes I would rather just get rid of the joke/challenge character that I shouldn't bother getting attached to because of his 5 constitution and get on to a character I can actually have some emotional commitment to.
....
I can assume then that you're not a Cubs fan.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like rolling, but not for all the reasons above. I enjoy the clatter of dice, the tactile sensation of them rattling in my hand. I enjoy the ritual of the maths. I relish the anticipation and I try to savor every good stat (12 or higher) as a minor victory over cruel fate.
I have an emotional connection to dice rolling. For me "roll"play is synonymous with roleplay. I don't however expect that all my fellow gamers will share my zeal so most of the time I just ask them what they want to do or go with a point buy.
i like rolling, a character has a chance to get as total of betwin 18 to 108 atribute points(all 3 or all 18) that never would happen if you point buy even if they give you 35 points to start with.
as long as you can roll and then decide which roll is for which state you can usally do well or great. depand on the roll.
hp on the other hand is wacky. becuse you can have a wizard with more hp then the barbarian,even when the other rages..
i usaly let the player pick the avrage each level (odd avrage on odd levels, even on even) and then there is the retraining ability to max up your hp to the max of your class\level.
Some folks love the idea of getting "something unexpected" like a Fighter with an unusually high Int or Cha. Other folks seem to dislike making decisions (at least in the context of gaming - as Steve Geddes mentioned) and hope the dice will tell them what to do.
I think the most important force which inspires groups to prefer rolling to point buy might be schadenfreude though. Some folks want to see somebody (especially that wisenheimer point buy powergaming guy) roll lower than they do and suffer through playing a painfully subpar PC. Once I complied by using my low rolled stats to build a party friendly support caster who never stole the spotlight (unless it was to spotlight his shame and failure). When he finally died I rolled mediocre stats (7 Str isn't great) but built a Mad Bomber who was ridiculously overpowered and went through the rest of the campaign like a wrecking ball, even killing another PC by accident on the way.
Ah, the fun of rolling! I should admit that there's some good in with the bad though since most rolling methods I've seen in play such as 4d6 drop the lowest tend to produce higher ability scores than point buy. I'm also having fun with a goblin PC who was built with a combination of rolling and point buy. The DM let us roll 3d6 in order and then have 12 points to buy abilities on top of that (each increase of a score under 7 costing 2 points)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one off games and short term games, I prefer the randomness of rolling. I like the challenge of playing an effective character with random stats.
For long term campaigns, I prefer point buy. I don't like having someone get stuck with a comparatively weak or mediocre character for long periods of time. Give everyone point buy and they all at least have the same stats.
Also, I've noticed that people who are used to playing with all high Stats have a rather difficult time playing with "low stats." It was literally the first thing I thought of when I read the opening post, and not but a few posts later did the OP state that he uses a 30 point buy 1:1 purchase! That is extremely high! Remember that thread where we all rolled 3d6 in order to see what we'd get? Remember how many people got straight 12s or 13s and declared those characters to be unplayable commoners? That's what happens when you're used to playing characters whose lowest score is an 18. You start to think that merely above average is unplayable.
I have a player in one of my games right now who is like this. He ended up with an 18 int and 12 charisma and declared that his poor character was so lackluster in the people skills due to his low charisma that it was unplayable - especially considering that he didn't have the skill points to focus on buying skills to improve it. With an 18 int! Meanwhile, he also had a 19 strength and complained that anything less would mean he wouldn't be able to hit anything.
@thejeff - The tendency for most folks to get higher stats with the chance for somebody to get low stats is one of the spots where the schadenfruede shines. I mean, "Hah, Nate got a Con of 3!" is something I heard during character creation once a while back.
I think you've made an incorrect assumption.
I think a fair number of people on the board use point buy only.
Personally I give a stat array (a very generous one) to my players and tell them to take average hp at each level after first.
Also, I've noticed that people who are used to playing with all high Stats have a rather difficult time playing with "low stats." It was literally the first thing I thought of when I read the opening post, and not but a few posts later did the OP state that he uses a 30 point buy 1:1 purchase! That is extremely high! Remember that thread where we all rolled 3d6 in order to see what we'd get? Remember how many people got straight 12s or 13s and declared those characters to be unplayable commoners? That's what happens when you're used to playing characters whose lowest score is an 18. You start to think that merely above average is unplayable.There's definitely a tendency for rolling players to tend towards the high end - often by implementing measures to try to fix the problem of someone getting really low stats that just wind up skewing the numbers upwards.
3d6 can be rough though. My shot in that thread did have a 14 Dex, but also a 4 wisdom & 8 con - 10s & 11 for the others. 0 Point buy - whatever it takes to go from 7 to 4. That's pretty close to unplayable, despite the 14.
And honestly, a quick pass through that thread didn't show any straight 12 &13 characters condemned to be commoners - more like 13,11,11,10,10,8 or worse condemned to be commoners. Straight 12s & 13s would be a pretty good roll. Well above average.
There was an effective 1 point buy character made a while back, so a 13,11,11,10,10,8 would not be unplayable. That's still a 3 point buy character. A 4 stat can still be playable by using a race with a bonus to that stat (heck, the minimum stat for a point buy campaign is 5). Or hilarious using a race with a penalty; depending on the length of the campaign. I've made effective characters with their highest mental stat being a 6. Definitely not a character for solo play; but it worked when he had others to help guide him.
Edit: I went back to that thread and you're right, nothing as high a stat arrange that I said was declared a commoner or NPC.
