PDA

View Full Version : The Role of Rolls



El'the Ellie
2019-05-30, 10:15 AM
Rolling dice has been a staple in D&D since its inception, and for good reason. Used correctly, it adds an element of randomness, drama, and surprise to a game. But a lot of people I've seen, and even certain elements of the game, use dice rolling when it's not beneficial, simply because it's 'part of the game'. I'm interested to see what people think about the role of dice rolling, especially in some of the situations I've been thinking about.

Attribute Generation
This is perhaps the most classic example, except perhaps d20 rolls. Whether it's 4d6 best 3, 3d4+6, or some other formula, everyone likes to roll and hope to see some big 18s. In character creation, this feels a bit like gambling, especially when you have the option of taking point buy or elite array as backups. And gambling can be fun, especially when there is no money or goods involved! But these stats are designed to last for the entire length of the game (with some exceptions).
After the gambler's excitement has worn off, what is the dynamic that's left? Some players rolled well, some didn't. Realistically even if everyone rolled well averagely speaking, the players who rolled lower are more likely to feel dissatisfied by lower rolls than they will be happy for their allies being strong. Many mature players won't be bothered by it, but if it's neutral at best and negative at worst, it's a net negative.
Rolling prevents powergaming - This is a defense I see a lot, and it makes sense on its face. If you randomly determine stats, players can't intentionally dump charisma to 6-8 and stick 18's in the things that matter. But this can also be prevented by point buy or using a set array. For example, "No stat above 16" or "No stat below 9" or even something a bit more math-y like "Highest stat minus lowest stat <= 8". In my experience, players who get upset with limits imposed by point buy are also likely to be vocal about power differences from randomly generated stats anyway.
Rolling creates variety - True, it certainly creates a more random array than bought stats or (especially) premade arrays. But now we're praising power differences between players (before classes get involved). That feels... wrong. I understand that not all people are equal and that adds a bit of realism. But at least in terms of the players at character creation, shouldn't we all start on an equivalent footing?
Rolling for stats is part of the game! - Fair enough. I'm not here to tell you how to have fun, and if you're whole group likes rolling then more power to you. At the end of the day that's all that really matters. But the rules aren't infallible, so it's ok to split off from them if you like something else more.

Hit Points
This is similar to attributes, but almost more for the momentary gambling high. Yes, it's fun to roll fighter hit points and try to get a 10, but don't tell me your not sour when it comes up a 1 or a 2. It may be fun in the moment, but has far reaching consequences. If the paladin rolled low in the past 3 levels, he's going to have a hard time being confident in doing paladin-y front line tanking. He's effectively always down 8-12 hitpoints, because rolling felt fun in the moment. This discomfort can be sneaky, especially with newer players. I've seen many PC's approach their DM looking to change characters because they don't really feel 'like their character is fun to play' or something similar. A lot of times it's a lack of confidence due to being tissue paper in combat thanks to sub-par hp.

Attack and Damage
This is where the purpose of rolling shines. In the chaos of battle, who knows why or how you whiffed on what should have been an easy swing. This promotes good storytelling, either of your rousing success or stunning failure.

Skill checks
Skill checks tend to be on a case by case basis. Done right, it introduces suspense and drama. Can I jump over that pit? Can I tell a convincing lie to a guard? Well I can certainly try, let's see what happens. But a number of skills deviate from this.
Skill check to go on an adventure - This one can be a real mistake for DM's, where the plot is 'gated' behind a skill check. These tend to be figurative (You failed you gather information, you can't find your contact for the quest to continue). Certainly the DM can fix these on the fly with a bit of fiat, but if that was the case, why did the DM even require a skill check if there was effectively no consequence for failure? Literal walls can lead to creative problem solving (how do we get the wizard with a -4 to climb over the wall), but players will quickly find themselves out of ideas if they aren't given some of the needed information.
Rolling for Routine Tasks - I don't know if DM's ask for this because they just like rolling or what, but having players roll for every day things is, again, a net negative scenario. My character has ridden a horse to work casually every day for the past 6 years. If I succeed, the roll was totally uneventful. If I fail, particularly if I fail spectacularly, it seems completely out of character and takes away agency from what we determined at the start of the game he's good at doing. Seasoned players will make the best of these moments and roll it into something humorous, or perhaps take the moment to touch on some internal drama that has shaken them from their normal routines. But a DM can only ask for that so often, and it's a bit like asking for players for some on-the-spot character drama.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm interested to see what other people think. Are there other categories that you feel strongly about? Are there benefits to rolling in these situations that I'm blind to?

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-30, 11:04 AM
Our group ditched the first two categories some time ago; both D&D (various) amd Rolemaster over the years gave us enough unbalanced PCs that I in particular, got fed up with it, by the time we had had to regenerate a 10th PC in RM because the character was so woefully behind everyone else because dice.

(Granted, in the latest RM party, there is still a bit of a random factor in background options, whee you chose to roll on one of the tables, and if you don't like the result, you can trade it in for an extra stat bonus, but that has worked alright thus far, because everyone was starting from a strong base - and I ALSO put a flat cap on what bonus you could have to start with.)

With D&D, we also use a straight point-for-point system and something like 36 points from base 8 now. It doesn't make SAD character and worse, and gives MAD characters a break. And yes, this means high stats parties, which I am fine with.

Hit points, after a fair bit of time faffing with halfway meaurtes. I finally said "sod it, I never roll HD for the monsters and max them out 95% of the time (only take average at bottom level) anyway, so sod it, the PCs can have the same as well."

MoiMagnus
2019-05-30, 11:51 AM
Ability
-> I usually don't like rolling for ability. I hate letting to randomness choices things that are not fixable latter. [I have to admit I never tried rolling for ability in 5e, so the fact that abilities are capped at 20 might change my mind on this subject]. I'm ok with "the DM roll one set of ability that everybody uses" (and I have not problem with the DM rerolling until reaching something he likes). I can see how they can be interesting to roll individually in games based around "well, you don't chose what you are", but I rarely play those games.

Hit Points
-> I don't see the point. I literally see not upside to letting to randomness this particular point while every other things in level up is deterministic. Why is should hitpoint be random and not increase in spell DCs, skill proficiency, ... Makes not sense to me.

Attacks and Damages
-> Random damages is good because it prevent the "Fire Emblem effect" of peoples optimizing who to attack based on "if I attack him, I will be one damages off, so I will rather attack that one because he dies in exactly 2 of my strikes". And that kind of HP counting and optimization would really slow down the game.
Randomness in attacking is what makes good stories.

Segev
2019-05-30, 12:47 PM
I like rolling for ability scores for the variety reason, though I definitely hedge it high with my preferred methods. In the end, the randomness is just adding some variance, the way my groups do it, rather than really creating huge discrepancies.

I also like rolling for hp, because hp are usually the least of the ways my PCs stay alive. This is a build thing. I go for mages, who have low hp in general anyway, and are using other things to keep going. Rolling hp also does give the possibility of beating the average rather than rolling below it.

That said, I fully understand and support those who want to go point-buy for those things.

Rolling for routine tasks is one of my pet peeves; I am guilty of calling for it, but only with players who actively seem to like it. (The GM of a Rifts game I'm in is hugely guilty of this, forcing rolls on routine tasks on skill percentages that are low enough that you fail far more often than not...and on things you're meant to be "a professional" at. She's also the one who really likes rolling to do stuff in my D&D game, to the point she'll eagerly ask what to roll when I was just going to let her succeed.)

What I always think is interesting are attempts to remove rolling from combat and from difficult, nail-biting skills. You can't quite keep the nail-biting skill checks in place without it, but expendable resources that can take a sure failure to a success, bidding systems for pitting those resources against each other, etc., can do interesting things to combat and skill checks.

Imagine if "Can I make the leap across that chasm?" was not hinging on whether you rolled a 14 or better on a d20, but on whether you correctly guessed that the DC was no more than 8 higher than your base score, so when you paid 8 skill-use-points to make that leap, it exceeded the threshold. Meanwhile, you don't want to overbid if you can help it, because you might need those later!

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-30, 01:02 PM
Imagine if "Can I make the leap across that chasm?" was not hinging on whether you rolled a 14 or better on a d20, but on whether you correctly guessed that the DC was no more than 8 higher than your base score, so when you paid 8 skill-use-points to make that leap, it exceeded the threshold. Meanwhile, you don't want to overbid if you can help it, because you might need those later!

The problem I can imagine with that a lot of more casual players in particular would find having to make a decision like that every time they do anything frustrating. It also either a) disproportionately rewards anyone who has system mastery or b) becomes a tedious game of "guess what the DM/module wants you to think the difficulty is." That sort of thing strikes me as something you might do for a convention game, but doing every week as your main game one feels would get old VERY quickly. I suspect it would likely encourage a very conservative play style, since everything is on finite resources.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-05-30, 01:33 PM
The problem I can imagine with that a lot of more casual players in particular would find having to make a decision like that every time they do anything frustrating. It also either a) disproportionately rewards anyone who has system mastery or b) becomes a tedious game of "guess what the DM/module wants you to think the difficulty is." That sort of thing strikes me as something you might do for a convention game, but doing every week as your main game one feels would get old VERY quickly. I suspect it would likely encourage a very conservative play style, since everything is on finite resources.

I agree with this.

My position is that randomization mechanisms (like rolling) should be used if and only if

a) The outcome is uncertain beyond the trivial level.
b) The various outcome-states of the randomizer represent meaningfully different consequences.
c) Those various outcome-states are interesting.

Rolling for stats is fun for some people, but I don't use it for most of my groups (because I want to keep them on the same page). For the rest, we use a matrix system (eg. we collectivelly roll 6 times and everyone uses those stats assigned however you want).

Combat stuff (attacking, damage, and saving throws) fit all three conditions well, so it's a major use. Ability checks (I run 5e D&D) depend on what's being done. You only roll if you're going above and beyond a high baseline. You only have to roll to jump if you want to go 25% or more beyond your "normal" maximum (feet = STR score with running start). You hardly if ever need to roll to climb--only under stressful circumstances or when time is of the essence. And in the latter case, you're rolling to see how long it takes, not if you make it at all.

NichG
2019-05-30, 01:46 PM
I've come to have a general mild dislike for dice-based (or more generally, unstructured randomization-based) mechanics in RPGs. I can tolerate them, but when I design things I try to remove as much true randomness as possible until it seems that something would break or have a collapse of complexity if I didn't at least have some randomness there. I wouldn't necessarily say 'randomness is never called for', but I do think it tends to get massively over-used in most RPGs. Often due to the same randomization mechanics being used where success and failure is additive, as when success and failure is multiplicative, in some uses the randomness matters less and less over time (such as damage dice), while in other cases the assumptions that were fine for attack rolls end up making entire types of play infeasibly risky (such as multiple party members participating in a stealth venture where one failed roll exposes the group).

Instead of dice-based randomness, I tend to prefer some form of systematic unknowns or hidden information. In a lot of cases, simply having unknown factors which could modify the situation can suffice for creating the kind of uncertainty that makes thinking about risk versus reward interesting, but unlike with dice-based randomness there is the possibility of expending resources in order to turn some of those things into known factors, which seems more strategically rich to me.

El'the Ellie
2019-05-30, 01:52 PM
(such as multiple party members participating in a stealth venture where one failed roll exposes the group)

I can't agree with this more. The phrase 'don't split the party' has gotten so much attention through honest advice and memery that I've actually started to avoid punishing the party when they split up in order to motivate them to split more. Otherwise, the 'net negative' result of sneaking combined with many party members means the rogue can't sneak alone, and the party can't sneak. IE, no sneaking for the rogue.

Man_Over_Game
2019-05-30, 05:23 PM
I think a good way of summarizing it is that dice rolls are there to ensure that things stay chaotic and random.

No dice rolls and the game comes down to Chess. It comes down to preparation, experience, tactics, and good guessing. "Adapting" is a lot less valuable, as there's little guesswork as to what's going to happen, only what "can" happen from a finite number of choices.

This is fine with character generation. You are not generally playing a character to expect them to die, like some kind of Rogue-like game. You play your character with the expectation that they'll live, that their fictional lives matter, and that your choices matter. For those choices to have weight, they should not be undermined by bad luck.

As for skills/combat, chaos inspires drama and adaptation. Too much chaos, and your preparation and tactics are thrown out the window, and you might as well be tossing a coin to see if you live or die.



I guess, a good way of determining whether dice are needed is to ask yourself: "Is chaos necessary?".

Is it necessary to require a chaotic event to occur when someone attempts to climb a cliff in relatively mundane conditions? Is it necessary to invoke chaos when unlocking a door with a practiced hand and plenty of time?

Likely not. In fact, we do things in controlled environments to remove all forms of chaos. You do not want to leave the oven on while you go to the store, even if what you're baking takes several hours.

Introduce dice as an element of chaos, only when necessary, and nowhere else. I've started doing it, and it's made my games a lot better.

Segev
2019-05-30, 05:34 PM
I think a good way of summarizing it is that dice rolls are there to ensure that things stay chaotic and random.

No dice rolls and the game comes down to Chess. It comes down to preparation, experience, tactics, and good guessing. "Adapting" is a lot less valuable, as there's little guesswork as to what's going to happen, only what "can" happen from a finite number of choices.

This is fine with character generation. You are not generally playing a character to expect them to die, like some kind of Rogue-like game. You play your character with the expectation that they'll live, that their fictional lives matter, and that your choices matter. For those choices to have weight, they should not be undermined by bad luck.

As for skills/combat, chaos inspires drama and adaptation. Too much chaos, and your preparation and tactics are thrown out the window, and you might as well be tossing a coin to see if you live or die.



I guess, a good way of determining whether dice are needed is to ask yourself: "Is chaos necessary?".

Is it necessary to require a chaotic event to occur when someone attempts to climb a cliff in relatively mundane conditions? Is it necessary to invoke chaos when unlocking a door with a practiced hand and plenty of time?

Likely not. In fact, we do things in controlled environments to remove all forms of chaos. You do not want to leave the oven on while you go to the store, even if what you're baking takes several hours.

Introduce dice as an element of chaos, only when necessary, and nowhere else. I've started doing it, and it's made my games a lot better.
Largely good advice, but also misses a key reason to use dice that doesn't involve "chaos." Uncertainty.

Uncertainty as to whether something will succeed or not.

Quertus
2019-05-30, 06:29 PM
Rolled stats & HP are the best!

Maximum diversity - you can have both parties of equal characters, and parties of unequal characters (unequal is better, IME).

Gambling chance of awesome - you've got a set of characters to compare to one another, that aren't all carbon copy equals. Some are awesome by comparison.

Bonus awesome - when a character's deeds exceed their stats, it's an extra awesome accomplishment.

Let alone that you could never have these stories in point buy:

So, I rolled up stats for Armus, and they were almost exactly like how I pictured him… except his Strength was too high. So I asked if I could lower it. I was told "no". I thought for a bit, then asked if 2-for-1 trading was allowed. The GM said yes. So I took 2 points off of my Strength, and added 1 to Strength. Repeat until his Strength was acceptably low.

Making characters, I had an 18 Strength on a Fighter. I rolled percentiles, and got a '99’. I turned to share my good news with the player next to me, and happened to see the "18” written down for their Strength score. I asked if they were playing some sort of Fighter. They were. I instructed them to roll percentiles. They did. They rolled a "100”. I sighed. I said I was going to say how lucky I was, that I just rolled a Fighter with an 18(99) Strength, but here they just rolled an 18(100). The GM be all like, "oh no you didn't", but between my witnessing it, and them asking, "so, that's good, right?", the GM was willing to believe us. Then a third player pipes up about how he had rolled like an 18(73) or something, and here he was, weaker than either of us. The 4th and final player then is all like, "wait a minute - you're telling me that my Cleric of the god of Strength, with a 17 in Strength, is the *weakest* member of this party?"

KineticDiplomat
2019-05-30, 06:46 PM
I think the context and the system have a lot to do with the rolling philosophy. D&D (at least it’s modern incarnations) players are mostly playing high power fantasy. You’re the hero/anti-hero/whatever of the day wielding heroic to nigh on legendary power. While you may start as a lowly caravan guard or murder hobo, you may be soon assured of fighting some sort of existential threat. This the game of Aragorn, Drizzt, and so forth. Oversized characters doing oversized things because they are just that awesome.

And cutting players ability to be suitably unencumbered heroic bad asses generally undercuts that system as a whole. The flavor is wrong. So rolling for many of the examples there is off putting.

Take WFRP as a comparison. The flavor of the game is that the PCs are trash pickers, rat catchers, local thugs, and a variety of other lowlife scum who abandon the comparative safety of civilization for a career path of “adventuring.” This may lead to great fortune, but honestly, most “adventurers” die untimely and forgotten deaths.

In THAT setting, being handed a physically blah clerk of modest mental talents by the dice and being told to deal with it are all part of the game. It, in fact, reinforces the play style. So is falling off a cliff to your death after you tried to climb it. I mean, really, how many of you peasants ever even tried to climb a cliff before?

So, by and large, the role of rolls varies with the system. And to a certain extent the story.

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-30, 08:06 PM
Take WFRP as a comparison. The flavor of the game is that the PCs are trash pickers, rat catchers, local thugs, and a variety of other lowlife scum who abandon the comparative safety of civilization for a career path of “adventuring.” This may lead to great fortune, but honestly, most “adventurers” die untimely and forgotten deaths.

In THAT setting, being handed a physically blah clerk of modest mental talents by the dice and being told to deal with it are all part of the game. It, in fact, reinforces the play style. So is falling off a cliff to your death after you tried to climb it. I mean, really, how many of you peasants ever even tried to climb a cliff before?

So, by and large, the role of rolls varies with the system. And to a certain extent the story.

WFRP was my third RPG, after HeroQuest and Rolemaster. (D&D was a distant forth.)

My first character rolled so poorly on stat generation, I failed to qualify for any of the four class categories and the DM had to have me reroll until I got one. I have never forgotten that lesson, as Slashout the marine actually qualifies as my first proper character that I generated - I inherited one for RM. The full range of randomisation means that you MIGHT get a really good character but you equally MIGHT get a crap one.

(And personally? I do NOT find being the one with the crap character to be entertaining, especially since there have been quests where, even with a non-crap character primary spellcaster, I have failed to actually do anything because of bad dice rolls. (I was literally out-damaged by the illusionist's heavy crossbow. With a melee cleric.) And that Is. Not. Fun. as it is.)

For me, the novelty of rolling dice to see what character I could have long since wore off - especially since I so rarely get to play characters nowadays.



(Also, 1st-ed Warhammer is only gritty rat-catchers for about the first adventure, then by the time everyone is onto the second career paths, the party rapidly gets to "naked dwarf" syndrome - especially if they happened to roll slightly well on toughness.)

KineticDiplomat
2019-05-30, 09:14 PM
1st ed WFRP, like most 1st Eds, was far from perfect, but the example wasn’t to say one was better. The point is more that the system in play often encourages an attitude towards making players deal with sub-optimal hands via rolls.

Some systems don’t grok that way. Some do. Back in ye olden days of chainmail plus, GM vs the party, tomb of horrors murders you for forgetting your ten foot pole the feel for stat rolling would be very much “life is hard, and you deal with it.” And it fit.

Newer D&D focuses on telling heroic high fantasy through the players while allowing people to indulge in being a larger than life heroes. They will probably be challenged, but ultimately barring hideous stupidity, will likely succeed at whatever it is they want to succeed at.

The system is built that way, and the player base likes it. In that context, stat rolls don’t make sense - if everyone got around the table to play heroic high fantasy, why cripple the guy who wants to be Gandalf by making him an idiot?

Some systems, and by extension, some player bases and stories, don’t want to be heroic high fantasy. Maybe they want to be grittier, maybe they like the added challenge, maybe they just think being less heroically capable makes for a more interesting perspective. Whatever. The point is those systems and those groups tend to benefit more from rolls that allow for sub-optimal hands to be dealt.

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-30, 09:45 PM
Don't care for character-creation randomness or rolled Stats at all, give me some form of point buy 10 out of 10.

As for during resolution in game, the dice serve as a sort of neutral arbiter of success, failure, or degrees thereof, which should in theory reflect the range and probability of the possible outcomes, when an action or tightly related set of actions is attempted.

Luccan
2019-05-30, 10:29 PM
Rolling dice has been a staple in D&D since its inception, and for good reason. Used correctly, it adds an element of randomness, drama, and surprise to a game. But a lot of people I've seen, and even certain elements of the game, use dice rolling when it's not beneficial, simply because it's 'part of the game'. I'm interested to see what people think about the role of dice rolling, especially in some of the situations I've been thinking about.

Attribute Generation
This is perhaps the most classic example, except perhaps d20 rolls. Whether it's 4d6 best 3, 3d4+6, or some other formula, everyone likes to roll and hope to see some big 18s. In character creation, this feels a bit like gambling, especially when you have the option of taking point buy or elite array as backups. And gambling can be fun, especially when there is no money or goods involved! But these stats are designed to last for the entire length of the game (with some exceptions).
After the gambler's excitement has worn off, what is the dynamic that's left? Some players rolled well, some didn't. Realistically even if everyone rolled well averagely speaking, the players who rolled lower are more likely to feel dissatisfied by lower rolls than they will be happy for their allies being strong. Many mature players won't be bothered by it, but if it's neutral at best and negative at worst, it's a net negative.
Rolling prevents powergaming - This is a defense I see a lot, and it makes sense on its face. If you randomly determine stats, players can't intentionally dump charisma to 6-8 and stick 18's in the things that matter. But this can also be prevented by point buy or using a set array. For example, "No stat above 16" or "No stat below 9" or even something a bit more math-y like "Highest stat minus lowest stat <= 8". In my experience, players who get upset with limits imposed by point buy are also likely to be vocal about power differences from randomly generated stats anyway.
Rolling creates variety - True, it certainly creates a more random array than bought stats or (especially) premade arrays. But now we're praising power differences between players (before classes get involved). That feels... wrong. I understand that not all people are equal and that adds a bit of realism. But at least in terms of the players at character creation, shouldn't we all start on an equivalent footing?
Rolling for stats is part of the game! - Fair enough. I'm not here to tell you how to have fun, and if you're whole group likes rolling then more power to you. At the end of the day that's all that really matters. But the rules aren't infallible, so it's ok to split off from them if you like something else more.

Hit Points
This is similar to attributes, but almost more for the momentary gambling high. Yes, it's fun to roll fighter hit points and try to get a 10, but don't tell me your not sour when it comes up a 1 or a 2. It may be fun in the moment, but has far reaching consequences. If the paladin rolled low in the past 3 levels, he's going to have a hard time being confident in doing paladin-y front line tanking. He's effectively always down 8-12 hitpoints, because rolling felt fun in the moment. This discomfort can be sneaky, especially with newer players. I've seen many PC's approach their DM looking to change characters because they don't really feel 'like their character is fun to play' or something similar. A lot of times it's a lack of confidence due to being tissue paper in combat thanks to sub-par hp.

Attack and Damage
This is where the purpose of rolling shines. In the chaos of battle, who knows why or how you whiffed on what should have been an easy swing. This promotes good storytelling, either of your rousing success or stunning failure.

Skill checks
Skill checks tend to be on a case by case basis. Done right, it introduces suspense and drama. Can I jump over that pit? Can I tell a convincing lie to a guard? Well I can certainly try, let's see what happens. But a number of skills deviate from this.
Skill check to go on an adventure - This one can be a real mistake for DM's, where the plot is 'gated' behind a skill check. These tend to be figurative (You failed you gather information, you can't find your contact for the quest to continue). Certainly the DM can fix these on the fly with a bit of fiat, but if that was the case, why did the DM even require a skill check if there was effectively no consequence for failure? Literal walls can lead to creative problem solving (how do we get the wizard with a -4 to climb over the wall), but players will quickly find themselves out of ideas if they aren't given some of the needed information.
Rolling for Routine Tasks - I don't know if DM's ask for this because they just like rolling or what, but having players roll for every day things is, again, a net negative scenario. My character has ridden a horse to work casually every day for the past 6 years. If I succeed, the roll was totally uneventful. If I fail, particularly if I fail spectacularly, it seems completely out of character and takes away agency from what we determined at the start of the game he's good at doing. Seasoned players will make the best of these moments and roll it into something humorous, or perhaps take the moment to touch on some internal drama that has shaken them from their normal routines. But a DM can only ask for that so often, and it's a bit like asking for players for some on-the-spot character drama.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm interested to see what other people think. Are there other categories that you feel strongly about? Are there benefits to rolling in these situations that I'm blind to?

I'll preface this by saying I mostly play 3.5 and 5e

Rolling Attributes: I like rolling. I do find it creates more variance in characters when playing with the same people multiple times. Most people have a character type they like, from fairly broad like "caster" to extremely specific like "spiked chain wielding Fighter 2/Barbarian 8/FavoriteMeleePRC 10". It can be rewarding when your stats force you to play a new character to try finding something you like about it. That said I'll never force rolling on anyone; if I'm DMing I'll try to give a fair alternative if you aren't happy with your rolls. In 5e, where stats are capped and you don't usually need more than one or two good stats regardless of class, I'm more likely to encourage rolling simply because you don't need really high stats early game. It's part of the reason point-buy is capped at 15 by default in 5e.

I find I generally favor point-buy in a few specific situations. The first is when setting a specific power level for the game. I'm working on a "zero-to-hero" game for 5e that will use point buy to prevent being too exceptional at the start, giving only 18 points and capping the buy at 13. Another situation is in 3.5. Sure I like rolling and I think it gives you a chance to play weaker classes at a decent level when you roll really well, but at the same time, in 3.5 you really do depend on several stats for certain classes, so I will use point-buy at times to ensure people can play exactly what they want. Finally, if I'm really concerned that people won't be contributing equally (usually moreso in 3.5), then I'll use point-buy instead. This could apply to things like single-class games (where everyone shares a class) so having lower stats overall will be more noticeable.

The thing with rolling attributes is that you can't come at it with an expectation of what you'll play. Or at least you need to be able to adapt. If you're ok with that, it can be great fun. If not, then yeah I recommend point buy. If you're a DM who allows rolling, keep in mind there's a good chance at least one player is going to throw off bounded accuracy. Don't punish them for it.

HP: Yeah, don't roll HP. Fighters and Wizards both tend to have high Con. While it's unlikely to happen, that makes it possible for a Wizard to eventually outstrip a Fighter's HP if they're lucky enough (and the fighter unlucky enough). I like 5e's method of starting with max, then taking half the die and adding one plus Con.

Skill Checks: I might rename this "skill checks likely to cause a fight at the table", but I don't disagree with your points. If the game can't continue without succeeding a skill check, that's an issue. Now, that is continue. As long as it was player choice that lead to it all hanging on a single skill check, then failing it and there being negative consequences is totally fine. Just don't force it on them. Ex: If they're dungeon delving for loot at level 3, don't give them a DC 30 locked door and have there be no key. That's not interesting, it just stops progress.

And yeah, if you can, and especially if you need to, reliably do something every day (for most medieval fantasy people, this probably includes starting a fire, one I see brought up often in these unnecessary skill check discussions), then you shouldn't need to make a check.

Yora
2019-05-31, 02:36 AM
Dice a rolled as an arbitrary way to determine success or failure of an action when the GM is not certain that either outcome would be obvious. For the sake of convenience, it's also a good policy to only roll if the outcome has any relevance. If a failure doesn't change anything and the character can try again, it's pointless to keep rolling until the needed number comes up.

Satinavian
2019-05-31, 03:06 AM
I don't want to roll for attributes or hps and have not done so for more than a decade, even in D&D/Pathfinder games.
That is an old rule artifact from a time when PCs got lucky if they lasted a single session.

Combat?

Yes, rolling is good.

Skills?

Rolling is also good - if you have a good skillsystem that gives you believable results even for routine stuff if you actually use it. No D&D version ever had a good skill system. It started at a half hearted tacked on attempt and then moved into an excuse to roll a die for risky tasks. It never actually worked at simulating the abilities of a PC. So no you have a broken system that is best not used for most appliances of skills where you carefully have to think about if a roll should happen just to avoid slapstick or versimilitude breaking results.

Malphegor
2019-05-31, 03:42 AM
I prefer rolling for attributes for one reason- it stops me min-maxing too hard and gives me roleplaying ideas.

If I roll up a barbarian who's surprisingly intelligent, perhaps his rage bleeds into his normal stuff and he's a bit standoffish with new people, but is welcoming to people he knows are not threats. If I roll a wizard who turns out to be weak both physical strength and in health, maybe he's a skinny guy who gets out of breath, and is terrified of close combat. The cleric who has a ridiculously high charisma is more showy and dramatic.

You don't need to be 100% optimised. You would do well knowing your classes and what they do, but gearing for that is something to be done in-game. You can't choose the circumstances of your birth, after all- neither can the warrior with a birth defect making him unable to grip things with his left hand for too long.

That's why you quest, if you've got nothing more pressing on- to better yourself.

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-31, 07:02 AM
Dice a rolled as an arbitrary way to determine success or failure of an action when the GM is not certain that either outcome would be obvious. For the sake of convenience, it's also a good policy to only roll if the outcome has any relevance. If a failure doesn't change anything and the character can try again, it's pointless to keep rolling until the needed number comes up.

IMO, that's when you roll to see how long it takes to succeed, rather than if you succeed.

kyoryu
2019-05-31, 09:15 AM
IMO, that's when you roll to see how long it takes to succeed, rather than if you succeed.

Only if the duration matters (or at least could matter).

I generally start with “presume that, given infinite time and resources, a character can successfully complete any task that is theoretically completable. So, what is it in terms of time or infinite resources that they don’t have?”

(This is of course unnecessary for tasks where failure results inherently in something changing - disarming an alarm may be a good example if failing to disarm it would set it off)

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-31, 09:27 AM
Only if the duration matters (or at least could matter).

I generally start with “presume that, given infinite time and resources, a character can successfully complete any task that is theoretically completable. So, what is it in terms of time or infinite resources that they don’t have?”

(This is of course unnecessary for tasks where failure results inherently in something changing - disarming an alarm may be a good example if failing to disarm it would set it off)


If the character should succeed based on their abilities vs the task at hand, and there are no meaningful constraints on time or other resources, then I have no problem with the idea of not rolling.

But, in my personal experience, many players enjoy rolling, and actively want to roll, and so it's become my habit even in those situations to have the players roll and then just say it took X long based on the roll... with monumental failure bringing complications of some sort perhaps.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-05-31, 09:46 AM
I am actively annoyed by making meaningless rolls.

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-31, 10:22 AM
I am actively annoyed by making meaningless rolls.


There's a tradeoff, for certain, and I think each table needs to find its own balance, its own line to draw where "meaningless" actually begins.

Quertus
2019-05-31, 12:13 PM
I think the context and the system have a lot to do with the rolling philosophy. D&D (at least it’s modern incarnations) players are mostly playing high power fantasy. You’re the hero/anti-hero/whatever of the day wielding heroic to nigh on legendary power. While you may start as a lowly caravan guard or murder hobo, you may be soon assured of fighting some sort of existential threat. This the game of Aragorn, Drizzt, and so forth. Oversized characters doing oversized things because they are just that awesome.

And cutting players ability to be suitably unencumbered heroic bad asses generally undercuts that system as a whole. The flavor is wrong. So rolling for many of the examples there is off putting.

What if you still rolled, but rolled 9d4, or 2d10+10 (with the same "18 is max normal person" range)? You'd be randomly super-heroic. Acceptable?


Back in ye olden days of chainmail plus, GM vs the party, tomb of horrors murders you for forgetting your ten foot pole the feel for stat rolling would be very much “life is hard, and you deal with it.” And it fit. .

That's something I desire. No matter what the supposed "tone" of the system.

Dimers
2019-05-31, 12:46 PM
I prefer rolling for attributes for one reason- it stops me min-maxing too hard and gives me roleplaying ideas.

If I roll up a barbarian who's surprisingly intelligent, perhaps his rage bleeds into his normal stuff and he's a bit standoffish with new people, but is welcoming to people he knows are not threats. If I roll a wizard who turns out to be weak both physical strength and in health, maybe he's a skinny guy who gets out of breath, and is terrified of close combat. The cleric who has a ridiculously high charisma is more showy and dramatic.

You don't need to be 100% optimised.

I don't like to roll attributes most of the time, but I was going to bring this up too. With the right DM and fellow players, I'd have fun going all-in on the random chargen, because I spend fewer brain cycles on achieving some performance standard ... there's less stress. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy optimizing for the sake of optimizing, that's fun. But when I can't? It's like having a good spouse or a good therapist -- I can just be instead of having to do.

Quertus
2019-05-31, 02:46 PM
If the character should succeed based on their abilities vs the task at hand, and there are no meaningful constraints on time or other resources, then I have no problem with the idea of not rolling.

But, in my personal experience, many players enjoy rolling, and actively want to roll, and so it's become my habit even in those situations to have the players roll and then just say it took X long based on the roll... with monumental failure bringing complications of some sort perhaps.

This is quite the conundrum. And it's one of the things I most remember changing on the fly for a new group. Most groups / most players seem happy with superfluous rolls once I add in (and they familiar with) a houseuled "degrees of success" system, where the "superfluous" roll becomes an extra chance for them to shine.

Mordar
2019-05-31, 03:01 PM
Attributes/Character Creation
I'm of multiple minds on the rolls for attributes/character creation.

In most games I think I'm with the majority on point-buy, arrays or whatever other version of "choose your own stats" are available. There are some games, however, where I think the random element lends a great deal of value.

I *really* like the way Marvel Super Heroes character generation worked, for instance. Origin type, attributes, powers...all were randomly generated and you were left to create the origin story and character theme that matched the results (with some special concessions where certain powers would let you "swap out" other random rolls for complementary powers, for instance). I enjoyed that a bit more than coming to the game with a preset character in mind. Heck, it makes character generation a mini game that was sometimes better than the real game!

Traveler's random history also appealed to me, as did the random development option for Stormbringer.

Combat and Skills
For combat, certainly...and for the majority of skills where there is a realistic chance of failure and a "penalty" for failure. If it is something any trained monkey should be able to do, it just should be automatic. If it is something I can try 32 times, fail each and not have anything bad happen and still be able to be successful, it should be automatic. Only if there is a risk of failing and a penalty (be it time, damage, opportunity cost, whatever...) should a roll be made. Special exceptions as well for chances the PC can succeed at above "normal" success...

Random Chances
Though not on the original list, I do think the topic of random chances like Wandering Monsters also can come into play. I am in the camp that says random chance shouldn't result in a catastrophic event for the campaign and that "fixing" random chance is something that should happen. Good and bad luck should complicate game play, not upend it. I also support the idea of *not rolling* things like Wandering Monster checks when it is highly likely a "yes" outcome could be catastrophic.

All in all, I guess that probably puts me in the mild-to-middle randomness tolerance range.

- M

icefractal
2019-05-31, 04:50 PM
I don't usually like random stats, but they do have a property that point buy or arrays don't - if your stats aren't fungible with each-other, they don't need to be equally valuable. In a "roll in order" system it would be totally fine to have one stat be Body (covers most physical activities) and another be ESP (only covers sensing ghosts, and ghosts aren't that common).

Secondarily, one that still applies if you choose the order, it means you *might* be able to have high stats that aren't part of your main role without weakening yourself. Although that's totally luck-dependent, so it may or may not happen for a given character.

Mixing up the type of character you play, I don't see as a good reason for random stats. Just make a random role/theme chart if you want that; it accomplishes the same thing better.

Random HP, I don't really see a reason; it's not giving you new prompts, it's just randomly being a little better or worse. If you want imbalance and/or gambling for its own sake, why not roll starting level randomly too?

KineticDiplomat
2019-05-31, 09:42 PM
@Quertus: I’m about to PM you with some stuff, but in short:

(Edit. Apparently there isn’t a PM function. Suffice to say that certain systems draw certain crowds of players, and D&D does not tend to draw players who take joy in there being real chances of failure)

Randomly “superheroic” rolls would simply move the scale. Late D&D is a game about power fantasy. Players want to be powerful and useful, and not feel left out as the sidekick. No one wants to be outdone. Whoever was on the low end would feel cheated of their righteous destiny.

Now, if random, life is hard, the world is gritty is what you want in a game, D&D is mechanically just not wired that way anymore. Rolling for stats is an artifact of when it was. There are many systems that ARE wired that way, and in them stat rolls feel a lot more appropriate.

This is distinctly not helped by the fact that D&D is about fairly non-tactical combat and more about throwing piles of dice at the other guy, and that it is a system where combat is pretty explicitly the crux of the matter. All problems are eventually solved by punching, who punches best wins, and then you get to punch bigger things. Which sounds derisive until you realize that people love that, and indeed it is the premise of a great many successful books, shows, and movies. It’s just not a system that rewards taking a hit.

——-
@ Dimers

I can only speak to my experience, but I find that it only takes one grumpy faced player unhappy with his rolls who gets a little special exception and BOOM, the min max arms race is back on. Which is unfortunate, because you are right. Being forced into a role makes way more interesting role play than seeing if you can optimize one of four A+ tier character classes.

Quertus
2019-05-31, 10:55 PM
In a "roll in order" system it would be totally fine to have one stat be Body (covers most physical activities) and another be ESP (only covers sensing ghosts, and ghosts aren't that common).

Random HP, I don't really see a reason; it's not giving you new prompts, it's just randomly being a little better or worse. If you want imbalance and/or gambling for its own sake, why not roll starting level randomly too?

I've done that. Good times.

What if "ESP" was a derived stat, based on a combination of your luck in rolling your "supernatural" stat (like Con for HP) its own random luck (like rolling HP), and maybe (if the system has such things) your archetype (like class) and grade (like level). Would you still have issues with "rolling for ESP", and want it to just be a static derived stat?


@Quertus: I’m about to PM you with some stuff, but in short:

(Edit. Apparently there isn’t a PM function. Suffice to say that certain systems draw certain crowds of players, and D&D does not tend to draw players who take joy in there being real chances of failure)

Randomly “superheroic” rolls would simply move the scale. Late D&D is a game about power fantasy. Players want to be powerful and useful, and not feel left out as the sidekick. No one wants to be outdone. Whoever was on the low end would feel cheated of their righteous destiny.

Now, if random, life is hard, the world is gritty is what you want in a game, D&D is mechanically just not wired that way anymore. Rolling for stats is an artifact of when it was. There are many systems that ARE wired that way, and in them stat rolls feel a lot more appropriate.

This is distinctly not helped by the fact that D&D is about fairly non-tactical combat and more about throwing piles of dice at the other guy, and that it is a system where combat is pretty explicitly the crux of the matter. All problems are eventually solved by punching, who punches best wins, and then you get to punch bigger things. Which sounds derisive until you realize that people love that, and indeed it is the premise of a great many successful books, shows, and movies. It’s just not a system that rewards taking a hit.

D&D, IME, draws a lot of war gamers - who absolutely should be fine with there being a (rather big) chance of failure.

So, playing a Minotaur wouldn't be enough power if someone else got to be a Stone Giant? Playing Hercules wouldn't be enough if someone else got to be Dionysus?

I dunno - I hear lots of 3e stories where I can (and have) responded "wow, you weren't prepared, noob". So, it feels to me that D&D is still wired that way, and people are just in denial about it.

2e (the best RPG ever) certainly had plenty of tactical combat. When I pulled 3.0 logic in a 3.5 game, it certainly felt like 3.0 had some tactical combat. So, I'm not sure what D&D you're playing, but the two best editions certainly were capable of having some measure of tactics beyond just big numbers.

KineticDiplomat
2019-05-31, 11:28 PM
Alas that 2E is long atrophied. I should be more specific: D&D 3.5 and beyond are essentially heroic power fantasy, and the tactics can do little to alter the dice.

As to your scaling power references, the pretty clear answer is “No”. When “learn to play, noob” means you didn’t optimize as well as the rest of the group and no longer have value as a result, then it is almost self evident that being down-caste in power is a nigh intolerable situation.

Quertus
2019-06-01, 10:05 PM
Alas that 2E is long atrophied. I should be more specific: D&D 3.5 and beyond are essentially heroic power fantasy, and the tactics can do little to alter the dice.

As to your scaling power references, the pretty clear answer is “No”. When “learn to play, noob” means you didn’t optimize as well as the rest of the group and no longer have value as a result, then it is almost self evident that being down-caste in power is a nigh intolerable situation.

Things like "assumed victory, and had no exit strategy" or (outside strange scenarios where it actually makes sense) "convinced others or was convinced to spend all actions / resources / gold to buff a single party member" are good examples of the type of "you have failed" I was referencing.