DM doesn’t care about us rolling stats in front of them

[kayli10]

New group, so no one knows each other. Just got done with a session 0 and was told that we can roll our stats whenever and however we want. Not exactly sure how the “however” works because we didn’t talk about that. I rolled my stats (typical 4d6, drop the lowest) and I got really good stats.

17, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10.

I’m not comfortable using those stats because I don’t want people to think I cheated. On the other hand I’m also afraid of other people cheating because I’ve had been experiences with other online groups. Brought up my opinion to the DM but she just blew it off talking about the honor code.

Guess I’m just curious what the overall opinion of these kind of situations are.

[Zombimode]

May guess would be that the GM simply doesn't care if you "cheat". Or what kind of roling method you use.
In any case you will arrive with a set of stats and hopefully you arrived at them with a way you like.
For instance, if one player really enjoys "3d6 in order"* they can just do that.
If another player is really unhappy with their set just because of that Charisma 15 but would be very happy if it would be Charisma 16, they could just do this little cheat if that makes them happy.

Because in the grand scheme of things the differences don't really matter. Maybe in particular there is a issue. But this issue is then a particular thing and needs to be adressed in particular.

Say the 3d6 in order player shows up with a 9, 7, 12, 13, 10 array and feels somewhat underpowered in comparison to the "32 point buy by 3.5 point buy rules" characters the other players opted to create. Then this feeling of being underpowered is the particular issue and can be adressed as such. No need to make preemtive restrictions.

Sure, this assumes a somewhat mature audience, but the GM decided to treat you with respect by attributing this level of matureness to you.

* although this method is highly unlikely to produce an array of stats that really work with D&D since 3e

[Eldan]

Yeah, I do that these days when playing 3.5. My preferred method of stat generation is "just write down what stats you want". Rolling is tedious and doesn't add much most of the time. And if you really need to have six 18s, then get it out of your system.

[KorvinStarmast]

New group, so no one knows each other. Just got done with a session 0 and was told that we can roll our stats whenever and however we want. Not exactly sure how the “however” works because we didn’t talk about that. I rolled my stats (typical 4d6, drop the lowest) and I got really good stats.

17, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10.

I’m not comfortable using those stats because I don’t want people to think I cheated. Why would people think that you cheated? Have you cheated before? Are they used to seeing you try to cheat?
If the answers to that are no, don't worry about it. That's what you rolled, your DM trusts you, the other players trust you, go and play. :smallsmile:

If any of the other players try to tell you that you cheated, which you did not, tell them "no, that's what the dice rolls were" and say nothing more. Any further remarks from that player is a flag that you've got a problem player in your group. Keep an eye on that one. (By the way, I have seen better arrays than that rolled in this edition; my nephew had nothing less than an 11 and two 17's when he rolled up his monk/cleric, and we all watched the dice rolls)

[Anonymouswizard]

If everybody's mature then there will be no issue. To me this is an opportunity to just write down a decent but not great set of stats, but then again I also like to spread my dots in WoD.

For what it's worth your stats just look like a set of lucky rolls. They don't look like you cheated, but I certainly wouldn't mind if, at the table, you offered to shift a couple of values to be more in-line with the party average.

But from what I remember most players don't actually want their stats at maximum. You can see this with equipment as well, most players will go for somewhere in the high but reasonable range if allowed to just pick. Don't surprised if a lot of PCs would have had to roll an 18 and two 16s, but you likely won't see truly hilarious stat totals.

If I was ever running 3.5 again I'd give the choice of two arrays, revise down as much as you want:
18 16 14 12 10 8
16 16 14 14 10 8

[Easy e]

Show me on the doll where the last GM caused you trauma

You are fine. Those stats are pretty normal.

[Lord Torath]

New group, so no one knows each other. Just got done with a session 0 and was told that we can roll our stats whenever and however we want. Not exactly sure how the “however” works because we didn’t talk about that. I rolled my stats (typical 4d6, drop the lowest) and I got really good stats.

17, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10.
(By the way, I have seen better arrays than that rolled in this edition; my nephew had nothing less than an 11 and two 17's when he rolled up his monk/cleric, and we all watched the dice rolls)I rolled 17, 17, 16, 15, 12, 12, 12 (DM liked to have us roll seven and keep the top five and lowest 1) in front of witnesses on 4d6k3. It happens.

Another game I rolled 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13. The DM was right there watching me.

I second Korvin here. Use those rolls and don't apologize for them. And don't worry about anyone else cheating with their scores. Sounds like the DM is prepared to handle a wide variety of ability scores.

[Wintermoot]

New group, so no one knows each other. Just got done with a session 0 and was told that we can roll our stats whenever and however we want. Not exactly sure how the “however” works because we didn’t talk about that. I rolled my stats (typical 4d6, drop the lowest) and I got really good stats.

17, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10.

I’m not comfortable using those stats because I don’t want people to think I cheated. On the other hand I’m also afraid of other people cheating because I’ve had been experiences with other online groups. Brought up my opinion to the DM but she just blew it off talking about the honor code.

Guess I’m just curious what the overall opinion of these kind of situations are.

Could be a test by the GM to see what kind of people she's working with. People like you who show up with perfectly normal and reasonable stats, and people like that guy who shows up with 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 16. Then she know who is worth spending energy on and who isn't. Her own session zero.


Or is could just be that the DM is laidback and unconcerned.

[JNAProductions]

Ability Scores: Pick six numbers. These are your pre-racial stats. No number may be higher than 18 or less than 8. You may modify them freely up until the game starts, and may pick duplicate numbers.

This is what I do. It's altered from my original, which let you pick stats 3-18 instead of 8-18. People kept crippling themselves, so I had to raise the floor.

I'd ask your DM to clarify if just picking stats is okay. And I'd also advise talking with the other players of the game to make sure everyone's able to contribute well, with whatever stats are gone with.

[False God]

I personally think your stats are fine. You have 2 good stats, 3 average stats and 1 good old 10. You'll be good at 2 things, okay at a couple other things and completely normal at whatever is left. Depending on how you build your character and leverage those stats, you could be fairly powerful, or not. And I personally don't think any DM would really take issue with them.

BUT, I no longer even ask my players to roll stats. It is, IMO, an unnecessary gatekeeping mechanic between the player and the character they want to play, or worse, between them and a character that contributes to the group and is enjoyable to play at all. Like the rest of the game, I simply set the boundaries between what you can do and cannot do.

That is, I tell my players "Pick a score for each stat between 3 and 20 that best represents the character you want to play." Their decisions on the power level of their character tell me the sort of game they want to play. I adjust accordingly.

[Eldan]

This is what I do. It's altered from my original, which let you pick stats 3-18 instead of 8-18. People kept crippling themselves, so I had to raise the floor.
.

That, I really dislike. I enjoy characters with a distinct weakness. Choosing 8-18, or point buy, basically tell you "No, your character may at worst be very slightly below average."

[animorte]

That, I really dislike. I enjoy characters with a distinct weakness. Choosing 8-18, or point buy, basically tell you "No, your character may at worst be very slightly below average."

One of the DMs I play with prefers open rolls at the table for stats 4d6b3. But also does not allow a stat below 10. If you end up with anything between a 3-9, you can just take 10 instead. Interesting, but he likes to run higher power games.

I, on the other hand, I don’t mind playing or seeing wide variety of stats. I will role-play the heck out of that 3, if I get one. Bring on the fun! I also like wild magic shenanigans too though, so… to each his own.

[Anonymouswizard]

Could be a test by the GM to see what kind of people she's working with. People like you who show up with perfectly normal and reasonable stats, and people like that guy who shows up with 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 16. Then she know who is worth spending energy on and who isn't. Her own session zero.

Like The Angry GM's use of psionics as screening this is an incredibly unfair test. Mainly due to the 'whatever method you want' bit, it's technically fair for me to roll my stats with 1d2+37. I'd be a ****, but it's very much within the rules as defined.

But yeah, this is almost certainly 'pick stats, be reasonable'.


This is what I do. It's altered from my original, which let you pick stats 3-18 instead of 8-18. People kept crippling themselves, so I had to raise the floor.

I'd ask your DM to clarify if just picking stats is okay. And I'd also advise talking with the other players of the game to make sure everyone's able to contribute well, with whatever stats are gone with.

Would you allow one stat to drop to a 6? As somebody with ~6 DEX in real life I'd greatly appreciate it if I was playing!

[JNAProductions]

Would you allow one stat to drop to a 6? As somebody with ~6 DEX in real life I'd greatly appreciate it if I was playing!

Yeah. I've had one or two players ask to drop below an 8 since I changed the rule, and that's usually okay. The issue was when it was something like a 6 in Constitution-at that point, you're just not cut out for the adventuring lifestyle. Or a 3 in Wisdom-too many Wisdom saves means that you're also a liability.

[wizarddog]

Later systems (of D&D particularly) seem to move towards the idea you have some good stats in order to be an effective character. AD&D 1e didn't give you anything unless stats were 15 and above and the class available to you was based on stats (Among other things). So you could be set playing a fighter or thief with a subpar strength or dexterity. That also made the MAD Druids, Monks, Paladins, and Rangers a rarer character choice. The Arcane supplement provided a changed it so you could roll stats based on the character class but by that time the overpowered Cavalier made fighter pretty obsolete.

[Quixotic1]

I tend to strive for fairness and balance. So this whole idea of "just pick whatever you want" is pretty alien to me. Much more so the "roll your stats however you want." I mean, that one just seems to say "you can show up with the best scores ever...or not. Whatever, your call."

I mean, I'm not a fan of power fantasies. I pretty much abhor them. I do not relate to their appeal whatsoever. But if a group enjoys it, sure, whatever.
It's the discrepancy between characters. That feeling of being permanently behind, or outclassed or just like you got a raw deal compared to someone else's.
It seems like this is pretty clearly *not fun* for a good number of people, and I can't really see why someone would actively derive fun from it ("oh, yeah. We played this game where I was at a severe handicap and this other player basically just cheated all the time. It was AWESOME").

But then, I don't really understand rolling for stats at all. Point buy or set arrays, 100%. Let's leave chance out of it until the game actually starts. Might as well roll for the seating or snack arrangements, otherwise. Oh, sorry. You rolled a 1 and a 2, remember? So you have to sit on this carpenter's horse and all you get is rain water and rice cakes.

[animorte]

I always prefer point-buy, personally. Most people I’ve played with don’t want to put in the math though, and to most of them standard array looks mediocre.

[Devils_Advocate]

It strike me as rather... counterintuitive to resent someone's power if you're ostensibly on the same team. It seems like varying player character power levels is pretty clearly fine with a good number of people. But hey, people play roleplaying games for a variety of different reasons. Something that serves one of those purposes well may interfere with another.

The importance of "basic attributes" or whatever depends on the game, anyway. In Dungeons & Dragons, things like choice of class and choice of tactics generally carry a lot more weight. I assume that very few of the groups who say "Just choose whatever stats you want" also say "Just choose whatever starting level you want". "Stats" just aren't that important, so it's fine to let Timmy get a kick out of playing a conceptually superior character while the optimizing player with system mastery actually contributes way more to the party's success.


I’m not comfortable using those stats because I don’t want people to think I cheated. On the other hand I’m also afraid of other people cheating because I’ve had been experiences with other online groups. Brought up my opinion to the DM but she just blew it off talking about the honor code.
This seems like one of those cases where different people have different, incompatible preferences. In particular, you prefer to prevent cheating but the DM prefers that she and the players trust each other. I myself am not a fan of a level of trust that only serves to placate people who want cheating to be possible, but a lot of people do seem to value that.

[Eldan]

I tend to strive for fairness and balance. So this whole idea of "just pick whatever you want" is pretty alien to me. Much more so the "roll your stats however you want." I mean, that one just seems to say "you can show up with the best scores ever...or not. Whatever, your call."

Yes, pretty much. It says exactly that. As a DM, I feel I'm here to provide a service. If my players want a power fantasy, they can have it. If they want to struggle against impossible odds, I can provide that too.

[Quixotic1]

I feel I'm here to provide a service. If my players want a power fantasy, they can have it. If they want to struggle against impossible odds, I can provide that too.I get that. But the GM is a participant at the table, too. They should have at least an equal say in what sort of a game the group is playing, and probably more.

But that's admittedly neither here nor there.

[Eldan]

Eh. I've played for twenty something years, I've probably played most things I ever wanted to play at least once. Most of the time, I just ask my players what system they'd like, ask them to make characters together and then write a campaign for those characters. I find that much easier, too, I can use their backstories for 90% of the campaign backstory instead of writing it myself.

[Velaryon]

I've never tried the "just pick the stats you want" method, but it honestly does have some appeal to me. As a D&D player I'm generally not happy with my stats if I don't have at least an 18 in my starting stat - I realize that's asking for a lot at some tables, but generally I'm not playing at those tables. I like my characters to be fairly powerful, especially when it comes to the things they're supposed to be best at. And I build my NPCs that way anyway, so it wouldn't be that big of a leap.

But with regard to the "DM doesn't care if we roll in front of them or not," I don't think it's that weird. As a DM, if I didn't trust the players not to cheat during character creation, why would I want to play with them at all?

[False God]

The importance of "basic attributes" or whatever depends on the game, anyway. In Dungeons & Dragons, things like choice of class and choice of tactics generally carry a lot more weight. I assume that very few of the groups who say "Just choose whatever stats you want" also say "Just choose whatever starting level you want". "Stats" just aren't that important, so it's fine to let Timmy get a kick out of playing a conceptually superior character while the optimizing player with system mastery actually contributes way more to the party's success.

Actually....

I do that too. Functionally your argument about different people having different stats shouldn't be jealous of each other applies to levels as well. If Bob enjoys playing a 20th level cleric and Joe enjoys being a 5th level rogue, these are not inherently incompatible characters. It does change the game a little bit to have Superman and Batman in the same party, but Superman does Superman stuff and Batman does Batman stuff. Where they don't overlap, they compliment each other.

I do ask my players to discuss amongst themselves what sort of game they want(I usually step out of the room while they discuss). High stats, low levels? Action heroes. High stats, high levels? Super-heroes. Average/low stats, low levels? Gritty. Average stats, average levels? Maybe just a dungeon crawl. Then I just whip something up and roll with it.

I have a homebrew multiverse, it has a variety of planes of worlds I can choose from(really the result of me making dozens of campaign worlds over the years) to accommodate nearly any playstyle. Any one of the worlds can usually accommodate a party of nearly any variety. And all else fails, I have my "Infinite Dungeon". I'm much better with adapting worlds to the players, than hoping I get the right mix of characters to fit in this one particular setting or module. Getting them all in the same range helps, but isn't really necessary. As long as they're working as a team it works out.

[Quixotic1]

It's really interesting to hear this "meh, I've played a lot. Just tell me what you want and we'll do that" sort of mentality. I've been playing for 23 years and have run hundreds of games...but I still definitely want input.

Most of my games start by me reaching out to players with, "hey, I was thinking I'd run a (insert genre, tone and theme here) sort of game. What do you think? Who wants in?"

I've never really considered parties with wildly different capabilities, i.e. a lvl20 cleric and a lvl5 rogue. That seems...like you'd really have to deviate from the game aspect of the hobby quite a bit to pull off.
Once we're that far removed from the standard the game assumes we're playing at, though...man, I dunno. Like. Where does it end? Do you even need dice at that point? This whole concept is really fascinating.

[Eldan]

I mean, it's not as if I don't have input. But I generally get everyone together for a session 0 first, where we brainstorm and make characters. I just enjoy games more where the characters fit the story and each other. If my players want to be a princess, a pirate and a knight, then we're going to have a campaign about the royal heir and her bodyguard fleeing a crew and joining a pirate crew incognito. And if they want to retake the throne at some point or fight an Aboleth that's in their backstory, we can do that too. I'm still going to be the one doing the actual writing.

(I also know 10-15 systems at varying levels of proficiency. If they want to be godlike cleric and bumbling amateur thief, we can do that, but I wouldn't do it in D&D.)

[Rynjin]

Just for reference OP, your stat spread is functionally almost indistinguishable from a standard character using 25 point buy. While technically it's a 32 PB the stats are spread out enough as for the overall impact to be negligible. You could just as easily be 16 16 14 10 10 10 and nobody would bat an eye.

I doubt your GM would care even if he thought you "cheated". It's an extremely reasonable ability score set.

[Mordante]

If everybody's mature then there will be no issue. To me this is an opportunity to just write down a decent but not great set of stats, but then again I also like to spread my dots in WoD.

For what it's worth your stats just look like a set of lucky rolls. They don't look like you cheated, but I certainly wouldn't mind if, at the table, you offered to shift a couple of values to be more in-line with the party average.

But from what I remember most players don't actually want their stats at maximum. You can see this with equipment as well, most players will go for somewhere in the high but reasonable range if allowed to just pick. Don't surprised if a lot of PCs would have had to roll an 18 and two 16s, but you likely won't see truly hilarious stat totals.

If I was ever running 3.5 again I'd give the choice of two arrays, revise down as much as you want:
18 16 14 12 10 8
16 16 14 14 10 8

I like the idea of a standard array. But I think these stats are in the high end of the spectrum. Starting with an 18 before racial modifiers seems wrong to me. For 16 16 14 12 10 8 would be better.

[Mordante]

I've never tried the "just pick the stats you want" method, but it honestly does have some appeal to me. As a D&D player I'm generally not happy with my stats if I don't have at least an 18 in my starting stat - I realize that's asking for a lot at some tables, but generally I'm not playing at those tables. I like my characters to be fairly powerful, especially when it comes to the things they're supposed to be best at. And I build my NPCs that way anyway, so it wouldn't be that big of a leap.

But with regard to the "DM doesn't care if we roll in front of them or not," I don't think it's that weird. As a DM, if I didn't trust the players not to cheat during character creation, why would I want to play with them at all?

I honestly don't understand why a character needs to start with an unbuffed stat at 18. IMHO a 16 is high enough most of the time.

[Anonymouswizard]

I like the idea of a standard array. But I think these stats are in the high end of the spectrum. Starting with an 18 before racial modifiers seems wrong to me. For 16 16 14 12 10 8 would be better.

Everybody's going to have different opinions, but most people I know like either starting a stat at max or being really jacky. But that's the reason for the revising down, once you've got tertiary stats you're not going to miss a +1 or +2.


I honestly don't understand why a character needs to start with an unbuffed stat at 18. IMHO a 16 is high enough most of the time.

People like power. It's as simple as that, they want to play an amazing wizard instead of a good wizard. It leads to this weird situation where most NPC wizards should be at about 12INT, but they get buffed up to 14+ just to compete.

It can be even worse in other systems. Masquerade had many PCs begin at 8th or 9th generation just to get those sweet BP per turn, as well as buffing Willpower because that let you resist Dominate. Both cases make the characters really weird under standard assumptions. It also has an issue of focusing your stats and skills being better in the long run, despite having 5 Charisma but 1 Manipulation and Appearance having really weird implications.

In practice most PCs in most games are probably fine with no stats higher than the equivalent of 14. But people like to be strong.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Once upon a time I had a group doing a chat session zero. The group had players that wanted a power-game, and were lobbying for various ways to maximize their chances at higher stats, including tryin to import a flaw for a feat and such.

I quickly grew tired of the lobbying and positioning and bickering and said,

"Pick your own stats. You can be 18s across the board. But every monster will have max HP every time. Deal?"

That ended the discussion and we built with a set a couple of ability mods better than what was standard array. But the group didn't last more than two sessions, so take that for what it was worth.

[Quixotic1]

People like power. Yeah, that's definitely true. I mean, D&D has basically told us that a high score, per the base assumptions of the system, is a 15. And most of the people I play with are okay with that standard.
But I've met plenty of people who feel like they're missing out on their potential if they don't have *the highest possible score* or *the absolute most hits points they can* or *this exact set of magic items*. It doesn't matter how difficult the actual gameplay is. They know that the numbers go up to X, so any time they're dealing with X-Y, they really feel that Y.


I quickly grew tired of the lobbying and positioning and bickering and said,

"Pick your own stats. You can be 18s across the board. But every monster will have max HP every time. Deal?"

...the group didn't last more than two sessions, so take that for what it was worth.Well. I dunno. Those aren't really the same thing. So that has weird effects on the gameplay.
I sat in for a few sessions with a GM doing this exact thing. Once I figured that out, the whole game pivoted on anything that pitted abilities against each other, like status effects. Combat (which was about 90% of his game) was long and drawn-out, but never very challenging.

But I mean. Hats off to you for even trying it. If I had a group of players asking me to run a game like that, I'd have to thank them for the opportunity and suggest they find someone else.
Unless they're paying me, of course. But that's a different matter.

[Doug Lampert]

Whenever you think, "Method X" is too powerful for generating stats. Roll a town of 10,000, 3d6 in order. A computer can do this fast and easy for you. Calculate a point buy using 0 points for scores less than 8. Throw out characters without at least 12 Con (because even with all other scores high, that's not really good).

See what the results are.

I'll do that 10 times and list them off: 48, 51, 59, 54, 50, 56, 54, 62, 52, 51.

If someone wants to play Conan, which is one of the characters that the game is supposed to emulate, then they want to be BETTER than the most naturally capable person in a mid-sized town.

48 point buy is the lowest of those, one of them is 62, the other eight are all in the fifties. They are ENTIRELY out of the range of all the "reasonable" point buy totals in 3.x.

Each of these is from examining the minority of the guys in 10,000 who have 12+ con. That's roll 3d6 in order. Seriously, these are not superpowerful characters. This is all, "pretty good, but not great" (except maybe the 62, that one is wierd; even the 59 is a bit of an outlier on the high side compared with previous times I've done this).

Let people just choose, and I doubt you'll get many 50+ point buy characters, note that the guy who does this regularly had modify to put in a FLOOR, not a ceiling. People want some weaknesses, they mostly don't want 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18.

D&D rolling can't produce someone higher than 3-sigma in any characteristic, I'm 3-sigma in some things, pretty much every professional athlete in the world is outside of 3-sigma in something. Don't worry about it. Attributes by "just make up some" is fine.

[gbaji]

It's an interesting question when considering stats for PCs. Obviously, the one easiest method is "just roll the dice", but then if we assume that's the normal distribution of "normal" people, one might consider that the kinds of people who choose to go out risking their lives adventuring are likely not going to be statistically normal. Hence, lots of different methods to allow for PCs to be "above average". Which seems reasonable.

You can get some "interesting" results if you assume that the PCs are drawn from the even the "best" say 5% of any reasonably large population base. You'll actually get baseline numbers that are far above what any point buy system is likely to result in. If we assume most people just want to live their lives, work their jobs, earn enough to put a roof over their heads, and are otherwise not spending every bit of spare time improving themselves (in whatever way someone may wish to go about "improving themselves" in the first place), then the concept of PCs having pretty exceptional stats is not that out of bounds. How you manage this as a GM is a whole other question though, since yeah, some players if given a chance will stat 18s across the board, and others will intentionally slot in low stats for RP/balance reasons.

I actually did some statistical work for a "special" society my players ran into one time in my game. The backdrop was a somewhat isolated kingdom with a strong magical history (but focused entirely on enhancement magic). They had a class of "knights" who were chosen from the population based on their potential and trained as squires to the existing knights. If there was an opening, and they were qualified (they had a lot of tourneys), they might become a knight, at which point there was this sort of blood ritual/oath thing, where they gained several hundred years of immortality (wouldn't age), in return for binding themselves to the defense and honorable protection of the people they served. So I calculated population levels, rates of birth/death (both among the regular folks and the knights themselves), how many openings would reasonably occur over any given time/generation for one to actually become a new knight, and what the stat possibilities were for those. It was pretty darn close to 18s across the board in this extreme case. Also gave me a great excuse for having these knights be completely ridiculously skilled and powerful at all forms of fighting (and magic to enhance themselves to even more ridiculous degrees).

It was a fun exercise, but highlights the concept that there are, within any population, a small number of "exceptional" people. Just via random chance. And to the degree that you could tap into those people to be your PCs (or the knights in my example), you can absolutely justify significantly higher than "normal" stats. Now, would all of these people be willing to serve (or go out adventuring)? Probably not. And are there going to be people who are "just normal average folks", who do choose to go out and risk their lives for some reason? Absolutely yes.

So I tend to be pretty flexible in terms of stats. We usually do some variant of "roll one more die, remove the one you don't want", which tends to work out just fine. And if some players have higher than statistical rates? Eh. I don't sweat it. In the grand scheme of running a game, and PC advancement, the starting stats, while they can have an impact over time, is usually not as great as other gains along the way. And most adventure scenarios are going to have a lot more to do with choices made than with whether their characters have a point or three more in some stat.

Honestly. I wouldn't sweat the stats. Just slot them in and go from there.

[Zilzmaer]

I mean, D&D has basically told us that a high score, per the base assumptions of the system, is a 15.

D&D has also told us, per the base assumptions of the system (in 5e), that normal people don't have classes. by choosing a class during character creation, you're saying "i want my character to be exceptional by the standards of the setting". if you want to play a character that isn't exceptional, there are statblocks at the back of the Monster Manual for commoners, nobles, acolytes, etc.

i legit don't understand this idea that some people in this thread seem to have where they want their characters to be completely regular folks but also have a class, which definitionally regular folks don't. i completely understand wanting to have at least a couple of low stats, but how good your characters are at something is just as valid a way to distinguish them as how bad they are at things.

also, i'd like to mention that giving your PC one or more mechanical weaknesses doesn't automatically mean you have a better character than someone who doesn't. it helps, but backstory and how the character is played have much more of an impact.


"Stats" just aren't that important, so it's fine to let Timmy get a kick out of playing a conceptually superior character while the optimizing player with system mastery actually contributes way more to the party's success.

you may have just been saying that as an example, but it seems like you're falling victim to the Stormwind Fallacy; system mastery and optimization don't negatively impact conceptual quality or roleplaying, so little Timmy is just as likely to be playing a conceptually worse character as he is one that's superior.


I tend to strive for fairness and balance. So this whole idea of "just pick whatever you want" is pretty alien to me.

i get why you'd say that "pick your stats" might not be balanced (though i think people greatly overestimate the importance of balance, especially considering how unbalanced the game is), but i'm confused why you'd say it isn't fair. "pick the stats you want" means everyone will come out of character creation with exactly the stats they want, and nobody will get screwed over by random chance. how could it get any more fair than that?

you might argue that a standard array is more fair, but i'd disagree if you did; an array will pretty much inevitably favor SAD characters over MAD ones. point buy does, as well, unless you have so many points that it might as well just be "pick your stats".

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

i've never come across the idea of "just pick whatever stats you want" before, and i think it's quite an interesting one. it would definitely not be for every group, but i can see it working well in some.

[gbaji]

you may have just been saying that as an example, but it seems like you're falling victim to the Stormwind Fallacy; system mastery and optimization don't negatively impact conceptual quality or roleplaying, so little Timmy is just as likely to be playing a conceptually worse character as he is one that's superior.

Also, while there may be exceptions to this rule, IME there are typically two types of players who will focus on maxed out stats:

1. Young/inexperienced players who ooh and ahh over "look at my <insert stat here>" (usually strength) and just want to have high stats because it appears as though it's the most important thing (certainly the most basic defining thing), but often really suck at actually picking effective combinations of class/skills/spells/whatever during the rest of character creation and maybe aren't so great at making good tactical decisions during play (the classic "I must accomplish something of significance every single round, so I'll waste spells or ability slots taking out wimpy opponents one round faster" situation).

2. Total min/maxers, who will also stat out the best stats they can to maximize their spell/ability/combat odds, while also maximizing efficiency and power in spell/skill/class selection and then follow that up with also being absolutely diligent with making the most efficient tactical decisions possible, no wasted moves, no wasted slots, etc.

So yeah, you can't assume much, and certainly can't assume that just because someone maxes out stats when given the chance, that they'll absolutely fail at other aspects of the game and somehow "balance it out". The second group will sometimes shamelessly do this, and don't care a whit about balance. They want the most powerful character they can make. And, unfortunately, GMs have to approach PC creation with the latter group in mind.

Obviously, there are even more different types of players who don't max out stats, and for a variety of different reasons.

[JNAProductions]

So yeah, you can't assume much, and certainly can't assume that just because someone maxes out stats when given the chance, that they'll absolutely fail at other aspects of the game and somehow "balance it out". The second group will sometimes shamelessly do this, and don't care a whit about balance. They want the most powerful character they can make. And, unfortunately, GMs have to approach PC creation with the latter group in mind.

Why do you have to?

If the player will actually flagrantly disregard balance at the expense of the fun of the rest of the table, they shouldn’t be catered to. They should be disinvited.

[gbaji]

Why do you have to?

Because even min/maxers can be excellent, engaging, and interesting players. Most of them are basically of the old school wargamer mindset and don't actually have any malicious intent when doing what they do. They honest believe that it's the best play to "play the best". And are often honestly confused why everyone doesn't play this way.


If the player will actually flagrantly disregard balance at the expense of the fun of the rest of the table, they shouldn’t be catered to. They should be disinvited.

It's not the player's job to create balance in the game. It's the GMs. Tossing players because they want to make the most of the rules of the game is silly. You just have to set some boundaries if that sort of thing will actually cause a problem in your game. Like thinking very carefully about how any item or ability might be used before introducing it. Or, say, coming up with firmer stat buy rules so as to force a more "balanced" initial character build. At the end of the day, the players who obsessively scan the rules and crunch the numbers so as to maximize the power/efficiency of their characters are going to do that no matter what rules/limits you place anyway. But the GM has the power to minimize the degree to which this actually affects the game.

My point is that when considering balance issues, you always have to take into account the players who are most likely to really take advantage of any loophole or cheesy tricks that may be present and close/fix them *before* things get to that point. If you do this correctly, you might just be surprised at how much of an asset some of those players you might otherwise disinvite from your table can be.

[JNAProductions]

If someone is doing something at the expense of the fun of the table, I don’t want them at my table.
Everyone should enjoy the game-not just one or two people.

If they do not intend to cause harm, and it’s just them not realizing what they’re doing is causing issues, that can be addressed with a talk. But willfully causing problems is not something I’d accept.

[Easy e]

i legit don't understand this idea that some people in this thread seem to have where they want their characters to be completely regular folks but also have a class, which definitionally regular folks don't.

I feel (so who cares really?) that many players see class more like a person in the real worlds "occupation". I am not saying it is right or wrong, but that can drive some of the confusion you are thinking of.

[gbaji]

If someone is doing something at the expense of the fun of the table, I don’t want them at my table.
Everyone should enjoy the game-not just one or two people.

If they do not intend to cause harm, and it’s just them not realizing what they’re doing is causing issues, that can be addressed with a talk. But willfully causing problems is not something I’d accept.

I agree 100%. But I think we've gone well past what I was actually saying. I'm just saying that when you, as a GM, pick a methodology for your players to build/grow/whatever their characters, you do have to keep the min/max mindset in mind. Because if your methodology allows for super cheesy or overpowered or game unbalancing builds, those types of players will gravitate to those things. You have to get there first and head it off at the pass, so as to avoid ever getting anywhere near the region of "expense of the fun of the table".

Saying "You can build anything you want within this framework", but then when players build characters within that framework that don't "work", you respond by flying right to disinviting that player, that's a bit of an overreaction (and a heck of a lot of passive aggressive on your part). I'm assuming you aren't actually endorsing this approach, and we can assume there's some layer of "talk to the player and set build expectations" in there. But that's part of the "keep these players in mind" bit I was talking about. The more loopholes you have in your system, the more often you're going to have "the talk" to keep min/max players from taking advantage of them. You can look at that as a bad thing, or an annoyance to be dealt with, or you can look at it as an opportunity to clean up your game and become a better game/world builder in the process.

Honestly, the flip side (and why I mentioned two sets of player types) is that young/inexperienced players also require a lot of work as well. You often will find yourself helping them with their builds. In this case though, it's so that they aren't unhappy when the reality of the build doesn't match their expectations. And just as the min/max players can be very good for a table in that they are engaged and come up with good ideas and strategies and then execute them (and would never ever just "forget" about a trap or ethereal demon floating around for example), the less experienced players bring a sense of "newness" and "fun" to a table that is incredibly refreshing. But if left to their own devices, they'll construct a build that often looks like a Picasso sketch or something. There's a need to get those players to slow down, focus on core aspects of a character, and build to that with a mind towards their own "fun" while playing said character (and while not stomping on their own ideas either, which is the tricky part).

Bit off topic from the issue of die rolling stats, but IMO the other aspects of character build are pretty important too, and I've found often create much more impact on the long term playability of the characters themselves within the game setting. And yes, how much "work" you are going to have to do as a GM managing those players and their characters within your game setting/scenario(s)/whatever over time. But IME, that work is worth doing, as it will result in a well balanced and well functioning gaming table, in which everyone is having fun.

[JNAProductions]

I've had plenty of success with "Pick six numbers, 8-18."
Again-the main change I had to make from the original was making it 8-18 instead of 3-18.

Sometimes, players get nervous that it's some hidden test-so I just give them an array. Usually something like 18 18 16 14 12 12. Yes, it's high powered. I am okay with that-with ability scores capped at 20 in 5E, even starting with all 18s doesn't break the game.

[False God]

I've had plenty of success with "Pick six numbers, 8-18."
Again-the main change I had to make from the original was making it 8-18 instead of 3-18.

I haven't run into this as an issue, and have only seen a 6 once. So I'm curious as to how often lower-than-8 numbers showed up on your players sheets with this method?

[JNAProductions]

I haven't run into this as an issue, and have only seen a 6 once. So I'm curious as to how often lower-than-8 numbers showed up on your players sheets with this method?

Maybe once every other game... But it was often something like a 3 in Wisdom or a 6 in Constitution.

Often enough that I wanted to change it. If a player specifically requests for a lower-than-8 stat, I'll usually allow it, but by making it 8-18 it sets the tone for highly skilled and overall competent PCs, which is what I like my players' characters to be.

[Anonymouswizard]

I feel (so who cares really?) that many players see class more like a person in the real worlds "occupation". I am not saying it is right or wrong, but that can drive some of the confusion you are thinking of.

Yeah, the general assumption is that class=occupation. It very much doesn't help that about half are generally treated by the game as actual in-world things and half aren't. Something like 3.X's NPC classes might actually have been helpful for this, but even Sidekicks didn't appear for years.

Sadly D&D isn't like Ryuutama, where classes are basic enough that you can assume that an NPC Noble, even without the actual class, probably has similar abilities.

To which I say, come to the point by side. We have more versatile character creation and less assumption that NPCs have PC abilities.

[Rynjin]

I feel (so who cares really?) that many players see class more like a person in the real worlds "occupation". I am not saying it is right or wrong, but that can drive some of the confusion you are thinking of.

This is typically true for NPCs, I'd say, going by published materials. Rangers are woodsmen, often employed as literal rangers, for example. But for PCs things are a little more in flux. The whole point of a PC is that they're special.

[martixy]

Whenever you think, "Method X" is too powerful for generating stats. Roll a town of 10,000, 3d6 in order. A computer can do this fast and easy for you. Calculate a point buy using 0 points for scores less than 8. Throw out characters without at least 12 Con (because even with all other scores high, that's not really good).

See what the results are.

I'll do that 10 times and list them off: 48, 51, 59, 54, 50, 56, 54, 62, 52, 51.

If someone wants to play Conan, which is one of the characters that the game is supposed to emulate, then they want to be BETTER than the most naturally capable person in a mid-sized town.

48 point buy is the lowest of those, one of them is 62, the other eight are all in the fifties. They are ENTIRELY out of the range of all the "reasonable" point buy totals in 3.x.

Each of these is from examining the minority of the guys in 10,000 who have 12+ con. That's roll 3d6 in order. Seriously, these are not superpowerful characters. This is all, "pretty good, but not great" (except maybe the 62, that one is wierd; even the 59 is a bit of an outlier on the high side compared with previous times I've done this).

Let people just choose, and I doubt you'll get many 50+ point buy characters, note that the guy who does this regularly had modify to put in a FLOOR, not a ceiling. People want some weaknesses, they mostly don't want 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18.

D&D rolling can't produce someone higher than 3-sigma in any characteristic, I'm 3-sigma in some things, pretty much every professional athlete in the world is outside of 3-sigma in something. Don't worry about it. Attributes by "just make up some" is fine.

I think, technically it's a bit less than 3 sigma (3d6 stdev is like 3). You need more dice for a bigger variability (as opposed to bigger dice).

As for me, I don't care. I've given players 2 sets of 4d8 previously for a heroic campaign I ran.

But when you bring up cheating, it makes me think about winning and losing. At which point here's a good question to ask: Who's winning and who's losing and what?

[Anonymouswizard]

I think, technically it's a bit less than 3 sigma (3d6 stdev is like 3). You need more dice for a bigger variability (as opposed to bigger dice).

10d100/5-1. Now we finally have some realistic stat distributions!

Now to add in rolls for race, class, and head size...

[vasilidor]

Once upon a time I had a group doing a chat session zero. The group had players that wanted a power-game, and were lobbying for various ways to maximize their chances at higher stats, including tryin to import a flaw for a feat and such.

I quickly grew tired of the lobbying and positioning and bickering and said,

"Pick your own stats. You can be 18s across the board. But every monster will have max HP every time. Deal?"

That ended the discussion and we built with a set a couple of ability mods better than what was standard array. But the group didn't last more than two sessions, so take that for what it was worth.

i would take that deal.

[vasilidor]

Eh, for the next D&D game I run, I am planning on giving everyone 18s across the board. Because why not?

[False God]

Eh, for the next D&D game I run, I am planning on giving everyone 18s across the board. Because why not?

It really doesn't change much(I say this having done it, and not to disparage it). Martials will be a bit better at saving against spells for the first 10 levels or so, casters will be a bit better at taking hits or hitting people with weapons if they need/want to. Everyone will be good at some more skills. What any given class favors will play a larger role than the stats.

It's not like folks have 28's or 40's. And it's not like there isn't an entire edition where that is both possible, probably intentional, and completely manageable.

Generally speaking, I prefer giving my players higher starting stats, hence why I'm in the "Pick your stats." camp. Also the "Pick your starting level." camp, but that's a bigger jump for some folks.

[Eldan]

Eh, for the next D&D game I run, I am planning on giving everyone 18s across the board. Because why not?

Yeah, why not? If the players enjoy that, there's really no harm done.

Plus, depending on your D&D editions, barely any class needs more than 1 or 2 stats, anyway, so it's mostly set decoration.

[vasilidor]

I normally play and run in pathfinder. There are a few classes that require multiple high stats to be functional *Glares at the monk.* And a few that I do not allow and still won't because I feel the design of the class is genuinely horrid or disruptive for reasons that cannot be fixed with high stats *glares at the Vigilante and the Kineticist.*

[truemane]

From a strict design perspective, high stats in themselves don't really change the math of the game very much. In 5E higher mostly really just convert to extra Feats. Players often like high stats and players often like more Feats. And neither Feats nor stats significantly alter the balance of the game.

One player with much higher (or lower) stats than everyone else can sometimes be an issue. But not always. And it's the kind of thing that can be discussed before the game starts.

So, as a DM, I have no real investment in how stats are determined. Whatever the group wants is usually fine with me. I do the Standard Array for people new to the game. And if people want to roll, I usually add a rule that anyone can use anyone else's array of they want.

[Satinavian]

Saying "You can build anything you want within this framework", but then when players build characters within that framework that don't "work", you respond by flying right to disinviting that player, that's a bit of an overreaction (and a heck of a lot of passive aggressive on your part). I'm assuming you aren't actually endorsing this approach, and we can assume there's some layer of "talk to the player and set build expectations" in there. But that's part of the "keep these players in mind" bit I was talking about. The more loopholes you have in your system, the more often you're going to have "the talk" to keep min/max players from taking advantage of them. You can look at that as a bad thing, or an annoyance to be dealt with, or you can look at it as an opportunity to clean up your game and become a better game/world builder in the process.To some extend that is true - but only to some extend. Overpowered characters are often not about broken tricks but about using synergies and avoiding redundancies. And if you really want to kill all those, your system might end up pretty restrictive and also bloated wth exceptions.
And sometimes all those readjustments feel like playing what-a-mole. And that is not really fun as a GM. A player with good enough system mastery to always build the best possible character also has enough system mastery to judge the efficiency of the other PCs and roughly keep to the same level. And that is what i demand from players. I am willing to tell a player two times to tone it down if it becomes a problem. The third time i would indeed kick the player and be rid of the hassle.

[Jay R]

This is why I always want somebody watching my character rolls. When designing a character by email, and some random roll is needed, I will usually ask the DM to roll it for me and send me the results.

My ultimate nightmare is a DM letting me roll a character by myself, and getting three 18s.