Point Buy vs. Rolling Redux: The Final Battle (yeah right)

[Mr. Friendly]

Point Buy and Rolling, the two most common methods of attribute generation. Personally I sit on the fence between the two. On the one hand I like the safe predictability of point buy from both a player and DM perspective. On the other hand there is a bit of gambler's thrill in rolling for the character.

Most people I game with prefer rolling, but it always degenerates into the same predictable scenario:

Player: "I rolled crap, I want to roll over."
DM: "Your stats aren't crap."
Player: "But everyone else rolled at least 1 18!"
DM: "Tough luck. Deal with it."

At this point Player either whines and cries until DM gives in or, as is more common....

Player: "Ok, Ted the Crappy Fighter charges the (monster)." or "I open the door, before the Rogue checks it."

In short the "character" has a suicidal death wish until he dies and the player rolls a new character, disrupting the game.

By contrast, point buy is kind of bland, though more stable.

So, from my perspective, it looks like this:

{table]Rolling|Point Buy
Varied PC stats|Balanced PC stats
Fickle Finger of Fate|Fickle Finger of Math
Random|Stable
Exciting|Bland
Variable power impact on the game|Known power impact on the game
Possible to roll a 3|Impossible to have all 18s (by default)[/table]

Anything I am missing?

So, how about it d6 lovers, tell everyone why point buy sucks.

Point buy lovers, tell everyone why random stats suck.

Round 1: FIGHT!

[Prophaniti]

I don't mind point-buy so much, but I prefer to play with a slightly larger stat pool. Standard point-buy you can never play any class that requires multiple high stats to be effective. The party is supposed to be HEROES! In a typical game at least, they're supposed to be extraordinary individuals. That's why we usually play with 4d6 drop lowest, sometimes I even allow a re-roll if they roll multiple 1s. Practically all the D&D pc games used point-buy and it always felt restricting, like I was going into the game with my legs tied together or chopping off my hand just to make it interesting.

[Kurald Galain]

I fail to see what is so "exciting" about rolling 4d6 six times.

Also, I fail to see how math can in any way be considered "fickle". Indeed, the whole point of mathematics is that it isn't fickle.

[Nebo_]

I don't like these threads usually, but it's a fresh one so I'll say my piece before it gets too bogged down with people trying to ram opinions down each other's throats.

I like rolling because it's fun. My group is sensible enough to allow rerolls when bad stats come up, so we don't get crippled characters. Point buy just doesn't have the excitement of rolling, so we don't use it.

[Matthew]

Point Buy is predictable, rolling is unpredictable. It's all preferential. Personally, I like a bit of randomness in character generation and I despise the most common result of point buy, which is the temptation (or pressure) to simply give your character an 18 in his prime Attribute and stay away from MAD builds.

[Telonius]

Most people I game with prefer rolling, but it always degenerates into the same predictable scenario:

Player: "I rolled crap, I want to roll over."
DM: "Your stats aren't crap."
Player: "But everyone else rolled at least 1 18!"
DM: "Tough luck. Deal with it."

At this point Player either whines and cries until DM gives in or, as is more common....

Player: "Ok, Ted the Crappy Fighter charges the (monster)." or "I open the door, before the Rogue checks it."

In short the "character" has a suicidal death wish until he dies and the player rolls a new character, disrupting the game.

One method I've seen to avoid that situation is to give every player one free 18, then roll for the rest.

[Duke of URL]

I prefer rolling. Point-buy feels too "sterile".

The whole idea of point-buy was to eliminate the "unfairness" of random rolls. For computer games, this makes a lot of sense -- everyone starts on relatively even footing, and people don't just hit "re-roll" or start over until they have god-like stats.

For rolling, I personally like the idea of setting a minimum and maximum net modifier. If you roll badly, i.e., below the minimum modifier, you get to re-roll. If you roll "too well", you still have to re-roll. Maybe it sucks to be the guy who just "wasted" an 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 11 set, but it's good for the guy who rolled 11, 7, 6, 6, 4, 3. This imposes a level of fairness, but still keeps the randomness that comes with rolling.

[ALOR]

I much prefer rolling to point buy. Point buy just feels dull compared to rolling the dice and letting fate decide. I do recognise the usefullness of point buy (especially in a game like living greyhawk) but it's just not my cup of tea.

[Mr. Friendly]

I fail to see what is so "exciting" about rolling 4d6 six times.

Also, I fail to see how math can in any way be considered "fickle". Indeed, the whole point of mathematics is that it isn't fickle.

The first part was directed at my alluded to notion of the gambler's thrill.

The second part was a kind of a joke. There is a certain truth to it though, more than a few players I have gamed with have severe difficulties with numbers exceeding the number of digits they possess.

[Sleet]

I strongly prefer point-buy to rolling for D&D. I do not like that so much of the character's destiny rests on six rolls at the start of the campaign. I prefer more control over the character I'm going to play for a long-term campaign.

[Tormsskull]

In a game where you live or die by the dice, where most everything is determined by the dice, it only makes sense that a character's attributes are also determined in that way.

Dice are the ultimate deciders in the game, they are impartial, and regardless of your personal view on luck or fate, they really don't favor anyone. On any given day, one person can roll well, and another can roll poor.

I view a player that rolls really well as having "earned" the right to play that character, because they rolled it. Simply saying "I'll take 18 this, 16 that, 8 where it isn't going to hurt me" etc, almost seems like cheating to me.

But I will defintely agree that for heavy combat/hack n slashers/balance fanatics, point-buy is better because it starts each character off at an equal level and is much better for optimiziers to be able to craft the mechanics they'd like.

[SilverClawShift]

In short the "character" has a suicidal death wish until he dies and the player rolls a new character, disrupting the game.

If a player at one of our games did that, I would politely ask them to GTFO. A little maturity at the table goes a long way. Remember, the game's a group activity.

Standard point-buy you can never play any class that requires multiple high stats to be effective. The party is supposed to be HEROES!

(Let me pre-face this by saying that I'm not trying to be rude or snarky, and no offense is meant. Everyone has their own playstyles, and that is perfectly okay, I just wanted to express my view about stats and stat generation counter to this quoted point).

Personally, after playing with my group for so long, stuff like this kind of surprises me. I think it's a reflection of two factors.
1: I think people have let their idea of what the stats represent slowly creep skywards.

10 is your average human being. That's not weak, that's average. Re-arranging the furniture in your living room, helping to push a car out of the snow, carrying in 6 bags of groceries at a time. Those are 10-STR tasks.

12 is Significantly Better. The big guy you know who you call up when you need help moving, cause you know he'll be able to put the fridge on a handtruck and wheel it without losing control. He's got 12 STR. Maybe he's got 13 or 14 STR if you know one of the bigger big guys. He's stronger than you, and it shows.

18 is the REALISTIC HUMAN MAXIMUM. Olympic powerlifters have 18 STR. Olympic Gymnasts have 18 Dex. That guy who walked for 4 days through the woods on a broken leg after he survived a plane crash, he's got 18 CON. GHANDI had 18 Wis. ALBERT EINSTEIN had 18 Int.

That's why the stat generation system caps at 18. Your first level character is not beginning the game inherently stronger than everyone else in the world. At best, he's in the top ranks of the strongest. If he has racial adjustments, then those might put him over the top (the toughest living dwarf is tuogher than the toughest living human, the strongest living half-orc...ect), but then you're exceptional at something beause you're NOT human, that's the point.

Which brings me on to the second skewing factor.
2: Because 18 is the maximum for regular stat generation, and because D&D is a game in the end, it becomes extremly easy to view 18 as your 'goal'. Once you've established that you are "supposed" to have 18 in your key stat, it establishes itself as a fact in your mind.
Now, fighters need to start with 18 STR in your mind. Wizards need to start with 18 INT. Rogues need 18 DEX.

Now you're left looking at your other stats.

25 point buy is enough to give you an 18 in one stat, with 9 points left over. 9 points is enough to raise every stat to the human average, except for one. So now, you are slightly less intellligent (or charismatic, or nimble, or perceptive) as a human, in exchange for being ONE OF THE STRONGEST HUMAN BEINGS TO HAVE EVER GRACED THE FACE OF THE PLANET, with a few epic exceptions.
That's not your ending title, that's the START of your career. As you level up, you will get a +1 increase to a stat every 4 levels, and can find magical items to temporarily (or even permanently) increase that stat. By the time you are level 8, you have enough raw strength to wake up in the morning, challenge arnold schwarzenegger (when he was mr universe) to an arm wrestling match, and summarily mop the floor with him.
By the time you're level 16, you can literally throw another person over your shoulders and move as if you weren't carrying anything. You are so strong that carrying another human being can be done without you even noticing they are there.

That's pretty darn heroic.

But we've established that that's somehow not heroic because our other stats are 'only human'.
So we use a 32 point buy. Now, we can have two straight 18s. We can be the strongest, AND the smartest. The most nimble, AND the wisest. The most intelligent, and the most charming. But our other stats are all less than average.
Being the strongest, and the most beautiful and charming person, both at the same time, isn't enough, because I'm still not more agile than the gymnast rogue. The wizard who's dedicated his life to being intelligent is smarter than me. This can't stand. 45 point buy!
Or roll the dice and hope for two 18s, a 16, a 15, and a 12. Then, maybe, we'll be heroic. not as heroic as the guy who rolled 6 18s, but still acceptable.

Anyway, I'm off on a tangent. My point is, trolls are supposed to be scary because they're stronger and tougher than any human being who's ever lived. Nymphs are immpressive and awe-inspiring because their beauty and presence is greater than that of every movie star who's ever smiled for the camera. Dragons are intimidating because they're not just big strong lizards, they're big strong lizards who are SMARTER THAN YOU.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone here. Some people want more powerful games, and that's cool. Everyone has what they like. But I think sometimes people get it in their head that the 'base' power line is way, way higher than it is.


*********************************************

That all said, there is one thing our group does from time to time that I kind of enjoy, which adds a (small) organic factor.
First, roll 2d6. 1 is STR, 2 is DEX, 3 is CON, 4 is INT, 5 is WIS, 6 is CHA. So if you roll a 1 and a 5, you have STR and WIS.
Now flip a coin. One of those stats is heads, one is tails (your call). The one that comes up gets +2, the one that is down gets -2.
You can do this up to three times, and it won't stack with itself (you re-roll if you get the same numbers), for a total of +2 to three stats, and -2 to three stats, which you didn't have any direct control over.

Then you use point buy and racial modifiers as normal.

I like it for a few reasons. It's numerically balanced, there's no strict mathematical advantage to it. It lets you mix/max a little, but you don't get to pick which stats get the boost and which get the penalty. You get an organic element of random birth coupled with a little guided control via point buy.
The biggest drawback is that it allows starting stats of 22 if you luck out. A Halfling who rolled and flipped high for DEX basically gets a +4 racial modifier instead of a plus 2. The benefit of that being that at least you're further hindered in some other way.

We don't do it often enough though, usually we just stick with point buy.

[raygungothic]

If I wanted non-random character generation I'd play something different, I think. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with point buy, it's just not a flavour I associate with D&D.

I was skeptical of 4d6-drop-lowest at first, but I actually think it's pretty clever. Six rolls of 4d6-drop very rarely produces a spread problematically far removed from "PC average", particularly when combined with the way the modifiers are assigned. Joe getting one more +1 and Bob getting one more -1 than the rest of the party isn't going to screw them up for life, and bigger deviations are rare. However, it still manages somehow to keep enough variance to retain the old "character creation is unpredictable" feeling, and 18s are still special (just about 10% of characters will have one, if my calculations are correct, so not even every PARTY will have an 18!)

I tend to feel that purely points-generated characters are MORE disposable because you can replicate them perfectly any time - and, in effect, you get any number of shots at generating the character. There's something special about the one-shot nature of rolling: sit before your DM and roll six lots of dice, no more. As you only get to do this once, it grants your character a tiny veneer of nonreplicability. Maybe not functionally speaking, admittedly... but there is a sort of psychological effect there.

(I'm really lucky in my player group, though, who are a pretty mature lot and can usually be trusted to behave sensibly in matters of crunch. I would probably have a different attitude with a different party)

[CabbageTheif]

life is not fair, and the paradox of D&D is the attempt to make a realistic surreal scenario. for this reason, the average human has stats that are... average. having a 15 makes you far more powerful than an average human to begin with; that is why a first level fighter can kick the crud out of a first level warrior. if others have an 18 and you have an 8, well, thats life. i will agree that point buy is more fair, but i dont want it to be fair. sometimes its the character with the involved backstory who fails his fortitude save, and there is no explanation why that happens and his unnamed cohort lives. thats life.

plus, it is far quicker and simpler to roll than pointby. i did it once, and whne i changed my mind and wanted to switch some numbers it was an issue, redoing the math like that. sheesh!

[Emperor Demonking]

I prefer pointbuy as if you want to play a wizard you can and if you want to play a monk you can.
Wheras with rolling you've iether got wizard rolls or monk rolls.

[Sleet]

if others have an 18 and you have an 8, well, thats life.

I don't play D&D to get an object lesson in life's unfairness. I'm quite aware that life is arbitrary and unfair, and frankly I play D&D largely to get away from that sort of thing.

[Tormsskull]

*snip*

I totally agree. I get very agitated when players keep elevating their expectations on the stats. I cut my teeth on Basic D&D 3d6 down the line. If you somehow managed to get an 18, OMG! It was a huge accomplishment.

Now-a-days 18's are no big deal. Especially with point-buy when you can simply choose to have an 18.

That's one of the main reasons I like the idea of hidden scores. In my homecreated system, the stats range from 1-100. When a player rolls their stats they don't get to see what they actually rolled. I have them roll behind a screen, tally up the numbers, then give them a description of their stats and where they want to put them.

Instead of having an +4 Mod to Hit and Damage, in my system the players have "Exceptional" Strength. Or "Incredible" strength. Sometimes I change the words in-between campaigns just to keep them guessing.

What does this do? It makes it where the players only have a round-about idea of their stats, and since they don't know their exact modifiers, the stats tend to fade into the background. Visually we all know that Jake the Barbarian looks way stronger than Rex the Rogue (Exceptional Strength versus Disappointing Strength), but mechanically the players don't know the difference.

[Mr. Friendly]

I totally agree. I get very agitated when players keep elevating their expectations on the stats. I cut my teeth on Basic D&D 3d6 down the line. If you somehow managed to get an 18, OMG! It was a huge accomplishment.

Now-a-days 18's are no big deal. Especially with point-buy when you can simply choose to have an 18.

That's one of the main reasons I like the idea of hidden scores. In my homecreated system, the stats range from 1-100. When a player rolls their stats they don't get to see what they actually rolled. I have them roll behind a screen, tally up the numbers, then give them a description of their stats and where they want to put them.

Instead of having an +4 Mod to Hit and Damage, in my system the players have "Exceptional" Strength. Or "Incredible" strength. Sometimes I change the words in-between campaigns just to keep them guessing.

What does this do? It makes it where the players only have a round-about idea of their stats, and since they don't know their exact modifiers, the stats tend to fade into the background. Visually we all know that Jake the Barbarian looks way stronger than Rex the Rogue (Exceptional Strength versus Disappointing Strength), but mechanically the players don't know the difference.

What about rolling to hit? Making skill checks?

[Zaggab]

In my group we prefer point-buy.

Why?

Because last time we tried 4d6 drop lowest, one player got 12 as his lowest stat, and all others over 14 with 2 18.

Another player rolled not a single stat over 12. 4 times in a row. Then we had the the extremely lucky players (there were two with extremely good stats) re-roll so that they wouldn't have twice the sum of modifiers as the other players.

This took so much time and was so cumbersome, that we simply decided it was quicker, easier, more balanced and, most importantly, more fun to use point-buy.

[Roderick_BR]

You can add that rolling doesn't allow players to create character sheets before hand (unless they roll before hand while the DM watches, or trusts them), and point buy has space for min-maxing.

[Tormsskull]

What about rolling to hit? Making skill checks?

You mean because it is hidden from players? I have one of those handy-dandy DM Screens with artwork on the front for the players to get mesmerized by, and a bunch of details on the other side for me. I paper-clip several items to the back of that screen, including each of the PC's Attribute mods.

When I call for a check, or they chose to make a check, I simply add in their mod to the total they say they got. It actually works out pretty well, for most groups.

[Artanis]

I like point buy because I know what it's like to play a worthless character. For some people, being totally and utterly useless may be fun, but I'm not one of those people. If my character is mathematically incapable of contributing to the party, then I'm not going to have any fun.

At that point, I'm left with two options:
1) Get a new character
2) Leave the game

To the person who said that they'd tell the player of a suicidal character to "GTFO": you are saying that you do not care whether one of your players is having fun. You would rather kick a player out than allow them to have fun, and to me, that is simply unacceptable.

[Duke of URL]

I like point buy because I know what it's like to play a worthless character.

That's what re-rolls are for. No DM should ever make you play a "gimped" character because of bad ability rolls.

On the other hand, if you convinced yourself in advance to play a MAD class and only have one very good/exceptional stat... well, you can either try a different concept, or a tough Diplomacy check on the DM...

[Kurald Galain]

In my opinion, what's worse than a "gimped" character is a bland character.

The first time I rolled up a character, I had no scores under ten... and no scores over twelve either. Yay.

[Roderick_BR]

In my opinion, what's worse than a "gimped" character is a bland character.

The first time I rolled up a character, I had no scores under ten... and no scores over twelve either. Yay.

My friend once rolled four 10s, a 9 and a 12. He said he was going to call his character Medium Averagius

[bluish_wolf]

Why is everyone putting gimped in scare quotes?

[Tormsskull]

Why is everyone putting gimped in scare quotes?

Because a lot of people tend to use the word gimped to mean "Not super awesome". When it really means "horribly bad". If a character has all 8's, I would call them gimped. But when a character has 15, 14, 12, 11, 9, 8, they are not gimped, but since those scores are less than great, some would say they were gimped, thus leading to "gimped".

[Dausuul]

I think part of the reason for "ability score creep" is that when you look at how they actually affect a character's capabilities, an 18 isn't much different from a 14, or a 14 from a 10. It's another +2 on some rolls, whoopty doo. Strength at least has a clear manifestation in terms of how much you can carry, but for most of the other stats, it's all just abstract numbers. So people want stats where those numeric modifiers are high enough to really feel the impact.

Consider the difference between an 18 Dex (Olympic gymnast) and a 10 Dex (man on the street). When attempting any given Dex-based task, there is a 20% chance that the gymnast's superior Dexterity will actually come into play. The rest of the time, either both succeed or both fail. This is not conducive to creating a sense of "My character is one of the most agile human beings ever born."

[Counterspin]

As someone who greatly enjoys the tactical side of D&D, I stick to an array because it starts everyone out on equal footing. A big chunk of D&D is still a war game, and I don't want to start my players off on unequal footing when it comes to combat.

[Craig1f]

I think part of the reason for "ability score creep" is that when you look at how they actually affect a character's capabilities, an 18 isn't much different from a 14, or a 14 from a 10. It's another +2 on some rolls, whoopty doo. Strength at least has a clear manifestation in terms of how much you can carry, but for most of the other stats, it's all just abstract numbers. So people want stats where those numeric modifiers are high enough to really feel the impact.

Consider the difference between an 18 Dex (Olympic gymnast) and a 10 Dex (man on the street). When attempting any given Dex-based task, there is a 20% chance that the gymnast's superior Dexterity will actually come into play. The rest of the time, either both succeed or both fail. This is not conducive to creating a sense of "My character is one of the most agile human beings ever born."

I think you hit the nail on the head. Adding a simple +2 or +3 to various checks does not seem all that important.

Now, over the course of a PC's life (hopefully), they will have rolled so many times that that +3 has come into play many times. But simply having a +1 just seems so unimportant.

And 10s are just SO boring. You're +0. Whoopidy do. In fact, I prefer an 8 to a 10 because something is modified in some way.

I feel the same way about hit points. "Oh man, I got a level. Suck on my Barbarian's d12 hit die. Um, I rolled a 1. I get... 4 hitpoints"

I haven't DM's yet, but if I do, I will allow HD rerolls as rewards in lieu of experience (since I'm in favor of everyone leveling at the same time). I'll probably let them trade an action point for a single re-roll or something as well.