Why Don't We Roll Our Scores?
Today I posted on Temporary Hit Points the next article in my Player's Guide series for newer players. This post centered on how ability scores are created in 4e. In response, a few people replied on Twitter that they missed the old days where such scores were rolled instead of created through a point buy system or its subset, the arrays.
A funny thing happened when they mentioned this system. Instead of my normal full body shiver, I just shrugged my shoulders. Truth is, some things happened during my Gen Con trip that totally changed how I feel about certain aspects of gaming. I grew a lot as a player during that trip and finally shook free of a fair bit of my newbie fear and outlook. The biggest thing I realized is that the things that scared me most about the "old school" way of doing things came down to one word, trust.
Now, I've discussed trust a lot in the past. But the truth is, I had never experienced a game where I had complete and absolute trust in the DM and my fellow players. And, ironically enough, I finally felt it during the Dark Sun game I played with Chris Sims on Friday.
Yes, my party was defiled repeatedly during that game, but the truth is, it made total sense for the character and I wouldn't want him to play it any other way. And yes, my character killed the defiler, but I think the player would have thought less of me if I hadn't (at least that's what I tell myself). And Chris challenged our party beyond our limits and a number of us died, as in negative hit points dead, but I never felt like he was our enemy or out to get us.
That requires a high degree of trust, but that sort of trust can be so fleeting. It requires so much from the DM and the players that it's a bit of magic when it happens. You need to be willing to play a potentially flawed character, you need to trust in the dice, and, most importantly, you need to trust in yourself and your group.
And the always changing nature of this trust is one of the main reasons why we no longer roll our ability scores. Otherwise, we have to trust the reports of those who roll their scores privately or ask them to roll them publicly, easily read as a sign of distrust. And then we have to trust that the DM can pull together these characters of various skill levels and create an adventure that is fun and challenging for all involved. It seems like a lot to ask a group who just wants to get together and roll some dice for a few hours each week or two.
I'm not saying that rolling scores is wrong. In fact, I'm tempted to try it out now, particularly the hybrid system where the most important abilities are assigned and the others rolled. But to keep arguing that everyone should do it that way without discussing this issue just seems a bit narrow-minded to me. At least, that's how I view it. How do you feel?
Trackback URL for this post:
Actually I think the reason we no longer roll scores isn't so much about trust (though that certainly might factor in with some groups and situations), but rather it's about control. Rolling the dice, I might get an awesome character of potential ass kicking. Or I might get Average McNormal. Perhaps I get something even worse, a lumpen mass who is mechanically disadvantaged before you've even given it a name. Even if the system takes that into account, the disparity between two characters who are at different ends of the ability score scale can cause tensions or frustrations with players. In a D&D setting, random rolls may keep a player from having an effective character or keep them from making the character they want in the first place. Even mature players can get frustrated if they feel like they're constantly overshadowed. Thus the point-buy system, which puts everybody on an equal playing field to start and allows them to dictate what their character will be rather than allowing chance to do it for them.
I am totally with Aaron on this. Point buy levels the playing field. Some people might get more out of their points, but that's just experience and play style at work.
I agree that the level playing field is another major reason for using point buy, but I think even there, lack of trust is important too. A good DM in a group that has a really good working relationship could have a large number of adventures that are fun and fulfilling for all involved despite large differences between PCS. But without a degree of trust, it's damn near impossible to have such a game.
We've never used a point-buy system for D&D (admittedly our group has - until now - only played 1st Ed & a couple of retro-clones) and never had an issue with rolling stats. Generally we've used a simple 4d6 - choose the best 3 - system; but if that's still turned up an unplayably weak character I (as DM) have always allowed the player to roll again.
The idea of a "level playing field" - like that of 'balanced encounters' - seems a total antithesis of my own ideas of heroic adventuring. I, and my players, like to know that they might not be able to defeat every monster they face and that sometimes running away is the best option (at that particular time).
And this is where the trust element comes in, I suppose. My players know I'm not going to say: "You open the door and BANG you're all dead", but they also know that if they're stupid enough to wander into certain areas of a dungeon they might end up facing creatures that could kill them faster than they can kill the monsters ;)
Trust has never been an issue with generating characters as we all tend to generate them at the table - or at least in my (as DM) presence. It just works out that way, I guess, because of my players' "busy lifestyles".
I've always seen rolling as an issue of fairness, not trust. (If you can't trust someone to roll honestly they aren't someone you should be gaming with anyway.) I don't think one character should be inescapably better than another for an entire campaign just because of a couple lucky d6 rolls at the start of the game. It's fun for one-shots, but not for long campaigns.
It's important to note that in very old school systems, bad stats were nowhere near as crippling as they are in 3e and 4e. A bad stat made for a decent roleplaying hook without being too onerous. Of course, they were also comfortable with wizards with 1 hit point, and rolling up new characters several times a session (and randomization is much faster than calculation), so make of it what you would.
Thing is, trust plays in as much in a point buy as it does in a rolled set of stats. I don't double check my players sheets to make sure they didn't "accidentally" mess up the math any more than I scrutinize their every dice roll. I could choose not to trust my players and be stringent about these things, but I am happy not to need to.
That said, randomization really is a lot of fun. It forces creativity, and paints a picture of a more organic character than you'll ever get out of an optimized point buy. There are tradeoffs (in character effectiveness and the spotlight that goes with it) which is why some of the best random systems out there (such as Dragon Age and Reign) are random but equitable. That is, everyone will get the same _amount_ of bonus, but the randomizer determines where it goes. The methos I like for D&D is rolling 12d6 (or some other number) where 1=strength, 2=dex and so on, with the # of dice showing a face equating to the stat bonus for that stat (then reverse engineer the # from that). Guarantees everyone has a total +12 bonus to their stats, but luck determines how those points are distributed. Random, but equitable.
(of course, the reality is that as much as I like that approach, 4e is so tuned to optimization, that it won't fly in most places).
-Rob D.
The most compelling argument for not rolling for attributes went like this - Weaker characters tended to die off quicker, until you rolled up a character who was good enough to survive, in some sort of Darwinistic natural selection, and why waste time churning PC's through the meat grinder when you want to play at being a hero.
I guess I buy that, and when I've got a character that I need to play in mind, I wouldn't want the dice telling me I can't. That's wha real life is for (sorry Dan, you're never gonna be an astronaut)
But sometimes, I don't have a character in mind at all. I want to leave it to fate, let the chips fall where they may, and figure out who this character is, warts and all.
Another thing to remember, the early versions of D&D, scores mattered less (I think 0e, the range was +1 to -1, and only for three of the attributes (the other giving xp bonuses), so I'm unclear of the intent (when I was first playing, we did 3d6, in order, could lower stats -2 to get +1 to a PR)
I guess it depends on what you're looking for.
I had my players generate their characters using 3d6, in order, back when I ran them through the Haunted Keep from Moldvay Basic using 4e rules and we had a total blast from start to finish. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
What we found is that, more than anything, it's the default high-stat attributes (and resulting high skills, chance to hit, damage, hit points, etc) that make 4e D&D the game it is. Those stats - at least 18 and more likely 20 in your key attribute, then 16, 14, going down - turn the game from being one of tactical caution into one where the "heroes" are overpowered bullies tromping over the opposition. Drop the stats down (4d6 drop lowest, or even better straight 3d6) and you end up playing true heroes fighting against the odds. It makes for a much more challenging (and arguably rewarding) experience, even though you're more likely to lose a few PCs along the way.
That's hairy chested gaming at its best :)
During our first 4E campaign, I gave players the option to either roll their stats or take an array. Every player rolled the dice, then scrapped it and took an array from the PHB.
Although now when I ask players what they would want next campaign, they all seem to agree on dice rolling again. The first campaign was fine, but it did feel like "Max out your role, suck everywhere else."
I think I may use the dice rolling method my AD&D group uses: Roll 6 sets of 3d6 for each stat, take the best score. Has resulted in some pretty well-rounded characters (and interesting) characters. Of course, the trick with that is generating stats first AND THEN picking races/classes etc....where 4E seems to be more "Pick your concept, tailor to it."
Count me in the same mindset as Acrobatic Flea.
I'll never take the pre-rolled stats if I can help it. I want to personally generate my characters. Otherwise, are they really even mine? Nature has a lot to do with the tools we have as people, and likewise, nature/luck whatever has a lot to do with who PCs are. For EVERY hero to have the EXACT SAME base stats, seems like a big mistake to me. I realize from a game design standpoint, it makes perfect sense. It's easier to balance encounters, you can avoid the "frustration" at the table of high performers etc. But this is, to my mind, a farce. Some people and some heros will always have an advantage/disadvantage. It's natural. It makes the came feel more real to me. I've played traditionally overpowered characters as often as I've played traditionally underpowered characters. I can't honestly say what I've had more fun with. Sure, the underpowered ones die a little more frequently, but in the end their adventures were just as exciting to be a part of. I don't want to play a game where it's not possible for what I call a "Rudy" situation. Where some little dude who has NO CHANCE according to traditional tales of heroics, yet somehow he soldiers on and surprises everyone. Good ol' fashioned D&D gave us this and I'll not be the one to take it away.
Using a point-buy doesn't make the characters cookie cutters.
My friends and I play games for the stories. I remember in the "old days", when you'd roll up a character and if your stats sucked you'd probably hope he got offed so you could roll a new one. It's hard to build stories like that.
Your stats stay with you the whole life of the character and are usually the hardest thing to improve. Which means a player that rolled crappy was saddled with a disadvantage for the long term. It may be "old school", but it's not fair to that player.
@druidoz
"I remember in the "old days", when you'd roll up a character and if your stats sucked you'd probably hope he got offed so you could roll a new one. It's hard to build stories like that."
I couldn't disagree more. In good stories, people often die. Heros die. The REAL risk of death creates drama. The more you minimize that risk, the more you mitigate the potential for drama. Otherwise, it's just another hero tale with a forgone conclusion. Some of my most memorable gaming moments were when characters bit the dust. IN the "old days" I would hope for a great stat as often as I'd hope for a miserable one. These are supposed to be RPGs and it can be just as fun to RP an illiterate, or a genius. A party of burly fighters, intelligent wizards and wise clerics gets boring quickly. Sometimes, i'll set my lowest score for strength and play a fighter. It makes for a greater challenge and RP opportunities are created that you'd not imagine. Try it sometime.
I just don't understand the problem with rolled ability scores. Everyone seems to think that they somehow unbalance the game creating overpowered/crappy characters.
Well, in my table we use this method: roll 4d6, discard lowest, add the rest.
When you have rolled all six ability scores you can substitute the lowest score with an 18.
This way the characters are true heroes, capables of doing things beyond the reach of mere mortals. It makes them more resilient and I have no problems challenging them. For us it has worked great and I haven't heard a single complain in 6 years of gaming with the same group.
Better ability scores open more options beyond "I am a fighter so this 8 goes to INT". It gives flexibility and eliminates the "score juggling" needed to qualify for some feats.
@scorpion,
"It gives flexibility and eliminates the "score juggling" needed to qualify for some feats."
While I agree with your post, I'd like to add something.
Not every PC should qualify for every class feat. It's ok if you don't. In some ways it's better if you don't. What fun is it, if every fighter has the same capabilities?
Thats the beauty of D&D, the variation of the dice. If we eliminate rolling for stats, why not eliminate rolling for hits and misses, or saves? Whats the difference? Whatever argument one could make for eliminating the rolling of stats, one could make the same argument for eliminating the roll to hit. More fair? Check. Less frustrating? Check Better Balance? Check. Simpler? Check. D&D is a game of chance as well as a game of skill. I recognize that generally, the subtle shift of such games it to move away from the chance part, but that defeat much of what makes RPGs what they are.
When I first started playing, it was roll 3d6 and take the result in each score as it's rolled. Then, it was 4d6, drop the lowest. Then it was 4d6, drop the lowest and place the scores in any stats you want. Then it was a point buy system. Now there's no rolling at all. Clearly, people do not want to deal with a really shitty score, and the rules will slowly give that. So why not just make all stats 18 and be done with it? Sure it's extreme, but it's little different than arbitrarily making them 9, 11, 12, 14, 14, 16 or whatever it is now.
@Maruk
"Not every PC should qualify for every class feat. It's ok if you don't. In some ways it's better if you don't. What fun is it, if every fighter has the same capabilities?"
With the "eliminating" I meant that it helps with the task of meeting feats prerequisites.
Well, the thing is, not every character in my table qualifies for all feats. Even if they did, with the huge amount of feats at their disposal, they still have to choose wich ones they want.
I have seen many fighters and I can assure you that ability scores are not what makes them different. Race, build, powers, feats, backstory... those are much more important. Of course if you have an 11 STR fighter he doesn't have the same capabilities as a 18 STR fighter. The reality is that no one puts an eleven on STR when creating a fighter with point-buy. Now answer me this: what fun is it, if every fighter has the same mental capabilities(8 INT)? What if I want to play a smart fighter without crippling my character?
With point-buy you cannot do that.
@scorpion,
"Now answer me this: what fun is it, if every fighter has the same mental capabilities(8 INT)? What if I want to play a smart fighter without crippling my character?"
You've already answered your own question.
"Race, build, powers, feats, backstory... those are much more important.(than ability scores)"
If ability scores are less important than those other 5 categories, it would be impossible to cripple your character with point buy or any other system, because, by your words, you'd still have the 5 most important facets of your character untouched.
The reality is, I'd LOVE to play a very intelligent fighter, with low strength and constitution for example. The role play opportunities excite me just thinking about them. Great idea!
Post new comment