The most exciting part of D&D... and the most neglected.

Back in the day ('89 to '94), me and 6 other friends/family ran a pen and paper gaming club. (Wanted to expand, so placed a small ad bulletin in a local classifieds paper, and a guy turned up with black candles insisting to burn a candle with every game session.... true story, but I digress.) Over our gaming tenure we ran multiple campaign worlds, mostly in D&D2ndEd. The Realms, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, DarkSun and a multitude of custom made world failures that was great fun anyway. We played religiously every Saturday from 12noon until the wolves started howling, it was a time I cherish ...and I wish I could have that kind of freedom on available time again. (Digress, stay focussed dammit!!) Our main campaign was in the Realms, but with the start of every new campaign series, we would dedicate a full gaming day to build the characters for the upcoming new sessions. And with build, I mean build in the most literate way possible. The DM of the new campaign (3 in the group rotated DM duties, each "owning" a different campaign) would explain the world, specific rules, features, history and any other tidbit in generic knowledge a player would need to understand the specific game world. Then the fun started... which involved only real dice and sourcebooks, and off-center faded toner xeroxed copies of blank character sheets. One by one, we would each roll ability scores, the foundation of any D&D character. Notice...at this point we did NOT select a race or class. We were purely rolling ability scores, based on a 3d6+x system, moderated by the DM of the day. There was 2 standing house rules: - You must nominate 3 abilities prior to rolling, once rolled and score assigned, they cannot be changed or swapped (unless racial modifiers etc allows you to). - You may choose to swap out 1 score with any of the 2 remaining non-nominated scores once, after rolling. The amusement, laughter and brilliant roleplay that ensued to fit a class into the abstract ability scores, is something that I miss in today's version of rolling (creating! not rolling) a character. It created a sense of ownership, care and dare I say, love, for our characters that is sometimes hard to find today. I would go so far as to say "rolling" a character in today's terms is a total misnomer. The way characters are created in most of our games now is just that... a creation. That all said, I do understand that there will be face-to-face groups out there still rolling characters in a meaningful way. I also understand that the online platform and grouping systems lends itself towards character creation rather than rolling as time becomes a factor... But grant a D&D old-timer (now converted to 3.5 - v4 is too much of a leap from the good days) his lament and nostalgia... the true rolling of a character is sadly replaced by this new world of easy-instant for many players of this great game... ultimately at the loss to the players themselves. I wish I could take you all there, you would choose to never return to easy-instant if you could help it. __________________________________________ Which brings me to the next topic semi-related to the above and probably one of my biggest pet hates in players. The player that study every race/class/ability/feat/skill to create (not roll) a min/maxed character with 100% optimization in order to obtain that unique equilibrium of over-powered epicness. (God, I hate the word epic..)

Moved to off-topic. I think the reason many people switch to point buy or array based stats is that you can roll really high or low. This can create very different power levels between characters. This may create problems in balancing out the campaign when one player has high scores and another has low scores. I've had players who simply could not roll up a legal character. They kept coming in under the minimum. One player rolled 4 times before he got a legal character. As a result, I find it is faster, easier, and better balanced to stick with point buy. - Gauss

Pretty great points to be honest, but I have to agree with Gauss on this one. I find point buy to be easier and even though it may allow players to min/max it still does leave the door open for some creative character creation. This especially goes for systems like GURPS and Shadowrun as characters can pick negative and positive qualities that add to roleplay. Personally the biggest reason I avoid the rolling of characters is the fact that it can leave some PCs legal, but at a pretty serious disadvantage compared to other players.

Thanks for the move! I misunderstood the definition of being on-topic... Slap me with a wet codfish for thinking that character creation would fit in an on-topic section. What did I miss? (EDIT - I saw the on-topic section theme tag now...) As for your first paragraph, in our games the DM moderated to ensure "some" balance... it would be hardly constructive to have a deaf/blind and lame PC in the group. I suppose I should mention that in our old-day campaigns a powerful character was a character with one key ability on 16 (uncommon) after adjustment bonuses at level 1... all other abilities generally ranged between 8 and 15. We had a sense of accomplishment when the character earned by way of leveling up, that ability hitting a score of 18 or post 18's. Then, your 2nd paragraph talks directly to what I find missing in todays play methodology... you are fixating on balance because you have to. The disparate differences between random players each creating a character in isolation is forcing that roll dynamic (in your case point buy) on groups, which in turn makes the player lose out on the magic of rolling a character with the group and creating him from a blank sheet up into something that the player cherish. Faster / easier is today's mantra and a part of the magic is lost for it.

Johann I feel on this one. I too grew up on the old systems (Starting with D&D original through D&D3.5). I've played in campaigns where the GM did all stat rolls because people kept inflating numbers. That was truly interesting (GM: "Your stats are 9, 12, 11, 8, 15, 10. You can play any race/class you want"). Far too many people rely on point buy and optimize points for a character. I too like the random chance of rolling and then picking Race/Class. Is it entertaining to do point-buys? Yep - you can really craft a character to the optimum. Is it as fun as trying to play a wizard with 10 CON, 9 DEX, and 14 INT? Nope. Not in my opinion. But to each their own. As a GM I like managing a diverse group. It gets boring if everyone in the group is an optimized "twinked" character. As a player, I like playing in a diverse group where some are more powerful than others. It sets group dynamics and roleplaying from the very start. If I ever run a campaign here, it will be started with a session where all players join and roll characters IN GAME with the 4d6 drop 1 system (quicker to roll a legal character this way). After rolling, the players will be allowed to chose class/race AFTER hearing generalized world information. Standard published books only (no third party classes/races). And normal starting wealth/items. No "twinks". Don't know how many people would play that sorta game. Oh - and I personally love starting characters at lvl 0. Just one more challenge for the players to roleplay through.

It helps if you think of each iteration of D&D as a fully distinct game. It's easy to imagine they are "updates" to previous versions but this is a canard. They are completely separate games with different approaches and assumptions that work with each iteration best because that's what a given rules system supports. I would not dare run a 3.X game using the methods I use for 4e. Nor would I run 3.X like I would 2e. And I see plenty of DMs on Roll20 running 4e as if they were playing 3.X and getting bad results, not surprisingly. (And I'm not talking about the rules here, but rather the assumptions and DM/player style that suits those editions best. For example, if I want my game to be cinematic like a movie, I'll choose 4e. If I want it to be more like The Sims with swords and magic, I'll choose 3.X to get that outcome.) To that end, rolling for stats is great for 2e and previous, but just doesn't fit the mold for 3.X and 4e. It is more appropriate for earlier editions because that's the approach those particular games support. Each edition of D&D isn't a replacement for the last. Each is a different game - just like Monopoly, Scrabble, Life, and Sorry are different games - and I fully encourage everyone to play the version they like best! Also, D&D of every edition encourages optimization by design because the game rewards system mastery. A player that optimizes his character options is only engaging in the smart play the system incentivizes. While a given group's social contract may look dimly upon it, it's the RPG equivalent of swimming against the tide to expect players won't do the very thing the system encourages them to do by design. So, it's not the player - it's the game, and most RPGs are no different in that regard. You might consider this article on optimization . It's an excellent read and gives a very good perspective on the matter.

For a few months I ran a PF game where players rolled up characters. I put together tables for them to roll on. They rolled their ability scores, picked a class, rolled most of the rest (feats, skills, class features, such as cleric's deity, etc.) were all rolled. I think they got to pick 1 thing, clerics and wizards picked spells, fighters picked their bonus feat and so on. Some people loved it, some didn't. To balance it a bit, I gave an xp bonus for low ability scores (I think it was +20% xp for each point your modifiers totaled less than +3). This worked fairly well.

Fair points Headhunter and noted. I do however stand by my conviction that the easy-instant creation of characters today do not establish the same love-empathy dynamic that was seen back in the day... and my sadness stems from the fact that most of today's players will never truly experience the long term magic of evolving such a character into deep levels. Maybe I am just an disillusioned old coot joining the wrong groups...be that as it may, I have yet to be proven otherwise by own experience.

"Is it as fun as trying to play a wizard with 10 CON, 9 DEX, and 14 INT? Nope. Not in my opinion." Sure it is... in fact raising ability through any number of efforts can be the most rewarding aspect of a good campaign.

I have to agree with Stephen, playing a wizard with those stats would be quite fun to play as it would challenge you as a player to think outside the box. PLUS as if that first reason wasn't enough of a thrill you would have some pretty interesting character concepts come to the forefront based on them. Maybe the wizard is super new, or he is trying really hard to be a wizard as that is all he wanted to be despite not having the natural talents. Working your ass off to get something is far more rewarding than merely getting stuff. It is why players always remember the fights that push them to the limits where as the fights where they demolish their foes is told once or twice then quickly loses interest. One of my favourite characters from 3.5 was my wizard (enchanter) with 6 str and 8 con. It made playing him all the more complex and challenging as I always had to think of ways to get out of the situations the party got in where even the slightest bump could kill my char.

Phisto Roboto said: I have to agree with Stephen, playing a wizard with those stats would be quite fun to play as it would challenge you as a player to think outside the box. PLUS as if that first reason wasn't enough of a thrill you would have some pretty interesting character concepts come to the forefront based on them. Maybe the wizard is super new, or he is trying really hard to be a wizard as that is all he wanted to be despite not having the natural talents. Working your ass off to get something is far more rewarding than merely getting stuff. It is why players always remember the fights that push them to the limits where as the fights where they demolish their foes is told once or twice then quickly loses interest. One of my favourite characters from 3.5 was my wizard (enchanter) with 6 str and 8 con. It made playing him all the more complex and challenging as I always had to think of ways to get out of the situations the party got in where even the slightest bump could kill my char. Yep.... that's my point exactly. Glad others share these feelings.

GMSoftin, your tale of two cities is more a symptom of an inexperienced DM than anything else. The DM created the disparity himself... you can hardly use your DM's inexperience to illustrate a point in this discussion? I do have sympathy with you if your tale is actually fact. (Doubts)

Stephen S. said: "Is it as fun as trying to play a wizard with 10 CON, 9 DEX, and 14 INT? Nope. Not in my opinion." Sure it is... in fact raising ability through any number of efforts can be the most rewarding aspect of a good campaign. Stephen, I don't know if you misunderstood my post or I'm misunderstanding yours... But I think we both agree on this. That was my point - that using good RP and hardwork in game is more important/more rewarding than starting with an optimized character. Is this your meaning or am I totally off base?

Paul, I think you and I are on very similar wavelengths on these matters - and hopefully our respective gaming groups benefit for it (or will eventually).

Balance is over rated, just find play with people who aren't out to exploit the system and why would anyone care. In one of the games I'm playing (in which I am having large amounts of fun) my character's stats were rolled as: 9, 5, 12, 5, 12, and 7, and stayed as that in that order... It's just as fun to play as rolling up a character with high stats.

GMSoftin, As long as you're picking class after rolls, I'd be fine with a 3 INT. Barbarian. A drooling, slathering, moronic, steps on every trap and into every spiked pit, hits his head on every tree branch Barbarian. I played a barbarian with a 6 INT once. The party was stuck at an in game puzzle. My barbarian being so immensely stupid (and Chaotic Neutral to boot) decided to just step on the actuator plate. He was teleported to the 9th level of Hell and died instantly. He lasted 1 game session but he was fun.

Johann, you made me miss the old days all over again.

I should also mention that even with 4th edition D&D you can still have your players roll stats. I did for one of my games and the characters have turned out with some interesting stats. I of course set up a limitation, that if the total modifier of their stats added together did not equal a certain number they would then have the option to pick the standard array (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10). No one rolled crappy enough and one of the player even has a 6 for a stat.

Something I have come to realise recently is that the online chargen can be detrimental when forming a new group, especially online where there is often new 'randoms' coming to play. Having the first session dedicated to chargen seems an awesome way to break the ice. And rolling gives the 'ooh' and 'aah' moments with particularly good or bad rolls, which always gets people smiling and laughing. Of course as GM you have the ability to moderate these rolls, allowing some rerolls and/or stat reassignment where appropriate. And you should use that ability to ensure the players feel happy with their characters. Knowing how to balance the good with the bad when doing this though is something that I think comes with experience. You can add some flavour with this as well. Just recently I missed an opportunity for this, my inexperience. We were rolling a Dark Heresy Psyker and the player rolled really bad Will Power. I allowed a swap of her high Strength with Will Power. But I missed to the opportunity to add some flavour; I realised later I should have added a small penalty such as a Corruption or Insanity point. It would not have affect much in games terms but would have added nice flavour.

As I read the views of the OP and the following post it seems, to me at least, that this something the GM can resolve. Like Johann, I can't see what has stopped you from just starting a new game like "the good ol' days" so player can experience what it was like. Unless this is a just a musing and commentary of how things have changed over the past few decades. If so I really get that. I am opposed to any grid system and almost in 99% no maps either because I never had them and feel they take a lot from the RP side of RPGs. In fact I am running a Pathfinder campaign that doesn't use any grids, tokens, maps, etc. It was an adjustment for the players that were introduced to RPGs in 3.5, PF or D&D4e which all highlight the grid system. But now that they see how it works they are starting to RP more. Sometimes I have to remind them by saying "how are you going to attack?" and you is someone want to use a social skill I ask "and what do you say to them?" instead od just letting them roll. And most social encounter are treated like combat. Its a prolonged action. I want them to work for it :)

Some games are designed for random character generation. Others are not. Build characters as appropriate to the game. As an example, Dark Heresy is a relatively recent game (released 2008) in which random character generation is part of the design, from stats to class to background. My first game of DH I rolled a Scum (see: rogue) from a lower levels of a Hive world (see: Coruscant, but ****ier). I had excellent Fellowship (see: charisma), far more than any other player character, and nearly twice as much as one of the other PCs. The lowest-class character from the ****iest home world in the setting was the face of the party, and it was glorious. On the flip side, I had the lowest Willpower in the party, and I did not succeed at a single WP check the entire campaign -- also hilarious, once it became a "thing". Of course, then I discovered the Full Auto rules and started abusing the **** out of them, murdering enemies in one or two shots that the rest of the party had a ~40-50% chance to hit. (All at a cost of 25g after chargen, though as a Scum I only started with d5+10g.) I enjoyed my Scum a lot, but the game was designed for such random creation in mind.

GMSoftin said: I don't miss them personally, but find it odd that some don't see that putting your highest stat into intelligence as a wizard is the very definition of min-maxing. If it had been something like a 17 str, 12 int wizard, I'd see it as being unique, which is the point i think you're trying to make. You are correct. You will never get away from min-max situations and I have never professed that anyone should relinquish it - that would take away a big part of player experience and fun. BUT and I include a massive BUT here... once the foundation of a D&D character was genuinely rolled I would allow players to min-max from that point onward (within reason). Part of the allure of this game is to see you character grow out from the "shadow" of their weaknesses and min-maxing AFTER rolling ability scores is an obvious part of that. Example 1 : My stats rolled are apt for a barbarian type character. I have free choice to select a weapon. I choose weapon A over weapon B because the damage die is greater. As a DM I am fine with that, provided it is a weapon from the official source-book and in line with char history. To illustrate: One of my games started with a Paladin insisting on a Holy Avenger. I gave it to him, but it lost all its powers and attributes. The paladin's side quest was to find a way to restore the family heirloom to its former glory. We treated it as a masterwork weapon at inception.

The reasoning in the thread have gone down a min-max path which is not the core of my first post. Also, the tone of my posts are less an accusation and more a lament for the majority of players missing out on such a core part of this game. Thanks for the replies, all have their merits and I appreciate the participation.

I've been playing D&D games since 1e so I also have a lot of nostalgia for the old stuff. I remember a freedom that is harder to achieve in today's games. But, I admit that, for me, it is just nostalgia. I will never go back to the old way of doing things because it had many flaws. Whatever I may lose by not rolling I still keep by putting a lot of effort into my character. However, many people do not put in that kind of effort and I think that is where the lack of investment comes in. - Gauss

Another issue with rolling randomly in more recent editions of D&D (even if it is presented as an official optional rule) is that those games (especially 4e) are very much based around the team, both in terms of design and intended playstyle. Everyone needs to pull their own weight and, with some exceptions, relies on other members of the team to do the things they're not good at by design. Rolling badly one evening during character creation means you roll badly relative to other members of the team and the game's baseline math every single time you play the character . That degrades the performance of the team and reduces the chances of the group's success if you are actually using the rules of the game to resolve conflict (as opposed to DM fiat). If the DM is engaged in illusionism*, then randomized scores in later editions have less impact because the rules of the game aren't generally being used to determine outcomes as the game intends anyway. Buy-in on the randomized approach is key, of course, because some characters being "better" than others and a greater chance of failure at just about everything is something that can only really be overcome by being okay with those potential outcomes. * A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features.

Johann C. said: The reasoning in the thread have gone down a min-max path which is not the core of my first post. Also, the tone of my posts are less an accusation and more a lament for the majority of players missing out on such a core part of this game. Thanks for the replies, all have their merits and I appreciate the participation. right, but the whole point is whether it is "core" to the game. Stats obviously are, but random stats shouldn't be considered core imo. Back in the day you were even limited to character classes based on your rolls and stats. How is that roleplaying and not roll-playing? I have been thinking about this for a long time too. We never roll, or do point buy anymore either. Our current game is set at 18,17,16 etc. Assigne them wehere you will. It's more about being able to do what you want with your character and not being limited to what arbitrary dice rolls allow. Also we play at most a couple times a month. What fun would it be to come in and have your character consistently struggle to hit a skeleton? Eventually they resent the character or don't come back. There's currently 3 players in my game, and I want them to be successful so they have a high array of scores. If even one had rolled below average it would severely limit a lot of what we can do. I totally get what you are saying, but there are just too many problems with the rolling to make it a hard and fast "must do it this way", even with guidance.

Feefait said: right, but the whole point is whether it is "core" to the game. Stats obviously are, but random stats shouldn't be considered core imo. Back in the day you were even limited to character classes based on your rolls and stats. How is that roleplaying and not roll-playing? Because whether or not you use dice to determine ability scores has nothing to do with the definition of roleplaying . The "roleplaying vs. 'rollplaying'" meme is a canard that needs to be retired. It completely misses the point of what roleplaying actually is and what the purpose of the mechanics are in a roleplaying game.

People seem to be forgetting that with rolling there is always a thresh hold that must be met. Phisto, what the hell are you talking about? Luckily this time I actually know. Ever since 3rd ed (can't remember 2nd edition rules that well), there has been a thresh hold for your total modifier that must be met before you are able to re-roll your stat block. In third edition I believe it was +0. What that means is if you add up the modifiers from your stats (+2 + -1 + -2...etc.) the total must equal 0 or better. If not the game realizes your stats are probably too low and allows you to re-roll. As a DM you can easily increase that thresh hold to get characters to be a little more powerful. For my fourth edition game where I allowed people to roll I set the thresh hold at +5. If their stat modifiers did not add up to +5 or better than they would scrap their roll and were forced to take the standard array for 4th edition which is (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) and just so happens to have a +7 for its total modifier (3 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 7). Could I have allowed them to re-roll? Sure. But I was saving time and it was more like a gamble. Now with that said I still have a character that has a 6 in a stat..in a 4th edition game. His first roll was the six and then every other stat was 14 or higher, so while he would have loved to use the standard array he still managed to get +5 or better for his total modifier and thus his char has a 6 cha (the universal dump stat). "Back in the day you were even limited to character classes based on your rolls and stats." This statement has not been true since second edition where they had the stat requirements to take the class. Since then you've been free to make your character the way you want to. I personally find 3rd edition 3.5 a little more forgiving of not having the best stats as there are so many ways to build a character that you tend to be able to compensate as long as you the player are clever enough. Granted most people don't do this as they have the MMO mentality where only certain "builds" are consider to work or be "worth it" but that is neither here nor there. But you could still play a fighter with a 12 or 13 strength and then some other crap stats as you could take advantage of so many potential options. In 4th edition they have kinda made it where you only need one good stat in order to play a char which is cool, it allows for people to play any class they want. Yet with the point buy you only ever risk having one 8 so you can have your 18 and some other decent stats (before racial modifiers) and not be that affected. I just find it interesting that back in 3.X you only needed a total mod of 0 or higher to play but with 4th edition you start with a +7 (yes I understand that the theme of the game is different for the three systems). As for rollplaying vs. roleplaying, I think it still actually applies most people just generalize it via not understanding the terms used. If when building your character you think "would my character have this?" or "How can I justify my character having this?" then you are roleplaying even when it comes down to the mechanical side. If you are creating your character and going. "That does the most damage in the biggest range" you are probably rollplaying. That is how we end up with LG Paladins of Bahamut with necrotic powers that enslave souls. And yes I know in 4th edition you can re-purpose the fluff but that doesn't apply to the actual mechanics behind the power. Now maybe I am just a messed up DM but I sometimes asks my players "Hey, why did you take <insert power> ?" I do that because I am curious as to a) whether they have a reason. or b) If they do have a reason what it is so I can get a better feel for their characters. If they respond with a mechanical break down I will rephrase the question to "Why does your character have that power?" which tends to lead them to tell me a reason why their character has it regardless of whether or not they just made it up on the spot just to BS me. If they can't come up with one I try and work with them to get a good reason however sometimes we can't and I suggest that the player may want to take something else. It may seem like I am over stepping my bounds but I find it prevents me from having a wizard that has been a bastion of good and freedom fighting to save towns all of a sudden being able to summon demons....just cause.

Headhunter Jones said: Feefait said: right, but the whole point is whether it is "core" to the game. Stats obviously are, but random stats shouldn't be considered core imo. Back in the day you were even limited to character classes based on your rolls and stats. How is that roleplaying and not roll-playing? Because whether or not you use dice to determine ability scores has nothing to do with the definition of roleplaying . The "roleplaying vs. 'rollplaying'" meme is a canard that needs to be retired. It completely misses the point of what roleplaying actually is and what the purpose of the mechanics are in a roleplaying game. QFT Nothing for me to add to that...

Feefait said: I totally get what you are saying, but there are just too many problems with the rolling to make it a hard and fast "must do it this way" , even with guidance. Your attitude of absolute negativity towards a proven mechanic and play style (albeit old) astounds me. I will concede that in today's electronic tabletop gaming environment, character creation with a push of a button makes absolute sense. And frankly I am first in line to applaud those tools... but until you have been in a long term PnP gaming group making use of the system in my opening post (or similar), you have no grounds to shoot it down.

Phisto Roboto said: People seem to be forgetting that with rolling there is always a thresh hold that must be met. Phisto, what the hell are you talking about? Luckily this time I actually know. Ever since 3rd ed (can't remember 2nd edition rules that well), there has been a thresh hold for your total modifier that must be met before you are able to re-roll your stat block. In third edition I believe it was +0. What that means is if you add up the modifiers from your stats (+2 + -1 + -2...etc.) the total must equal 0 or better. If not the game realizes your stats are probably too low and allows you to re-roll. As a DM you can easily increase that thresh hold to get characters to be a little more powerful. For my fourth edition game where I allowed people to roll I set the thresh hold at +5. If their stat modifiers did not add up to +5 or better than they would scrap their roll and were forced to take the standard array for 4th edition which is (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) and just so happens to have a +7 for its total modifier (3 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 7). Could I have allowed them to re-roll? Sure. But I was saving time and it was more like a gamble. Now with that said I still have a character that has a 6 in a stat..in a 4th edition game. His first roll was the six and then every other stat was 14 or higher, so while he would have loved to use the standard array he still managed to get +5 or better for his total modifier and thus his char has a 6 cha (the universal dump stat). Even so, he falls below the baseline math for 4e and as a result fails more frequently over time (that's just math), presuming you're playing the game and not the DM. If failure in a given game is frequently death, then rolling his stats has increased his chances of that and, because 4e is a team-based game, the chances of his team's death, too. Having said that, if all the players are onboard with it, then there's not a problem because they've bought into that possibility. (Or at least have agreed to go along with it.) "Back in the day you were even limited to character classes based on your rolls and stats." This statement has not been true since second edition where they had the stat requirements to take the class. Since then you've been free to make your character the way you want to. I personally find 3rd edition 3.5 a little more forgiving of not having the best stats as there are so many ways to build a character that you tend to be able to compensate as long as you the player are clever enough. Granted most people don't do this as they have the MMO mentality where only certain "builds" are consider to work or be "worth it" but that is neither here nor there. But you could still play a fighter with a 12 or 13 strength and then some other crap stats as you could take advantage of so many potential options. In 4th edition they have kinda made it where you only need one good stat in order to play a char which is cool, it allows for people to play any class they want. Yet with the point buy you only ever risk having one 8 so you can have your 18 and some other decent stats (before racial modifiers) and not be that affected. I just find it interesting that back in 3.X you only needed a total mod of 0 or higher to play but with 4th edition you start with a +7 (yes I understand that the theme of the game is different for the three systems). Personally, I don't see much value in comparing editions. They're different games that contain different tools for achieving similar - but not the same - goals. I think they should be taken as they are and the assumptions of each individual game should not carry over into other editions. If the original poster wants all the thrill of random stats and the characters that are derived by that process, then my belief is that he should just play that game! It still works, even after all these years! :) As for rollplaying vs. roleplaying, I think it still actually applies most people just generalize it via not understanding the terms used. If when building your character you think "would my character have this?" or "How can I justify my character having this?" then you are roleplaying even when it comes down to the mechanical side. If you are creating your character and going. "That does the most damage in the biggest range" you are probably rollplaying. It's an unnecessary value statement and often pejorative and dismissive, and it indicates to me that the person stating it doesn't actually know what roleplaying is, nor what the role of the game's mechanics are. If you choose the most damage in the biggest range, you're optimizing mechanics to achieve that goal. That is a definition. "You're not roleplaying when you do that" is a value statement, a judgment. The fact is, a person choosing mechanics based on fictional considerations isn't roleplaying either. They're just choosing mechanics based on a different criteria. There's nothing more to it. Only when you make decisions in the context of the game that your character would also make given the circumstances are you actually roleplaying. Anyway, I brought this up to answer Feefait's specific question. I'm not looking to derail the topic. That is how we end up with LG Paladins of Bahamut with necrotic powers that enslave souls. And yes I know in 4th edition you can re-purpose the fluff but that doesn't apply to the actual mechanics behind the power. Now maybe I am just a messed up DM but I sometimes asks my players "Hey, why did you take <insert power> ?" I do that because I am curious as to a) whether they have a reason. or b) If they do have a reason what it is so I can get a better feel for their characters. If they respond with a mechanical break down I will rephrase the question to "Why does your character have that power?" which tends to lead them to tell me a reason why their character has it regardless of whether or not they just made it up on the spot just to BS me. If they can't come up with one I try and work with them to get a good reason however sometimes we can't and I suggest that the player may want to take something else. It may seem like I am over stepping my bounds but I find it prevents me from having a wizard that has been a bastion of good and freedom fighting to save towns all of a sudden being able to summon demons....just cause. That's your own personal preference, not a definition, and not a rule the game requires of you or the players. That's cool you like to do that and I hope your players are bought-in to that approach. It wouldn't be my choice, however.

HJ, about your first part about his stats being under the baseline math I am afraid you are wrong. The base line math for 4th edition clocks in at roughly a total modifier for the stats at a +7 before racial modifiers. Even with his 6 his total modifier was +9, so not only did he meet the baseline that they set up but he exceeded it. Also I am not sure why you keep seeing that 4th edition is a "team game". Last that I checked all the editions were a team based game. The only thing I can see as to why you would bring that up is due to them defining classes by a role, which as far as I know they only did in order to attract the new influx of MMO players that were used to the terms. There has always been an ideal party (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue) which every edition has talked about and mentioned the players should strive for. So yeah, not certain why you think that you need to define 4th edition as a "Team game". I also want to point out that I made mention that me asking about the reasons behind the powers was something that probably makes me a messed up DM. I also made mention about how I thought I may be over stepping my bounds as a DM but then gave a reason as to why I feel there is validity in my actions. If people saw that and figured it was a rule then I can not help that, so once again not to certain why that was brought up all together. This entire thread has been people expressing their opinions on something from the get go, so I don't know why anyone would assume otherwise without an indication that actual rules were being referenced. Now I save this last part for last as I find this is at the core of our differences. You believe that people choosing powers is a purely mechanical concept and the characters personality or background should have no bearing. I do not agree with that thought process at all. A cleric of a good god who is trying to be a beacon of good is not going to attempt to learn or gain some necrotic power without a good reason just like an evil wizard isn't going to learn a spell that summons adorable kittens to cuddle with unless he has a good reason. If either of them did choose to gain those powers without a reason it would be uncharacteristic of them. People that look at a character as nothing more than a bunch of numbers and mechanics are roleplaying as much as I am when I play any MMO and don't plan on talking to anyone. At that point you might as well just be playing a video game. Is this purely my opinion? YES. This is nothing more than my personal opinion on it, do with it as you will but a character that you play should be a living breathing entity in their world not just 2 dimensional cut out.

Phisto Roboto said: HJ, about your first part about his stats being under the baseline math I am afraid you are wrong. The base line math for 4th edition clocks in at roughly a total modifier for the stats at a +7 before racial modifiers. Even with his 6 his total modifier was +9, so not only did he meet the baseline that they set up but he exceeded it. You're right: I had it in my head that he had all 14s and a 6. What you wrote was "14 or higher." I withdraw on that point. I would still not recommend rolling for stats in 4e. If I can find a thread with the math broken down, I'll post it here for reference. My original point stands: One bad night of rolling affects your performance relative to baseline every time you play that character going forward. At the very least it can cause disparity between character power that may be dissatisfying to some players. (This is a frequent complaint of other editions in which certain classes outshone others.) Buy-in is key if you're going to use this approach. Also I am not sure why you keep seeing that 4th edition is a "team game". Last that I checked all the editions were a team based game. The only thing I can see as to why you would bring that up is due to them defining classes by a role, which as far as I know they only did in order to attract the new influx of MMO players that were used to the terms. There has always been an ideal party (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue) which every edition has talked about and mentioned the players should strive for. So yeah, not certain why you think that you need to define 4th edition as a "Team game". Of course, all the editions are based on teams of adventurers. I'm referring to how much the performance of the team is based around the team-based mechanics and synergies. Other editions have less of that. I would struggle to imagine why my high-level wizard in 3.5 would need anybody. That's not a judgment on other editions, just a recognition of what 4e mechanics are like. As it relates to previous thoughts about characters below baseline, it affects team performance. I also want to point out that I made mention that me asking about the reasons behind the powers was something that probably makes me a messed up DM. I also made mention about how I thought I may be over stepping my bounds as a DM but then gave a reason as to why I feel there is validity in my actions. If people saw that and figured it was a rule then I can not help that, so once again not to certain why that was brought up all together. This entire thread has been people expressing their opinions on something from the get go, so I don't know why anyone would assume otherwise without an indication that actual rules were being referenced. It doesn't make you a messed up DM. It just means you have a preference. I hope your players share that preference. Now I save this last part for last as I find this is at the core of our differences. You believe that people choosing powers is a purely mechanical concept and the characters personality or background should have no bearing. I do not agree with that thought process at all. Good because it's a strawman argument, perhaps an unintentional one. My position is that they could have no bearing because the rules of the game don't tell me they must. A cleric of a good god who is trying to be a beacon of good is not going to attempt to learn or gain some necrotic power without a good reason just like an evil wizard isn't going to learn a spell that summons adorable kittens to cuddle with unless he has a good reason. If either of them did choose to gain those powers without a reason it would be uncharacteristic of them. That's because you choose to see it that way. The rules say nothing about how my character should act just because I got some radiant and necrotic powers. I could explain it in the fiction however I choose. Or choose not to explain it at all. Whether that's acceptable to the group will depend on your group's social contract, not the game. People that look at a character as nothing more than a bunch of numbers and mechanics are roleplaying as much as I am when I play any MMO and don't plan on talking to anyone. At that point you might as well just be playing a video game. Is this purely my opinion? YES. This is nothing more than my personal opinion on it, do with it as you will but a character that you play should be a living breathing entity in their world not just 2 dimensional cut out. If you're playing a fighter and you choose to fight when an orc is rushing toward you, you are roleplaying whether or not you see the characters are numbers and mechanics or not. That may be a type of roleplaying that you like to judge as inferior to whatever it is you're doing, but it's still roleplaying. Anyway, everything past the first bit is getting off-topic. If you want to start a new thread on the subject, I'm game. EDIT: Here's something you guys might like to read: Stormwind Fallacy .

Johann C. said: Which brings me to the next topic semi-related to the above and probably one of my biggest pet hates in players. The player that study every race/class/ability/feat/skill to create (not roll) a min/maxed character with 100% optimization in order to obtain that unique equilibrium of over-powered epicness. (God, I hate the word epic..) Not going with the 100% random doesn't always mean you are into 100% optimization though. When making PCs, I usually think about it's concept, then set up the stats to reflect that and 100% random rolls for stats don't help. Point buy (even in D&D) however is perfect for it. To me, it makes no actual sense to random character stats because it's like not caring whatsoever about you're playing. In a way, while I agree that players doing 100% optimization are annoying, at least they treat it seriously. I find players doing 100% random more insulting than annoying, because it's like they just don't care.