RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I am going to be starting a game soon and my players just rolled up their ability scores. I let them use the 4d6, reroll any 1s, drop lowest. I also told them I would allow them to reroll all six ability scores if they didn't like the six they rolled the first time, but only if I agree the first scores are too low.
One player rolled up some pretty crappy ability scores. My campaign is pretty high powered, so I told him to go ahead and reroll.
I sat there and watched in amazement as he rolled two 17s, three 16s, and a 12. He was very happy with those rolls, but I was pretty shocked.
Just to feel better about it, I asked him to lower one 16 to 14 and the 12 to a 10. I did not think it would be such a big deal. In fact, the change wouldn't really hurt anything.
He argued against it and told me he didn't agree. He rolled those scores, he should keep them. He argued that I could just adjust the game to match his higher ability, and that the high scores really wouldn't cause big problems.
my argument was for party and character balance. He is pretty much good at everything and has few weaknesses. On top of that, no one else in the party comes close to him in ability scores. I wanted to avoid his character being too good, and thus being the super star of the party.
Also, if I adjust things to match his power, the rest of the party might have trouble with the higher challenges.
Was I wrong in asking him to lower the ability scores? Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
If you were shooting for party and character balance why not just use point buy?
That.
Or if you don't like point buy you could use an array of your choice.Never use dice rolls unless you are ready for uneven characters between players.
I am going to be starting a game soon and my players just rolled up their ability scores. I let them use the 4d6, reroll any 1s, drop lowest. I also told them I would allow them to reroll all six ability scores if they didn't like the six they rolled the first time, but only if I agree the first scores are too low.
One player rolled up some pretty crappy ability scores. My campaign is pretty high powered, so I told him to go ahead and reroll.
I sat there and watched in amazement as he rolled two 17s, three 16s, and a 12. He was very happy with those rolls, but I was pretty shocked.
Just to feel better about it, I asked him to lower one 16 to 14 and the 12 to a 10. I did not think it would be such a big deal. In fact, the change wouldn't really hurt anything.
He argued against it and told me he didn't agree. He rolled those scores, he should keep them. He argued that I could just adjust the game to match his higher ability, and that the high scores really wouldn't cause big problems.
my argument was for party and character balance. He is pretty much good at everything and has few weaknesses. On top of that, no one else in the party comes close to him in ability scores. I wanted to avoid his character being too good, and thus being the super star of the party.
Also, if I adjust things to match his power, the rest of the party might have trouble with the higher challenges.
Was I wrong in asking him to lower the ability scores? Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
I would not want to give up the high scores either. I either want the chance to get high scores if there is a chance that I might roll ones that I don't like or I would prefer point buy which makes sure I can get super high scores but takes away the risk of low scores also.
In the end he will only focus on certain scores to increase anyway so it really won't be a big deal other than at lower levels.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
So asking him to lower one 16 to a 14 and the 12 to a 10 was wrong?
Yes, I could have used a point buy. I just never have done so.
In the future, I will be more prone to considering going that route.
Telling me use the point buy system does not answer my questions. Neither will it help to use a point buy system now. The stats are already rolled and the characters made.
But seriously, I ask again:
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
Was the suggested change unreasonable?
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
Edited:
I remembered I have seen someone roll higher stats then that...
|
Never tell a player to abandon something he acquired legally and fairly. It isn't nice. Plus, he will not shine more than any of the other players. He will be good but without others, he will fail. Just make sure everybody has a chance to shine.
I'm a point buy hater anyway, so i never advocate it. I like the randomness of dice rolls and the fact that not all characters are equal in power. But, that's my cup of tea.
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
Yes.
Was the suggested change unreasonable?
Yes.
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
No.
I once played a character for which i rolled 4 18s and two 17s. I was just a very good, very smar, very charismatic fighter that kicked ass with twf, but i did not break the game and i made sure that all characters in play felt special, buy making sure they had a chance to shine.
Just talk to the player and tell him to be considerate of others with lesser ability scores.
So asking him to lower one 16 to a 14 and the 12 to a 10 was wrong?
Yes, I could have used a point buy. I just never have done so. I also have never seen someone roll ability scores that high, so past experience has never given me a personal reason to use the point buy system.
In the future, I will be more prone to considering going that route.
Telling me use the point buy system does not answer my questions. Neither will it help to use a point buy system now. The stats are already rolled and the characters made.
But seriously, I ask again:
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
Was the suggested change unreasonable?
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
If you let someone roll more than once they are prone to high scores I have to see a roller get to reroll 1's and get a 2nd chance and still flub all the rolls. I am surprised you are just seeing it. Statistically it is unlikely.
Yes I think most of us think you were wrong.I can't say if it was unreasonable or not since I don't know how bad he would have to roll to get a 2nd chance to roll high scores, and if he rolls low a 2nd time how low do the scores have to be in order to get a reroll?
I don't think they can be to high if you roll the dice. It starts to even out as you level up, but he may have an advantage at the first few levels depending on what class he plays.
I have to agree with the others here. 4d6 dropping lowest, re-rolling 1s AND acomplete re-roll on bad scores should come up with above-average scores pretty much all the time. I just tried and rolled up a some scores with that. I ended up with scores that would require a 37-point-buy. That is WAY beyond the maximum recommended buy for Pathfinder (which is 25).
But really, as the others have mentioned, the stats aren't that big of a deal. There are few characters that can actually make good use of such scores. The performance of a fighter doesn't really change if he has an int of 16 instead of 13, a Wizard has little use for a strength score beyond 10 and so on.
Just let him keep the rolls.
|
Yes it was wrong to ask him to change since he followed the rules you set.
If the suggested change was unreasonable or not is of no use discussing because of my opinion on the first question.
As to if ability scores can be to high at 1st level, I want to say no but the small bonuses like skill points, HP, etc. will turn into large bonuses over time. These bonuses could easily make the other players feel like "side-kicks" to the star of the show.
There is no easy fix to this but I think the best thing to do is discuss it with the whole group and get their thoughts on a possible solution.
These bonuses could easily make the other players feel like "side-kicks" to the star of the show.
Yep.
To give another example:
In my Kingmaker campaing my ranger and another (very lucky) person's magus was toe to toe damage-wise until the very high levels (14+) because of the much higher stats. That means that for a big part of the game the magus (a 3/4 BAB class) was on par with the ranger (a full BAB class) when it came to attack rolls and damage rolls and that's because of his really high stats, and of course because the magus has more things to do (spells) it was turning out to more magus shine.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Thanks guys. Sometimes I just need people to tell me I am wrong. I understand now that, considering everything, I may have overreacted at first.
I ended up letting him keep the scores. A couple other players were on my side of the argument, but I think they were more surprised that he was arguing with the GM then anything else.
He is playing a human, and to make me feel better he used the +2 ability boost to make his 12 a 14.
I think one reason why I overreacted, thinking about it now, is that I did have one player in a game roll up something like three 18s, a couple 16, and a couple 14s. This was a very long time ago, so I can't remember exactly what the scores where, but they were really high. This player also min/maxed heavily, and ended up out shining all the other PCs. In fact, there where many combat encounters where no one else had much of a chance to do anything as he was playing an archer and often shot everything on sight.
The player that I talked about in the original post is not a min/maxer at all, and has been known to make sub-optimal choices. Considering that, I feel much better about everything. Thinking about it all, I see no reason why I should have worried as much as I did.
Thanks guys. Like I said, something I just need to be told I am wrong.
Yes, you were wrong. You set up a set of rules, then disregarded them once a success occurred. It sets a very, very bad precedent for players. Part of the reason the player is upset is that he now suspects that if he does "too well" in combat, diplomacy or strategy, you're going to negate his success again. Basically, he'll worry he's a sock-puppet for your narrative, rather than a player with agency in his own right.
So, you undermined his confidence in your ability to fairly arbitrate a game of chance on the basis of wanting to get two less +1s. Just say that you were overreacting and move on gracefully.
My group all rolls and after a few games where one guy got stuck with a 14 and a bunch of 12 while the rest of us had at least one 18 but most of us had two, luck wasn't on his side we came up with a house rule that any one could select anyone elses rolls or keep there own if they wanted to. It tends to make every one at the table a bit overpowered but the group as a whole is much more balanced that way.
He argued against it and told me he didn't agree. He rolled those scores, he should keep them.
It seems a little silly (IMO) to say "I should keep what I rolled" immediately after rerolling something he didn't want to keep!
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
No.
Was the suggested change unreasonable?
No.
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
Yes.
The player already got a full reroll at your benevolence. A minor reduction is completely legitimate. And there is very much such a thing as too high scores - playing in a party with a superhero can often be quite discouraging.
A 16 in just one ability score (instead of a 10 for instance) easily means dealing twice the damage, half the chance to get hit, twice the hit points, or twice the skill points they otherwise would have had. Depending on class of course.
Glad you were able to work it out though - that's always for the best.
Never tell a player to abandon something he acquired legally and fairly. It isn't nice. Plus, he will not shine more than any of the other players. He will be good but without others, he will fail. Just make sure everybody has a chance to shine.
I'm a point buy hater anyway, so i never advocate it. I like the randomness of dice rolls and the fact that not all characters are equal in power. But, that's my cup of tea.
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?Yes.
Was the suggested change unreasonable?Yes.
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?No.
I once played a character for which i rolled 4 18s and two 17s. I was just a very good, very smar, very charismatic fighter that kicked ass with twf, but i did not break the game and i made sure that all characters in play felt special, buy making sure they had a chance to shine.
Just talk to the player and tell him to be considerate of others with lesser ability scores.
I agree completely. If you have a rule in the game, don;t change it after someone follows it to the letter.
You need to ask the OTEHR players if if really bothers them having someone like that in the group. As long as he lets the others be good at what they do, it shouldn't be a problem.
The player already got a full reroll at your benevolence. A minor reduction is completely legitimate. And there is very much such a thing as too high scores - playing in a party with a superhero can often be quite discouraging.
It isnt a matter of benevolence, it is a matter of setting rules and sticking to them within reason. If you roll for stats roll for stats. If you are unhappy with the potential imbalance in the party or with RaW monsters, you shouldnt be rolling for stats.
Setting the rules and then changing them after the fact is not good dming, and it is very discouraging. Its like having a monster with an ac of 24, but after 3 rounds you realize he is getting hit too much so you give it 5 more natural armor to bring it to 29. It discourages players from trying to do things effectively because the dm will just neuter them, and it removes any possible fun of rolling for stats.
A 16 in just one ability score (instead of a 10 for instance) easily means dealing twice the damage, half the chance to get hit, twice the hit points, or twice the skill points they otherwise would have had. Depending on class of course.
Glad you were able to work it out though - that's always for the best.
Maybe the first few levels. But after like level 6, your base stats mean alot less then everything else your character gets. I am not saying they arent important, but representing roughtly half of their potential success? I dont think so.
|
The previous dudes already said it all, so I'll just say that the next time you're hoping to have balanced characters and party, point-buy is what you should aim at.
Breaking the rules you yourself established was the worst thing to do from the beginning, like saying a player "no, you didn't" if he just made a critical hit just because it goes against what you want. On the other hand, you are the DM, and the guy got a reroll so getting a slight reduction of stats to make them less crazy seems reasonable. The system isn't made to withstand superman at level 1, more like advanced heroic NPCs.
We always did that when we were rolling dices, and ended up with crazy stats or so bad we uped them to feel some balance. The best way was finally to buy points, and we still do it today.
The way I see it, if a GM wants the players to roll, the GM needs to accept whatever comes up, even if it's all 18's.
I think the GM was perfectly willing to accept the player's first roll -- it was the player who was unwilling to accept whatever came up.
The way I see it, if a GM wants the players to roll, the GM needs to accept whatever comes up, even if it's all 18's.I think the GM was perfectly willing to accept the player's first roll -- it was the player who was unwilling to accept whatever came up.
But the first roll wasnt the end of the process the gm set up. In the guidelines he set up, he stated you could re-roll the whole set if you were unhappy and he agreed. The rules were followed and the next set favored the player heavily The creation went as established by the dm.
|
The way I see it, if a GM wants the players to roll, the GM needs to accept whatever comes up, even if it's all 18's.I think the GM was perfectly willing to accept the player's first roll -- it was the player who was unwilling to accept whatever came up.
Whether it's a reroll or not, the GM wants the abilities rolled.
|
|
One player rolled up some pretty crappy ability scores. My campaign is pretty high powered, so I told him to go ahead and reroll.
[snip]
He argued against it and told me he didn't agree. He rolled those scores, he should keep them.
Tell him, he's absolutely right, he rolled crappy ability scores the first time, and it was your mistake allowing him to reroll. He can go back to the crappy rolls, or accept something a little less awesome.
You showed him a kindness, and now he's digging in and trying to take advantage. That's just dickish. Don't reward him for that.
You're mistake was allowing the reroll in the first place.
Telling a child that he can't have any ice cream because it will spoil his dinner is just fine. Giving him some ice cream, then thinking better of it in hindsight and trying to take it away is just mean.
It's good that you found a way to work it out. High ability scores can be a bit unbalancing at first, but the unbalance will gradually work itself out. If the player isn't a min/maxer, which seems to be the case, it will work out that much sooner.
I personally like rolling for stats, but you have to have strict rolling and rerolling conventions. Set conditions for when a reroll is allowed. (no scores above 11, for example, or a total modifier below -1) and do not allow reroll except in those cases.
There are many ways to allow players to roll stats. One suggestion is that the group roll all together. And then each player gets to pick the numbers rolled by any other player. So they all have the same basic stat array.
Once you set the rules and they actually do well, asking them to then lower a legal roll is not going to be taken well by most players. They may agree to keep you happy... but in their heart they know they earned that rare good roll and do not like giving it up.
It is like a player getting critical hit in a key fight and dropping the bad buy... would you make the player pretend he did not get the crit so the fight can last longer?
One player rolled up some pretty crappy ability scores. My campaign is pretty high powered, so I told him to go ahead and reroll.
[snip]
He argued against it and told me he didn't agree. He rolled those scores, he should keep them.Tell him, he's absolutely right, he rolled crappy ability scores the first time, and it was your mistake allowing him to reroll. He can go back to the crappy rolls, or accept something a little less awesome.
You showed him a kindness, and now he's digging in and trying to take advantage. That's just dickish. Don't reward him for that.
I Agree
another option, if you stick to rolling dice is to cap the total sum of the ability scores, i.e. if they roll two 18's, four 16's (100 total), and the cap is 90, they got to drop 10 ability score points
And I do believe in their is such a thing as to high of a starting stat (but it's closer to the starting sum of stats)
|
|
So asking him to lower one 16 to a 14 and the 12 to a 10 was wrong?
Yes, I could have used a point buy. I just never have done so.
In the future, I will be more prone to considering going that route.
Telling me use the point buy system does not answer my questions. Neither will it help to use a point buy system now. The stats are already rolled and the characters made.
But seriously, I ask again:
Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
Was the suggested change unreasonable?
Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?Edited:
I remembered I have seen someone roll higher stats then that...
I have all of my players use that system for stats. Most of the time, the lowest stat is a 12 or more:
Click on your roll method here There's a 69% chance of your average stat being between 13 and 16 which goes up to 75% if you include 17...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I have all of my players use that system for stats. Most of the time, the lowest stat is a 12 or more:
Click on your roll method here There's a 69% chance of your average stat being between 13 and 16 which goes up to 75% if you include 17...
That is pretty cool. I found another program online similar to that, that you could customize yourself and create any random number generation you wanted.
I always have wanted to try using the ChessX cheat dice for rolling ability scores. Three scores would be using the d6 that has two 6s and no 1, and the other three would use the d6 with two 1s and no 6. There were variations on that idea but I never followed through and offered those options to players.
Other ways to roll the ability scores are pretty fun, and I do find enjoyment in finding more ways to do it.
The most generous, but still somewhat acceptable, way I have discovered uses 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest, seven times, drop lowest of the seven. It is a bit overkill, and not one I would allow if there was a powergamer at my table, but still acceptable for a high power game.
The oddest way that I have considered using, just for fun, had a complex rule set. It used the roll 4d6, drop lowest at the base. The list of how things work was pretty long, but it included rules like, "If you roll four 6s, you may keep the fourth 6 to add to any other ability score, and the points may be split up into multiple scores," and, "if you roll four 1s, reroll all four of them twice and keep the better result."
There were even rules for number combinations, like 1234, 1235, and 1122.
I've often found starting stats to be of illusory benefit, so no, I don't think starting stats can be too high. It really boils down to what the player can do with them, after all, and what your putting in front of them as GM.
I've had fun for many years with both high and low stats via the 4d6/best 3/place as you will method, and in most games the folks I play with allow for a re-roll is the combined mods are less than positive. Point-buy would not have given me the unintended but otherwise delightful half-orc summoner Swedums, with his Int of 9, Wis of 3, and Cha of 18. My GM's eyes bugged and bemusedly joked he'd like to see me play him and he's only one of two PCs who've since made it alive to 3rd level in our Serpent Skull game.
From my experience it's not the stats that make the character, but the way they play them that makes (or breaks) the game.
From my experience it's not the stats that make the character, but the way they play them that makes (or breaks) the game.
Well we could call it 50/50.
High stats causes one part of it, the other part is the players use of their stats and play style.No one thing, can cause a problem, it is ALWAYS the summation of the problems that cause the problem.
i.e. it's not the whole problem, but the some of it's parts.
|
|
The most generous, but still somewhat acceptable, way I have discovered uses 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest, seven times, drop lowest of the seven. It is a bit overkill, and not one I would allow if there was a powergamer at my table, but still acceptable for a high power game.
I had a College DM who did 4d6 reroll 1s, drop the lowest, roll 1d4 for floating points you can put into any score (no scores can be above 18 before racial modifiers)
|
If you're going to roll for scores, then don't be a dick and try to make someone who rolled well lower their scores. Adjusting up for crappy rolls is cool. Adjusting down for good rolls is NOT cool. As the GM, you determined the method of character creation, so if you use a random one like rolling dice, be prepared for a variance in power levels.
The game is more about the roles filled by various characters/classes, anyway. In a decently built part, each character will still have their own niche, even if one has significantly higher ability scores than the others.
If he's a fighter, just because he has high ability scores that doesn't mean he'll be able to do the things that a rogue does, or a wizard, or a cleric.
Well you conceded that you were wrong so that is the important part.
At my table there are three of us that are all experienced GM's and we all have our different preferred methods for stat generation.
I prefer Point Buy because not only does it take in for group balance, but players have more control in making the character they want to make and lastly they can do it at home and out of game without taking up game time.
Another person at my table uses a method that I don't use. He uses a consolidated method where a number of dice is rolled by the group and then the players decided who get's what depending on what they are playing and the importance of the stat. I think the number of dice used is 18d6 for each player at the table or something like that. I have yet to use this method but I could see how this would effect players getting good scores for their key stats.
In most of our games we have a standard point buy option and a "roll your own" option. I feel the standard 4d6 six times adding the highest three dice each time is a fine way to do it.
If someone decides to roll the dice, if they end up with less than +2 total adjustments, we let them roll again. If they roll six 18s, thems the breaks.
I rolled very high for my male witch (an 18 and three more over 12) so I put a high score in cha to "tone him down" a bit. But I am playing him as I rolled him, and everyone's fine with that.
Another player rolled and rolled pretty average scores, but he's been doing fine as well. The rest of the players used the 15 point buy system. It's all good.
But seriously, I ask again:
1 Was I wrong in asking him to make the change?
2 Was the suggested change unreasonable?
3 Is there such a thing as ability scores being too high at 1st level?
1) Yes, tinkering with the stats of just one player in such a direct way is a really good way to cause feelings of unfairness. You outlined a method of rolling stats and then when the player would have benefited from fair use of that method you changed it in a way that negatively impacted only him.
2) No. Surprise 1 and 2 don't have to have the same answer. It is logical that if you believe a certain stat level will cause difficulty in running the game that you should try to change the situation before it becomes a problem. However, if someone involved objects to the proposed solution, reason suggests attempting to find a different solution rather than deciding who deserves blame for the problem.
3. No and Yes. The answer mainly depends on whether the DM is comfortable and capable with tailoring encounter difficulty to the characters. I played in a campaign where everyone was gifted with megastats, bonuses that some people might call completely unreasonable. Well something like 8 people off an on played in that game and had a ton of fun for months which is the only point of all this in the end.
We haven't rolled for stats in over 15 years, and I've never missed it quite frankly. All the drama that dice rolling brings is unnecessary imho.
I can tell people all day long that they need to roll in front of me, but eventually you get someone who rolls offsite and walks in with stats written down as 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 11 and claims they rolled them up fair and square and claim you're calling them a liar when you don't allow them. Blech.
Or when one person rolls stellar and another mediocre (as happened to me) and our characters fill similar roles (fighter types). Nothing like sucking at everything compared to your friend. Sure, I can roleplay my character and get through the session. But when you're clearly inferior at the same job as another PC just due to stat rolls it's time to rethink the character. Fortunately, that game didn't last too long.
To a lesser extent we have that now with rolling for hit points every level past 1st. We had a string of bad rolls (even rerolling 1's) for a number of PC's in recent levels in my game, and it's really bumming out my players. Blearg!
For what it's worth, though, I wouldn't have made the PC change his stats. If you use a stat rolling system to create PC's, you should stick by it, especially if they roll in front of you.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a psychological point, and a philosophical point.
Psychological -- Here's a system of rolling up stats that is completely fair, and will nontheless drive players bug-nuts with dissatisfaction: roll 5d6, scratching the bottom two, for 8 attributes. Then scratch the top two attributes and assign the others as you please.
The reason this will drive a player nutty is that you are showing her something cool -- the 17 and 15 -- and then taking it away. For the rest of that character's career, the player will keep wondering if that extra +2 or +3 would have made a difference in a hard fight, or a failed Perception check.
Showing your player the terrific reroll and then trying to take it away is always going to be rough.
(Some of my "friends" used to tip their waitress by showing her a pile of a hundred $1 bills and then deducting "penalties" for less than over-the-top perfect service; the waitress usually ended up with, like, 6 or 7 dollars, but she felt miserable about it.)
Philosophical -- Here's something you're going to want to decide right now: throughout the campaign, if a player rolls well and finds an obscure clue, or rolls a critical against your climactic villain, or rolls a 20 on a saving throw that you were expecting would incapacitate him; are you going to follow the habit of thinking that the player rolled too well?
Or when one person rolls stellar and another mediocre (as happened to me) and our characters fill similar roles (fighter types). Nothing like sucking at everything compared to your friend. Sure, I can roleplay my character and get through the session. But when you're clearly inferior at the same job as another PC just due to stat rolls it's time to rethink the character. Fortunately, that game didn't last too long.
I know that too well, I next to always had the WORST stats rolled in the group (with about 6 complete set rerolls because all but one was below 10 and the one highest was always lower than 15), and my friends with the same rules got all 12+ stats
So for me it's point buy all the way
Well you told the player to roll. It wasn't really fair for you to then tell him he could not keep what he rolled. Yes I know you allowed him to reroll once, but you allowed the reroll.
The player was 100% correct in saying it was now your issue to deal with, if you allow random rolls then you must be ready to deal with them. I myself do not think his rolls were to awful bad.If you think those rolls are much, try gaming with someone who always rolled an 18 and nothing under 14. Try dealing with 18,17,18,18,16,17 rolled with your dice in front of you.
If you wanted a balanced party stat wise, you should have used point buy.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Philosophical -- Here's something you're going to want to decide right now: throughout the campaign, if a player rolls well and finds an obscure clue, or rolls a critical against your climactic villain, or rolls a 20 on a saving throw that you were expecting would incapacitate him; are you going to follow the habit of thinking that the player rolled too well?
This has been brought up a few times in this discussion, and I agree this has relevance to topic, so here is my answer.
No, I would not follow that habit beyond the ability rolls. In fact, thinking on the issue, I was being a little hypocritical in my request in that I allowed him to roll again because he rolled badly the first time.
I can't remember his rolls exactly, but he didn't anything above a 14 the first time around. If, once we start playing, I could follow that habit and be merciful when he rolls 1s, I would be following a precedent that I already started.
The problem of declaring rolls too high or too low, as I realize this now, is that it robs the game of the unpredictable nature it holds over the GM and players. I often say, "the dice have spoken," when I am taken by surprise as someone rolls that impossible roll. Examples would be the three 1s rolled in an attack, followed by a three, thus confirming a triple fumble, (I was not GMing that one, but the results made for a really awesome combat moment.) There was also the time where an NPC hit three times in a row, once with a confirmed critical, but rolled less then 10% three times to overcome the 20% concealment.
Both times made for really memorable moments that are still talked about among my gaming group. In either of those cases, the GM could have said, "That is too much, I am overruling the dice and changing the result." But there would have been cries of outrage and unhappy gamers, even in the case of the triple fumble.
Another thing to consider, however, is that rolling ability scores are different from all other rolls. They are possibly the only dice rolls that will affect the PC for their entire career, and likewise the game. They ultimately decide how well someone is naturally at any given task. Though the ability score's importance diminishes over the course of leveling up, they are still important. A GM knows what his players will face, and should also know what the PCs will be capable of. Though it seems many here would disagree, I still think the GM should have the power to approve or disapprove the ability scores, not just for his sake and the sake of the challenges he wishes to put forth, but the sake of the other players, the player in question, and the PCs.
Having high ability scores across the board my seem like a great idea, but here are a few issues that could arise. First, the party balance could be thrown off. The importance of other PCs may diminish, and they become more or less sidekicks to the PC with higher abilities. Though class choices do make a huge difference, consider having five +3 bonuses with just about any class. Other players may feel like they were cheated when this stronger PC is good at hitting, dealing damage, avoiding attacks, taking damage, knowing about stuff, resisting mental attacks, and can talk his way through challenges.
This leads into the second situation, which is is the strong PC being less fun to play. Superman is a fun superhero to read about, but I doubt he would be a fun one to play. He can do everything. Superman can match any challenge presented to him, easily. In fact, DC comics has had to nerf him a couple times and add in new vulnerabilities, just so there were challenging situations he could face. With little to challenge him, I doubt very many people would find real enjoyment if they played him as a PC. In the case of a PC who has really high stats, and who is naturally good at everything, the player could end up growing bored of the character. With no natural weakness to overcome, what would really make the play of that PC exciting?
So there is the unfairness to the party and to the player themselves, the last issue is with the GM. Yes, the GM can adjust the challenges to make up for the higher ability. That is really just treating a symptom though, and it has other side effects. The other PCs might find themselves out of their league, and the GM might find that the time and effort needed to adjust everything is a bit too much for them. I also think it is wrong to cater to one player, especially if it might be at the expense of the others.
So, now the question is: What can be done so that both GM and players can feel good about the starting ability scores, and how can the problem of too high or too low scores be addressed?
The simple answer has been given multiple times. Point buy. I wont argue that this is a great idea. It is also one I will be considering in the future.
However, if the GM wants to have the ability scores be rolled, but desires to make sure that all the PCs are on somewhat equal footing, there should be a clear limitation ahead of time. Something like, "the total amount of ability modifier should not be above +12," or some similar limit. The key to this is that there should be an understood limit before the ability scores are rolled. My big mistake was to try and implement it after the scores had been rolled.
Now, after scores are rolled, the dice should be followed pretty strictly. They lead to some unpredictable places, and end up telling a story no one planned for. That is where I find the most fun in the game.
But what if I want to bad guy to live and escape and the party rolls an unexpected critical hit, taking him down well below death? Well, then I need to improvise a bit and create a reason why his head being removed didn't really kill him. Most groups leave the bodies of the fallen bad guys where they lay, so it would be reasonable to say a minion came by, grabbed the body, and paid to have the bad guy raised.
If there is an element of plot that needs to be controlled, and the GM cannot afford to allow the dice to surprise him, he needs to do one of several things. He can not roll the dice and declare the plot happens. He can secretly roll dice, just for the sound of it, and declare what happens. Or, lastly, can roll the dice openly, let the dice decide the fate, and if they decide against the plot he can just follow that and write up new plot.
Personally, I think the situation should never happen. The GM should be open to anything unexpected and should be able handle the results of any die roll.
So, in conclusion, no I wont be declaring any rolls outside of rolling for ability scores as too high or too low. But I also learned my lesson with how to handle ability score generation. Point Buy will be my first option, but if I do have the ability scores rolled there will be an understood limitation.
Thank you for that philosophical question. I found it pretty enlightening.
I think the GM was perfectly willing to accept the player's first roll -- it was the player who was unwilling to accept whatever came up.
GM had him reroll it: "One player rolled up some pretty crappy ability scores. My campaign is pretty high powered, so I told him to go ahead and reroll."
Youll be fine, I had TWO player roll 18's before racial bonuses, ending up with 20 in their primary stat. One of them died before 2nd level, a barbarian with 20 strength, and average scores for the rest. If your campaign is hard enough to merit the reroll in the first place, just go with it. This goes double if you are not running off a module where you can up the CR if needed.