On Organic Growth

One assumes that you are ignorant, so you get on the internet to learn more.

If you get on the internet to wallow in the filter bubble, then what conclusion can be objectively drawn from that?

Some people use cards to play poker for money. Other people use them to play group games like spades. Other people use them to play alone.

What would one think of a player of spades, telling the poker player that the way he is using the cards is wrong?

There is no objective truth of cards - it is simply a tool used to play a game.

Some people play RPG's to fight. All their experience comes from fighting. This is not my flavor. I find it exceedingly boring. This is not a comment on the objective worth of the fighting, however some of the hoops that are jumped through to make such a thing engaging are an enlightening topic of commentary and study for the astute observer.

If this is the case, then clearly, random determination of hit points and to a lesser degree stats will negatively impact your play experience. So don't use them.

To claim, however, that it makes a character "suck" or that the game is "shitty" because of random generation, perhaps for a game focused on exploration, role-playing, kingdom management, or other non-combat oriented activities, speaks only to your shortcomings, not the validity of random generation in general.


  1. C'mon, you know people get their butts hurt on the netz over any old thing. This issue, though, I can see allowing the option to take an average hit die roll (rounded down) rather than rolling when you level. Looking at the 3rd level elf in my campaign who rolled 4 hit points to start with (out of 3d6 take the highest) and then a 1 and a 2 when she leveled.

  2. Whether or not you agree with "Falling Icicle", the bad math in the linked forum post is so egregious I have to scream:

    "...With hit points, this is not at all the case. Hit points are generated using only one die, so there is no bell cuve. A fighter is just as likely to roll a 1 as is he to roll a 10. This makes the variation between poorly rolled characters and well-rolled characters potentially extreme. One 20th level fighter could literally have 180 fewer hit points than his comrade. Sure, it's very unlikely for one character to roll 20 1's and the other 20 10's, but even half that margin, 90 hit points, is an enormous difference in character survivability and power."

    Aargh. "Very unlikely" is an understatement of astronomical proportions. There are literally more odds against one character rolling 20 1's and the next rolling 20 10's than there are atoms in the human body. And "half that margin" is still in the under 0.1% range.

    "Ironically, the classes that need hit points the most, such as fighters and barbarians and other classes that are expected to be in melee and take the most punishment, have the widest variation in hit points due to using larger hit dice."

    Erm, yes. A wider variation centered around a much larger mean. It's another long shot (less than %1) that a level 20 fighter would consistently roll badly enough to hit the maximum that a L20 Magic User (rolling d4s) would roll.

    The fact that he refers to twenty rolls as "a single die roll" proves he hasn't even thought his argument through. And saying something like "rolling a 1 is just as likely on a d10 as rolling a 10" ignores the fact that rolling a 3 on 3d6 is just a likely as rolling an 18. You don't compare the edges to each other, you compare them to values near the center.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...