I’ve Been Converted

[Pex]

I recently joined two new campaigns, one 5E one Pathfinder (the original). In both cases we rolled for stats, and I found myself disappointed we didn’t use Point Buy and I hate 5E’s implementation of Point Buy. I rolled decent enough. My 5E roll got me exactly 5E Point Buy stats anyway. Still, I hate myself for privately wishing we used Point Buy. So not me even a year ago. Welcome to the Dark Side, Pex.

[Rynjin]

Welcome Pex. We'll have so much fuuuun together....

[Helluin]

Careful now, once you join, you cannot leave... and you won’t want to anyway. There is nothing but Aboleth out there.

[Blackhawk748]

I recently joined two new campaigns, one 5E one Pathfinder (the original). In both cases we rolled for stats, and I found myself disappointed we didn’t use Point Buy and I hate 5E’s implementation of Point Buy. I rolled decent enough. My 5E roll got me exactly 5E Point Buy stats anyway. Still, I hate myself for privately wishing we used Point Buy. So not me even a year ago. Welcome to the Dark Side, Pex.

Welcome to the party. Cookies are over there with the nachos and pizza. And remember:

Point Buy is your friend.

[Crake]

I recently joined two new campaigns, one 5E one Pathfinder (the original). In both cases we rolled for stats, and I found myself disappointed we didn’t use Point Buy and I hate 5E’s implementation of Point Buy. I rolled decent enough. My 5E roll got me exactly 5E Point Buy stats anyway. Still, I hate myself for privately wishing we used Point Buy. So not me even a year ago. Welcome to the Dark Side, Pex.

As primarily a DM, I find some kind of fixed mechanics for ability score generation far better than randomly rolling, simply because nobody wants to stick around for a whole campaign with a character who either a) feels like they're just all around weaker than another, or b) feels like they just got lucky with amazing stats and have their character's accomplishments be watered down to "oh yeah, he just got lucky at character creation".

Rolling is best saved for short-lived characters and campaigns, or meat-grinder style games where variety is more valuable than certainty.

[MisterKaws]

As primarily a DM, I find some kind of fixed mechanics for ability score generation far better than randomly rolling, simply because nobody wants to stick around for a whole campaign with a character who either a) feels like they're just all around weaker than another, or b) feels like they just got lucky with amazing stats and have their character's accomplishments be watered down to "oh yeah, he just got lucky at character creation".

Rolling is best saved for short-lived characters and campaigns, or meat-grinder style games where variety is more valuable than certainty.

Plus it's just overall annoying when any player gets shafted over another who got twice their average modifier.

[DataNinja]

As primarily a DM, I find some kind of fixed mechanics for ability score generation far better than randomly rolling, simply because nobody wants to stick around for a whole campaign with a character who either a) feels like they're just all around weaker than another, or b) feels like they just got lucky with amazing stats and have their character's accomplishments be watered down to "oh yeah, he just got lucky at character creation".

While I tend to prefer point buy overall, I've found that problem A can be solved by having everyone rolling to start, and then all players are able to choose from any given array. Granted, this certainly exacerbates problem B, in that there does increase the odds of there being a spectacular array to choose from... but, thus far, I've found it to be a decent system to play with. Though, my groups don't tend to care too much about abnormally high stats, so it ends up working out.

[Zaq]

Welcome, brother. We’ve been trying to tell you. But it’s okay. What matters is that you’re here.

[druid91]

I've done both, and honestly while I used to really like point buy, I've lately come to prefer Rolling. But that's because I've gotten into a much higher mortality rate campaign. So if a character is terrible, well they probably aren't long for the world anyway.

[Crake]

While I tend to prefer point buy overall, I've found that problem A can be solved by having everyone rolling to start, and then all players are able to choose from any given array. Granted, this certainly exacerbates problem B, in that there does increase the odds of there being a spectacular array to choose from... but, thus far, I've found it to be a decent system to play with. Though, my groups don't tend to care too much about abnormally high stats, so it ends up working out.

The problem I've found with arrays is that not every array is good for various character types. Having one great stat and lots of mediocre stats is great for a caster, but pretty terrible for most other classes. I've found that an equal playing field and the freedom to build your character as close as you can to what you want is best for meaningful character creation, and point buy serves that best by far.

That said, I did kinda do what you described a while ago. I rolled an array of 4d6k3, calculated the point buy for it (it came out to 35), and I've been using 35 point buy ever since.

[Psychoalpha]

b) feels like they just got lucky with amazing stats and have their character's accomplishments be watered down to "oh yeah, he just got lucky at character creation".

If a player feels like their accomplishments are watered down by rolling good starting stats, there are problems far more vast and overreaching in your game than roll vs point buy. Especially given the disparities that already exist in the game.

Is a Fighter with 18s in every stat actually going to feel his accomplishments are devalued because of his amazing array? Is a Druid or Wizard who manages to scrape by with a 17 and a bunch of 10s going to congratulate herself down the line because gosh darnit she's made something of herself despite her appalling starting roll? Again, if any of this is true, the problems have nothing to do with roll vs point buy.

My rule of thumb is that everybody should have stats that at least support a reasonable competency in the direction they want to grow in. I usually set a minimum point buy value I feel will accomplish that for most people, then let people roll. If they roll better than that, more power to them. I have absolutely never had anyone express actual discontent over somebody else having more +'s to their attributes, as long as their own character was capable of being good at whatever they'd decided to be, and if anyone did I would almost certainly want to examine whether or not that's a person I want to be playing with in the first place. o.O

[magic9mushroom]

The problem I've found with arrays is that not every array is good for various character types. Having one great stat and lots of mediocre stats is great for a caster, but pretty terrible for most other classes.

On the other hand, considering that casters could use a nerf, this is something of a feature of flatter arrays - they don't let you get one great stat and the rest garbage, which point-buy does.

In my campaign way back when, I gave everyone the elite array.

[AnimeTheCat]

I've said this in a few threads before now, and its applicable here too. You've got to use the ability score generation method that fits the game you're playing. Point buy is great for situations where you need to control what's going on, but rolled ability scores can help settle in to, and really live in, the world that's been created. In one method, you're probably the best, the creme de la creme of adventurers, chosen by fate to make or break the world. In the other, you're a person, imperfect and incomplete, trying to carve your name in to fate and leave your legacy on this mortal coil, possibly against the odds. You're the lad that was weak growing up, but you always dreamt of being in the palace royal guard, or the young apprentice wizard that always had to study hard and plan 5 steps ahead instead of 3, or the clumsy rogue that relies more on her sharp wit and quick tongue than her manual dexterity and stealth prowess.

It depends on what you, as a DM, are presenting to your players and what you, as a player, are expecting out of the game.

[Crake]

I've said this in a few threads before now, and its applicable here too. You've got to use the ability score generation method that fits the game you're playing. Point buy is great for situations where you need to control what's going on, but rolled ability scores can help settle in to, and really live in, the world that's been created. In one method, you're probably the best, the creme de la creme of adventurers, chosen by fate to make or break the world. In the other, you're a person, imperfect and incomplete, trying to carve your name in to fate and leave your legacy on this mortal coil, possibly against the odds. You're the lad that was weak growing up, but you always dreamt of being in the palace royal guard, or the young apprentice wizard that always had to study hard and plan 5 steps ahead instead of 3, or the clumsy rogue that relies more on her sharp wit and quick tongue than her manual dexterity and stealth prowess.

It depends on what you, as a DM, are presenting to your players and what you, as a player, are expecting out of the game.

The way I see it honestly, point buy works better for both of those kinds of games, in two senses: Firstly, point buy represents the notion that people are generally in control of where their ability points go. A wizard will generally be smarter for having studied, a fighter will be stronger for having trained, etc. The second point being that, if you want to represent someone who may be a little out of their field, like a scrawny kid who's trying to become a warrior, point buy can let you represent that by simply putting less points into strength anyway, and while some people might find it hard to intentionally hamper your character's abilities, if you're the kind of person that wouldn't intentionally do it, then you likely won't be happy being forced to do it due to a bad roll.

[Elves]

That said, I did kinda do what you described a while ago. I rolled an array of 4d6k3, calculated the point buy for it (it came out to 35), and I've been using 35 point buy ever since.

Is it too late to do this but with the time I rolled 4d6b3 and got an ~80 PB equivalent?

I know 32 PB is the standard but I think 34 PB is quite good. 32 is based on the idea that 18 should either cost you in your secondary or cripple your tertiary, 34 is based on the idea that it either costs your tertiary or forces you to have two 8s, which I think is better. And then MADs get to choose between 16/16/14/14 or three 16s but two 8s.

Then I would say 36 is good for more heroic, high-powered games.

[radthemad4]

These days I let players choose between

[18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 08]
[16, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10]
[16, 16, 16, 12, 12, 12]
[16, 16, 14, 14, 14, 14]

[AnimeTheCat]

The way I see it honestly, point buy works better for both of those kinds of games, in two senses: Firstly, point buy represents the notion that people are generally in control of where their ability points go. A wizard will generally be smarter for having studied, a fighter will be stronger for having trained, etc. The second point being that, if you want to represent someone who may be a little out of their field, like a scrawny kid who's trying to become a warrior, point buy can let you represent that by simply putting less points into strength anyway, and while some people might find it hard to intentionally hamper your character's abilities, if you're the kind of person that wouldn't intentionally do it, then you likely won't be happy being forced to do it due to a bad roll.

If you feel that way you missed my point. You can do both with point buy, but sometimes that's not what you want. Sometimes it feels good to have it happen organically.

Nobody will intentionally make a 14 int point buy wizard, but within the diversity of an in game world, that 14 (or less) int wizard will exist. Rolled stats beat point buy in making an organic game world that represents actual endless potential of diversity rather than optimal diversity. The guy with 16 int may not WANT to be a wizard, so he's a fighter instead. Perhaps it just wasn't in the lot for the kid born in to a rich family to be a competent wizard because he's just not that smart. Sure, we have some control over our attributes, but there is absolutely genetic predisposition to our ability scores. Speak with a lisp or stutter, you can work to overcome it but it's never going away. Have a learning disability, you can figure out better ways to learn and may surpass others who dont have one, but you're still starting behind. Do you have a skeletal or muscular disease that makes you weaker, sure you can work past that, but it will be harder. My point is, it's all about what you want out of the game and sometimes I like a random spread of stats to get me thinking. It feels more natural and less manufactured, like I didn't make this character, this character is a product of this game world.

If you dont understand, that's probably my fault for not being able to articulate my points. Just understand that to me and others (maybe not here) there is a real psychological difference between picking your stats and having them, whether for better or worse, generated for you.

[OGDojo]

in our campaigns we always roll out our stats, sure you "Get lucky or unlucky" At creation but thats part of the fun, turning your disadvantageous ability scores into a cool and interesting character, your thinking "Oh in order to have fun you need good stats" nah i played a Goblin campaign where we started with 6's and an 8 and had the time of our lives. even with our wizard being unable to cast spells and our rogue failing almost every check, it was still fun because from a roleplay aspect it was hilarious and different and playing out those scenes made up for all of the small stats ever. so team "Roll da Stats" for me cuz it gives your character more personality.

[LordBlades]

I've always preferred Point Buy, partly for balance reasons (although in 3.5, if power is your main goal, you can build a strong enough character even with all 10s if you're good at optimizing) but mainly for freedom of choice. I want the stats to reflect the character I have in mind, not vice-versa.

[ezekielraiden]

For my part, I come to the table to play D&D, not roulette or craps. And real people are not so...deeply defined by circumstances totally outside their control. I would know. I used to tutor adult remedial students. None of them were "low Int" people, they just for various reasons never developed their mathematical and linguistic skills beyond a rough-and-ready minimum. But they were choosing to change that, and many went on to master math skills they once thought completely beyond them (trigonometry, even calculus). I see an excessive attachment to the "organic"-ness of rolled scores as reflecting the myth of "talent."

Talent as most people use the word doesn't exist. There are *very small* amounts of talent that do exist, and they occasionally matter in the absolute bleeding edges of human achievement, e.g. a generic predisposition to smaller-yet-more-numerous red blood cells can help someone like Michael Phelps push to be tenths of a second faster to get a ton of gold medals rather than a mix of silver and gold. That is a "talent" that cannot be learned and innately provides a real, albeit small, advantage. Way too many people mistakenly conflict prior (accidental) practice with "talent"--oh, I could never do calculus, I don't have the knack for it. Wow, your art is so pretty, I wish I had talent like you! Bull friggin' hockey, all of it.

Art, math, poetry, it's all skills, and you can refine them with time and effort. Even things we think of as innate characteristics like perceptiveness, memory, cleverness, and strength are primarily skills that anyone can hone if they put in the time and *practice*--what we mistake for "talent" is just the natural proclivities of childhood having induced us to practice these skills (or their fundamentals anyway) more fully than others, leading to an apparent large pool of natural ability when it's really just pre-practice.

So yeah. Point buy is *actually* more organic than rolled skills, because genetic lottery is a million times less important than opportunity and effort for all applications except the absolute bleeding edges of human achievement. A woman who works hard to become good at critical reasoning will *be* good at it--and better than someone with a "natural talent" that never bothered to work on the skill.

The main thing rolled scores are good for is *surprise,* as you don't control them. But when you start inserting rules like "pick your class after your ability scores" or "arrange to taste"/"swap any two stats," you've lost that advantage. You're no longer running a surprise character, you're running a weirdly-built one, because you still controlled what it ended up being.

If you come to the table having no idea what to play and wanting to be challenged or inspired, dice are great. That's literally why we roll to see if we succeed, to be challenged, inspired, or limited in some way, and then overcome those limits. But if you *do* know what you want to play, surprises stop being fun. They become roadblocks, millstones. "Sorry, you can't have your fun, you *must* have this other thing whether or not you find any fun in it!" Far and away from any concerns of *fairness* (though I do still think those matter), this is the important one. If, as so happens right now, I'm wanting to play the neato Sorcerer/Silver Pyromancer build once proposed for a weekly optimization thread, getting an 11 Cha is not an exciting opportunity to roleplay overcoming adversity or feel achievement at creatively employing limited resources. It is instead, "GTFO, forget any cool story you thought you could play." And that sucks. That is literally the dice telling me I'm not allowed to have (my) fun. I *have* to have someone else's fun. As though wearing a suit tailored for someone else is just as good as wearing the one fitted for me.

So yeah. I'm not surprised that some people still value randomness in character generation. But I'm also not surprised people overall prefer PB. The whole point is getting to play what you want to play.

That said, I do wonder if perceptions of PB would be more positive if, as my opening rant hinted at, we actually used a lifepath-style system for getting those PB scores. That is, you start with at most a *slight* bias (perhaps stats bought only up to the value of single points spent, e.g. 8-13), and then have to play through a short "before you adventured, what was your life?" scenario to earn the remainder of your PB scores, like what I've heard about from Traveller or the like. You have only a finite amount of pre-level-1 time to spend on improving those attributes, but this way they DO naturally arise from how you invested that time rather than "merely" being fiat declared.

[BWR]

Welcome to the Dark Side, Pex.

*raises a glass in honor of a lost comrade*

[Crake]

If you feel that way you missed my point. You can do both with point buy, but sometimes that's not what you want. Sometimes it feels good to have it happen organically.

Nobody will intentionally make a 14 int point buy wizard, but within the diversity of an in game world, that 14 (or less) int wizard will exist. Rolled stats beat point buy in making an organic game world that represents actual endless potential of diversity rather than optimal diversity. The guy with 16 int may not WANT to be a wizard, so he's a fighter instead. Perhaps it just wasn't in the lot for the kid born in to a rich family to be a competent wizard because he's just not that smart. Sure, we have some control over our attributes, but there is absolutely genetic predisposition to our ability scores. Speak with a lisp or stutter, you can work to overcome it but it's never going away. Have a learning disability, you can figure out better ways to learn and may surpass others who dont have one, but you're still starting behind. Do you have a skeletal or muscular disease that makes you weaker, sure you can work past that, but it will be harder. My point is, it's all about what you want out of the game and sometimes I like a random spread of stats to get me thinking. It feels more natural and less manufactured, like I didn't make this character, this character is a product of this game world.

If you dont understand, that's probably my fault for not being able to articulate my points. Just understand that to me and others (maybe not here) there is a real psychological difference between picking your stats and having them, whether for better or worse, generated for you.

I think I understood your point previously, but my counterpoint was that someone who rolled 14 int would likely either a) not play a wizard, or b) not be happy about playing a wizard. And my point was exactly that the kind of person who WOULD play a 14 int wizard because they rolled 14 int, and be happy about it, is actually exactly the kind of person who would actually make a 14 int wizard from the get go (yes, those kinds of people exist despite you claiming they don't, as I've had players do similar things, I had a player make a 18 str, 14 wis druid for example).

Personally, what I actually do for NPCs that I want to "evolve naturally" (because I agree with you, rolling can be very nice for that), is roll an array for the character in question, look at the array's distribution, and then recreate that distribution with point buy, so for example, a character who rolled (and holy moly I actually just rolled this array for real!) 18, 18, 16, 16, 15, 15, I would rebuild that with 32 point buy into something like 15, 14, 14, 12, 12, 12, not.... exactly a great example, but you get the idea, high X, low Y, average Z recreated using the point buy to make if fit, and I've had very interesting characters made through that, for example, a low int, high str succubus who, because of her stats, ended up picking up bind vestige girallon arms, and improved grapple, for a very decent grapple modifier but because of her low int, she was incredibly ditzy and air headed

[AnimeTheCat]

I think I understood your point previously, but my counterpoint was that someone who rolled 14 int would likely either a) not play a wizard, or b) not be happy about playing a wizard. And my point was exactly that the kind of person who WOULD play a 14 int wizard because they rolled 14 int, and be happy about it, is actually exactly the kind of person who would actually make a 14 int wizard from the get go (yes, those kinds of people exist despite you claiming they don't, as I've had players do similar things, I had a player make a 18 str, 14 wis druid for example).

Personally, what I actually do for NPCs that I want to "evolve naturally" (because I agree with you, rolling can be very nice for that), is roll an array for the character in question, look at the array's distribution, and then recreate that distribution with point buy, so for example, a character who rolled (and holy moly I actually just rolled this array for real!) 18, 18, 16, 16, 15, 15, I would rebuild that with 32 point buy into something like 15, 14, 14, 12, 12, 12, not.... exactly a great example, but you get the idea, high X, low Y, average Z recreated using the point buy to make if fit, and I've had very interesting characters made through that, for example, a low int, high str succubus who, because of her stats, ended up picking up bind vestige girallon arms, and improved grapple, for a very decent grapple modifier but because of her low int, she was incredibly ditzy and air headed

Both for you and ezekieldragon, different strokes for different folks I guess. I dont find the natural world so orderly and rational and I prefer the disorderly irrationality of randomized rice rolls, especially when they can't be reordered. It speaks to the ingenuity of the character if life plots an arduous path for them. There's just something too manufactured if I place the stats exactly how I want them, even if those stats are intentionally lowballed. When done via dice, it speaks more strongly to the disorderly chaos of a world. We just have different philosophies as to what the dice rolls mean I guess.

Also, when given the choice most people will improve their most important ability scores rather than intentionally gimp them. Yes, outliers exist, but this is not the norm. The norm is absolutely to have your most important stats as high as possible and plenty of people just divorce ability scores from roleplay. That's a perfectly fine approach, just not my personal one.

Lastly, what the players play is dependent upon the consensus of the group. One of my current games is all about playing characters from the world, not our own creations or perfect images. Its specifically taking control of a certain character and playing out their story. This is similar to what you see in video games where you play a specific protagonist (the witcher, sekiro, assassin's creed, etc). This type of game has appeal to it in some circumstances. In these circumstances, if the DM doesn't have pregen sheets, random stats are the most organic way to come up with a random character from the fabric of the world.

TL; DR: different strokes for different folks. Neither point buy nor rolled stats is wrong, both have their merits and uses, and both can be applied to great effect depending upon the desired outcomes of the DM, players, and group as a whole.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I like rolling stats because it is fun. I don't like using rolled stats because man it feels awful to watch a dude walk up with 16, 16, 17, 18 to your one 16 and realize that unless you go ham you will always be second fiddle to that stat gap.

[Psychoalpha]

I like rolling stats because it is fun. I don't like using rolled stats because man it feels awful to watch a dude walk up with 16, 16, 17, 18 to your one 16 and realize that unless you go ham you will always be second fiddle to that stat gap.

Why? I mean... why on so many levels. Why will you always be second fiddle? If a 16 (and whatever else you rolled, I assume 15s and under) isn't enough to feel competent at the job you're doing, that's a problem with your generation system not his stats. Is it suddenly not an issue that it's not enough to feel competent as long as you don't feel like anybody else is? Because that'd be... enh.

If he's a Fighter with 16, 16, 17, 18, and you're a Druid or Cleric with Wis 16, do you honestly feel aweful? If you had the 16, 16, 17, 18 and were playing a Fighter, would you honestly understand if the Wizard with Int 16 stated that he felt like he was always going to be second fiddle because of your stat gap? And if it doesn't matter then, why does it matter if either of you is playing any other class?

Wanting to be competent at the path you've chosen for a character is understandable. Being jealous or feeling like the underdog because of another player's starting stats, given the wide and varied disparities that already exist in the game between two characters, is petty at the very best. :/

I can understand people wanting to use point buy if the assumption is that people are going to think like that, but I'm glad I've been lucky enough to mostly play with people who aren't.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Wanting to be competent at the path you've chosen for a character is understandable. Being jealous or feeling like the underdog because of another player's starting stats, given the wide and varied disparities that already exist in the game between two characters, is petty at the very best. :/

My stats were 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 to his 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18. He was playing a full caster. And stats, especially early on, represent a substantial power boost and a gap that can never, by any means, be closed.

[AnimeTheCat]

My stats were 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 to his 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18. He was playing a full caster. And stats, especially early on, represent a substantial power boost and a gap that can never, by any means, be closed.

Out of curiosity, were you also a full caster? Feeling a power gap should really only be present if you're comparing two characters within a confined frame of reference. If you were both playing wizards, at best the other player has 2 points on your casting stat, and the rest really won't matter much. If you're playing a fighter and he a full caster, why are the two if you competing in the same frame of reference? You should be hitting things as hard or as often as you can, and they should be ideally supporting, controlling the battle, debuffing the enemy, etc. By and large they have more things to do, and their ability scores should never really need to be compared to your own.

[Telok]

In game systems and campaigns where stats dictate a large majority of your characters involvement, capability, and success rate, then point buy (or modified point buy, or balanced rolling, etc.) is preferable.

In setups where the player or the character/playing of the PC is more important than the stats than the dice then I strongly prefer the more organic variation provided by rolling.

[King of Nowhere]

the problem with point buy is that it favors SAD over MAD classes. A wizard can get his 18 INT plus decent CON and DEX, and he needs nothing else. a monk or a paladin are absolutely hopeless to play with point buy. they do not feel competent in what they do. and they are already weak classes to start with.

I could get on the point buy cart if it allowed a greater point buy for lower tier classes. as it is, the only way to play some concepts is to roll and hope to score high.

If you feel that way you missed my point. You can do both with point buy, but sometimes that's not what you want. Sometimes it feels good to have it happen organically.
It feels more natural and less manufactured, like I didn't make this character, this character is a product of this game world.

I never thought about it before, but it's actually true. A character made with point buy feels more artificial than one made by rolling.
the fact that any character made with point buy will look identical to a similar character doesn't help.

For my part, I come to the table to play D&D, not roulette or craps. And real people are not so...deeply defined by circumstances totally outside their control. I would know. I used to tutor adult remedial students. None of them were "low Int" people, they just for various reasons never developed their mathematical and linguistic skills beyond a rough-and-ready minimum. But they were choosing to change that, and many went on to master math skills they once thought completely beyond them (trigonometry, even calculus). I see an excessive attachment to the "organic"-ness of rolled scores as reflecting the myth of "talent."

Talent as most people use the word doesn't exist. There are *very small* amounts of talent that do exist, and they occasionally matter in the absolute bleeding edges of human achievement, e.g. a generic predisposition to smaller-yet-more-numerous red blood cells can help someone like Michael Phelps push to be tenths of a second faster to get a ton of gold medals rather than a mix of silver and gold. That is a "talent" that cannot be learned and innately provides a real, albeit small, advantage. Way too many people mistakenly conflict prior (accidental) practice with "talent"--oh, I could never do calculus, I don't have the knack for it. Wow, your art is so pretty, I wish I had talent like you! Bull friggin' hockey, all of it.

Art, math, poetry, it's all skills, and you can refine them with time and effort.

well, I believe you are overstating your case.
I've known many people who put much more effort than me into learning chess, spend more time on it, study more, and yet they are nowhere near as strong as I am. And I have seen people put less effort and be stronger than me. I have played league of legends for five years a couple hours per day and never got above mediocrity, while I became very strong at ogame pretty fast.
Similarly, I have seen fellow students struggle hard to pass with a bare minimum tests where I got high scores with minimal effort. And now that I am a teacher I see students put a lot of effort to get the minimum grades, and others that get good marks while barely paying attention in class.
or, I am lazy, I have a sedentary lifestyle, but I am big, I was born big, I've always been big, and I can beat at arm wrestling many people who go to the gym regularly.

While it's true that most people can reach decent skill in most fields, having talent means that you'll learn it so much faster.
Some people think they have no talent for something because they never got to practice it, or because they couldn't figure it out at first and stopped trying. Sometimes it's just a matter of explaining it the right way.
But all my life experience tell me that natural talent is a real thing, and it is like wind; sure, you can technically sail against it, but it's much harder and much slower.

Sure, there's also the fact that people feel rewarded at doing stuff they are good at and they tend to put more effort into that, reinforcing the effect. but it starts from actually getting something fast.

Even things we think of as innate characteristics like perceptiveness, memory, cleverness, and strength are primarily skills that anyone can hone if they put in the time and *practice*--what we mistake for "talent" is just the natural proclivities of childhood having induced us to practice these skills (or their fundamentals anyway) more fully than others, leading to an apparent large pool of natural ability when it's really just pre-practice.

I don't think there is a clear way to demonstrate if that is the origin of talent.
But really, does it make a difference?
"talent is your genetics or something accidental giving you an advantage at something".
"no, talent is cause by having played in certain ways when you were a little children, because genetics predisposed you to play that way".
meh. you certainly cannot make conscious long-term choices on the kind of skills you are honing as a child, so it's still up to genetics and the environment where you grew up. Or maybe your parents picked for you; again, not your choice. like, you grew up near the sea, it's most likely you got good at swimming, because you had more opportunities to swim than somebody born in the mountains - who will probably become a better climber. but you didn't control where you were born, it just happened.

Ultimately, though, I don't think it's important or useful to determine how much genetics and how much environment and how much choice shaped our abilities. In the end they are there, and we just have to accept that we are better than most at something and worse than most at something else, and make what we can with it.
For me, the secret of feeling accomplished in life is to decide what kind of character you want to be, what role you want to fill, and become reasonably competent at it, and absolutely not look at other people with jealousy or smugness, because life is not a competition (ok, according to genetics it is, but we are human, we don't have to follow instinct mindlessly). other people do their stuff, you do your stuff, and all together you can do something greater.
which is the same advice I always give about having fun with your d&d character.

That said, I do wonder if perceptions of PB would be more positive if, as my opening rant hinted at, we actually used a lifepath-style system for getting those PB scores. That is, you start with at most a *slight* bias (perhaps stats bought only up to the value of single points spent, e.g. 8-13), and then have to play through a short "before you adventured, what was your life?" scenario to earn the remainder of your PB scores, like what I've heard about from Traveller or the like. You have only a finite amount of pre-level-1 time to spend on improving those attributes, but this way they DO naturally arise from how you invested that time rather than "merely" being fiat declared.

like, roll 1d6 for genetics, and apply a modified version of point buy over that?
it could be a nice idea.
or it could leave everyone unhappy; those that want reliable unsatisfied because they still have to bow to some dice rolls, and those who want random unsatisfied because they still can minmax most of it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Out of curiosity, were you also a full caster? Feeling a power gap should really only be present if you're comparing two characters within a confined frame of reference. If you were both playing wizards, at best the other player has 2 points on your casting stat, and the rest really won't matter much.

If we both play theoretical levels of OP wizard the stats won't be huge. But in a more practical sense bonus HP, AC, saves, and even carrying capacity matter a lot, especially early on. And cleric is great at turning every stat into more power. I understand it happens, for a game going to start soon I rolled an amazing pan and my friend rolled almost strictly better, but it is also a disappointing feeling to think "these are not too shabby for my swiftblade" and see a cleric roll strictly, and dramatically, better. Disappointment and crap stats is a risk with random generation just like homogenizating is a risk with point buy. One is not truly better than the other but dismissing the downsides of one because it involves validating the feelings of another person is just going to pointlessly hobble the gaming group.