>DM lets a player retcon their character a day before the game
>Player makes a new PC who has pretty much the exact same party role as you
>Lets them roll for attributes while everyone else used point buy
Why do people think this is okay?
>>48114803
>Using a system with both rolling and point buy
Why do people think this is okay?
>>48114803
A combination of favoritism, wanting to please everyone, and not wanting to cut into game time.
>>48114909
A combination of not knowing there are options and not wanting to learn a new system because of the sunk cost fallacy.
![__hakurei_reimu_and_kirisame_marisa_touhou_drawn_by_miyo_ranthath__a193cdcdbcc9dbea7d5f9d3978f5f73c[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/w6s6Brd.png "__hakurei_reimu_and_kirisame_marisa_touhou_drawn_by_miyo_ranthath__a193cdcdbcc9dbea7d5f9d3978f5f73c[1].png")
>>48114803
>DM lets a player retcon their character a day before the game
>Player makes a new PC who has pretty much the exact same party role as you
>Lets them use sum-to-ten while you use karmagen
Why do people think this is okay?
So your DM let another player play a character with the same role as yours but built with a significantly inferior method of stat allocation? What's the problem?
>>48115535
Hey rolls are always superior. It makes more memorable characters. Sometimes you get two 16's and a bunch of 10s, somtimes you get a bunch of 12's. And if you're a real DM you'll make them roll 4d6 drop the lowest /in order/.
>>48115535
"Last minute attribute rolling," typically translates to, "Can you believe how lucky I got?! I rolled two 18s, and nothing else is below a 15!"
Everyone knows it's bullshit, but no one wants to be the one to call him on it.
>>48114952
>the sunk cost fallacy.
This gets touted on /tg/ a lot, and it is nonsense. Most of the people playing RPGs are pirating them, there's no sunk cost to be had. Heck, I've seen people download and read hundreds of games, while still sticking to their preferred one, so whatever it is has nothing to do with cost, either in money or time.
>>48115709
>I've seen people download and read hundreds of games, while still sticking to their preferred one
>whatever it is has nothing to do with cost, either in money or time
Time spent learning the system is still time spent. They've been playing it for so long that it seems like a waste to ditch it in favor of something else after all this time. Thus the sunk cost fallacy rears its head.
>>48115757
The point I am making is that, if it were really about the time it takes to learn, then they would be equally unwilling to take the time to read other systems, which for the vast majority is all it takes to learn them.
People do not hold the time to learn as a cost: it is easier to convince someone to learn a new system, in my experience, than to actually get them to play it, especially for more than one session. People waste many hours fiddling with new dice mechanics and discussing minute details on /tg/, for example, but how much of that translates to variety in play? Heck, it does not even translate to variety in /tg/ posts: we get the same threads every day.
Applying the sunk cost fallacy as an explanation for game choice is merely a way for people to disparage others who choose games that the poster does not like. It has no basis in reality.
>>48114909
Why bother playing at all then? Everything is flawed ever, why bother living, why bother doing anything ever?
>>48114803
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're rolling for attributes you don't know your party role until you've got your stats generated. Otherwise it'd be a case of "I'm a strength champion fighter like frank!" *Proceeds to roll 8 Strength and 7 Con*
>>48115858
>they would be equally unwilling to take the time to read other systems
They are.
