My standard for a while has been roll 4d6, discard lowest, reroll any 1's. So it's a bit higher-powered than the standard game but not really enough to be considered "high powered" either, in my opinion.
For the household game I'm going to start soon, I don't want a high powered game; I'm wanting everybody to start out above-average, but not exactly olympian-gold-medal-winning type; I'm letting players roll their own scores without me hovering over them, but a couple in particular rarely ever seem to have any score below 13.
One of these players wants to be a monk; Fine, right? Well this player insists that monks are more demanding ability-score wise, and therefore if they don't have at least 4 "high" (above 14) ability scores, that it doesn't justify playing a monk over any other class, which I really disagree with.
I don't know about the rest of you DMs, but I consider insisting on high ability scores at 1st level just to make good rolls in-game to be metagaming. Am I the only one who feels this way? I'm having a hard time trying to explain to my players that a PC doesn't have to be high-powered to be fun or rewarding to play, but I'm having difficulty getting this accross. Anyone else have similar problems? If so, how did you deal with it?
( By the way, the game I mentioned starting last weekend was pretty much a success, I was very pleased with the turnout and while it was slow to get things started, once it got rolling it was great. Thanks, guys :D )