Quote from: jswa;301796Sometimes people just want to play what they want to play.

They do, and that's fair enough. But sometimes other people get tired of that, and would like them to change. After a year or so of the same corny lines, the same jokes, the same predictable behaviour, the player might still love it, but others might like a change.

For example, me as GM, I love modern espionage campaigns. Some players like them, some don't - most like them for a bit and then want something different. Now I could just continue running those campaigns, and gradually piss everyone off, or I could change and run something different.

If the GM has to compromise and run a different campaign from time to time, it's only reasonable that players have to compromise and run different characters from time to time. We all compromise, that's the nature of a voluntary social hobby.

So they can change, and try something different, or just leave the group, or take to GMing instead of playing.

QuoteDifferent strokes for different folks. There is no ONE TRUE WAY, and anyone who says anything otherwise is an idiot.

And there's no one true way of playing characters, either. Players can change from time to time. It won't kill them.

The guy who wouldn't compromise, far as I know he hasn't gamed in the year or two since. That's what happens when you won't compromise. I hope that'll change soon, since he's a great guy personally and is missed by most of my gaming circle.

Random roll helps in playing different characters, because it helps you come up with characters you'd never have thought of by yourself.

I agree, Amber would be a far better game if the horrible point buy system of character building were removed and replaced with a far more sensible system of randomly generated stats.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;301800And there's no one true way of playing characters, either. Players can change from time to time. It won't kill them.

So you're flexible on the "my opinions = transcendental truth" bit, then?

Quote from: Daztur;301801I agree, Amber would be a far better game if the horrible point buy system of character building were removed and replaced with a far more sensible system of randomly generated stats.

Yeah it is pretty funny that Pundit hates point buy but loves Amber.

In Defence of Points-Buy (1) - Anecdotal Evidence

Speaking purely for my own part, I've points-bought my way into characters who were suboptimal. I play in a number of LARP systems where, by and large, there are ways of opting for less powerful characters who are in some other way more interesting - perhaps because they have weak but unusual talents, sometimes simply because they ARE weak in some particular areas and often because others won't be expecting you to be able to do the minor but weird things that you can do or to have the suboptimal but unusual combination of abilities that you have.

My favourite character ever had, at least when he started play, no ability to inflict damage on anyone whatsoever, save by casting Fireball, the casting of which would have rendered him unconscious (and nearly dead) due to casting damage. He was my favourite character because it was great to play a pyromaniac nutcase with the euphemistic catchphrase "I want to bring light and warmth to the world"... sadly he got PvP'd for attacking a captive (I'm not sure my attacks were doing any damage but they still got me killed).

And I am certainly not alone in being willing to play characters which are suboptimal, if they are in some other way interesting - if they are a character I have CHOSEN to play, and a character which interests me - or if they are a character which the ref has deliberately chosen for me to play on the grounds that it will make the game more interesting for everyone, including me.

Of all the PCs I have ever statted for my game Omnifray, the most powerful in melee combat (the default kind of conflict for many roleplayers, whatever system they're using) was the spirit of bloodletting in nature, who had possessed a human girl. The player I offered the PC to turned her down on the grounds that she was too awesome in combat. As the Americans say, go figure.

For these reasons I refute utterly the misconceived suggestion that everyone who plays points-buy characters is determined to munch them up to the max. It's just not empirically true.

Sure, some people take that approach. But as Pundy says, it's often very difficult to do (depending on the points-buy system), so they're wasting their own time. And if they want to be min-max master munchkins, they can take that on the chin, because they can hardly say that they don't deserve it. But yes, in many of the LARP games I play I often find myself just checking that the powers that I'm choosing are at least capable of working in combination with each other, that there are some synergies there, that I'm not totally screwing myself over with duff choices; in (my tabletop game) Omnifray, my characters always end up with at least reasonable stats in the main areas that their feats (powers) depend on. On the other hand, I would never play a character with implausible and stupid stats (e.g. in D&D terms Str 18 Con 3) just because it happened to have some min-max advantage (e.g. the DM allows me to buy an item which boosts my Con to 18 no matter what its natural value would be, so I points-buy my way to Con 3, but still want Str 18 - that would be the height of awful as far as I'm concerned).

In Defence of Points-Buy (2)

Regarding the suggestion that people who like points-buy are the same people who cheat on dice-rolls - what a complete and utter load of baloney. I'm a points-buy fanatic and as far as I can remember I have never cheated (as a player) on a single dice-roll ever. As a ref I have occasionally fudged dice-roll to benefit the players (NOT their enemies), but not really since my game Omnifray came out. The worst I am guilty of as a ref is often bending the rules on temporary fate points and Charmed Lives to keep player characters alive. But probably more often than not when the dice have said they die, I've let them die. Not having the balls for that undermines the credibility of the game.

Points-buy means your character can be DESIGNED to be whichever sort of character will make the game more fun, either for you (at your choice) or for the group (at the ref's choice, or your choice, or the whole group's choice).

Usually, most players expect a level playing field. There's no obvious reason why they should start a game with a strictly inferior character to anyone else. If another character can do EVERYTHING that yours can do in every way as well as yours can, AND more, what's your role in the game? Points-buy ensures that that situation never arises UNLESS deliberately engineered. At a minimum, the ref would have to be letting one player have more points to spend than another.

I would personally experiment with letting one player have more points than the others (a higher level character etc.), though I doubt it would be popular - but I would not lightly allow one player's character to be STRICTLY superior to another's.

Anyway, this brings me to what the essence of points-buy is:- making a CHOICE in CharGen which involves some kind of trade-off, whether it is that you get an advantage for a points cost, a disadvantage for a points saving or a mix of advantage and disadvantage for neutral cost.

In D&D the ability to choose your character class has this function. You choose a whole package of advantages and disadvantages. We could argue all day long over whether in some editions of D&D for instance clerics are overpowered or thieves are underpowered, but the fact remains that the choice of character class is a major element of deliberate CHOICE in CharGen, so D&D CharGen never has been truly purely random.

The suggestion that it is random becomes particularly farcical if you are allowed to put your ability scores in whatever order you want.

If I can choose my class, why not also the arrangement of my ability scores and other advantages/disadvantages such as skills/proficiencies/hitpoints?

Anyway the point is that the reason for points-buy CharGen is NOT and never has been so that you play a powerful or competent character. The reason is so that you play the character of your CHOICE (or the ref's, or the group's), with the overall level of power which the ref (or the group) has deemed appropriate. That means that the game that you end up playing is more likely to be the same sort of game that you WANT to play, and your role within it (if you have chosen it or at least had a say in it) is one you ENJOY. With truly random CharGen your enjoyment of the game is in the hands of Lady Luck. I am happy to take the risk of my character dying an ignominious death or ending up as a blind beggar after adventuring misfortune, but I don't want the theme and style of game that I'm playing to be left in the hands of Lady Luck. I want it to be a game that I'm going to enjoy - one that caters to my tastes. That's not about power or success - it's about style, and my role in the game.

For instance one of my worst experiences of roleplaying was in a points-buy system with an excellent world background which the very experienced and capable referee had carefully prepared. Why did I hate it so much? Because the referee point-blank refused to cater to the theme that I wanted for my character. At the time it had been a long time since I had played much tabletop, and I wanted the experience of playing a magic-user of some kind. The referee would only let there be one wizard in the party, and it wasn't me, so I ended up playing a berserker. I wouldn't say that the game was a complete waste of my time - it was an interesting learning experience to watch the ref at work and to learn a new system, and the group, thanks partly to my input in setting it up, went on to become a very solid one and the foundation of a small circle of friends (though I moved away and only visit occasionally). But as far as enjoyment of the game was concerned - that was hugely hampered for me by being constrained to play a non- magic-user due to the ref's dogmatic obstinacy.

Now since then I have played many characters with no wizard-type abilities, and some with no special abilities at all. I have more than 10 (maybe even 20) live player characters at the moment (mainly in 3 different LARP systems), and there's quite a lot of variety among them in terms of personality, ethos and abilities. But at the time I really wanted my wizard fix. If that was what I was going to enjoy, why wasn't I entitled to it?

In a true random CharGen system, I probably couldn't have expected to play a wizard (unless it was a game of pure wizardry of course).

In any edition of D&D I could pretty much be assured of playing a magic-user, but D&D doesn't count because it's NEVER been truly random CharGen. It's always been choice-based CharGen with a random element. The random element was reasonably important back in the 1970s and 1980s but got less and less so and now in 4e I believe it's gone altogether, or at best optional.

So that's the advantage of points-buy:- you get to choose what sort of character you want to play with, potentially, great flexibility.

Drawbacks?

Bean-counting? - yes, it can take time to create a character. I typically spend 30 to 45 minutes creating a character for my game Omnifray. New players may need longer. But if the game's going to last more than a couple of hours, and certainly if it's going to last 3+ sessions, then to me it's well worth it.

Besides, there are plenty of systems of CharGen with a random element where CharGen can be a lengthy process - Traveller (by reputation) and D&D 3.5 for instance (even if CharGen in D&D 3.5 is far from being entirely random). And plenty of systems where points-buy CharGen can be very quick - my game Sundered Space, for instance, with its much-simplified version of Omnifray CharGen. Or, to take an extreme example, Risus. And you can spend longer on a character concept and personality than on stats in any game, if you really want to.

If you have real trouble with the maths of any major points-buy CharGen system, you're probably going to have trouble with the maths of D&D 3.5 in any event, so just give up and let someone else do the maths for you.

Helping/hindering your imagination? - well, if you find that randomness helps fire yours or your players' imagination, fine. Randomly select some stats for them, work out how many points they have left, then let them points-buy the rest.
For instance, in Omnifray you could say:- Strength, Willpower, Understanding and Agility (scores out of 10) will each be determined with 2d4+2 (but if you roll 2 x 1 then reroll on a single d6-1 instead), and the rest is points-buy according to the rules but fitting the general framework of your random stats. But really, why not just PICK a concept on a whim from your imagination? If you have NO imagination then you are a tard anyway so who cares ;-) * Or let the ref or another player do CharGen for you.

* just kidding, y'all

Taking it like a man? - well, I think I've knocked that one on the head by saying that I've often CHOSEN to play weak characters. But I like that CHOICE to be made for a reason. I don't mind ending up rubbish over the course of a game, but I'd like it to be for some better reason than a few dice-rolls made at the very start of the game and unconnected to any choices I've made in or out of character.

My main beef with extensive points-buy systems is that they aren't very newbie friendly (generally). If you want to make a competent character then you need to have a degree of system mastery in order to do so. Fine for old hands, not so good when you're starting out -especially in systems that aren't simple.

You get exactly this same problem in any system where CharGen is choice-based UNLESS the choices are all ultimately equal. So in D&D 3.5 for instance anyone who plays a wizard is automatically at a disadvantage compared to anyone who plays a cleric or even a sorcerer (controversial, I admit). Anyone who chooses the Toughness feat is at a disadvantage at high levels. Etc.

And in truly random CharGen it's all in the lap of the gods whether your character is competent or not, regardless of whether you are a newbie or not; in other words, it's the same problem, except that it affects everyone, not just newbies, which IMHO makes it worse, YMMV.

So your real objection is not to points-buy, but to complex points-buy where not all choices are equal.

It's hard to make all choices constantly equal but I've done my best in my game Omnifray, so it's hard to make an incompetent character (you still can if you really try, e.g. choosing Willpower, Understanding and Perception of 0 and then exclusively choosing feats like Fire Blast, Healing and Death Magic which use those stats - though no doubt your character would end up being very, very good at something and his magic would still be of some use in some circumstances).

If you don't want CharGen to discriminate against newbie (or otherwise less-than-optimally competent) players, how can you prefer random CharGen which discriminates against anyone who's unlucky? Newbies will generally accept that others who know their way around the system are going to be capable of outgaming them. If it's a problem, the ref can always help the newbies out either with advice/assistance or points boosts at CharGen or during the game whether via tactical advice/tips or by fudging or favouring. In other words it's a non-point. So that leaves you with a choice between simple and complex points-buy. You object to complex points-buy because newbies MIGHT screw up and make weak characters?

But the complexity of complex points-buy systems is the price that you pay for huge flexibility and a relatively balanced system. Indeed, the complexity is often the byproduct of an attempt to make the system balanced.

Never mind, mate.

QuoteSometimes you'll have awesome characters, sometimes mediocre ones, sometimes weak ones; but the results, from not being meticulously micromanaged, are likely to tend toward the unusual.

And, all too often, they are not what the players wanted to play. It seems to me that GMs tend to overlook this crucial fact, and I blame it on not spending enough time as a player.

Point-based generation puts most of the power to create a character in the players' hands. "Random" generation puts most of it in the designer's hands.

QuotePoint buy, as well as being slower, tends towards creating characters that are above all uninteresting.

Your Pendragon game begs to differ, as do most Shadowrun games I've been part of.

QuoteI certainly don't think I've ever seen anyone create a sub-par character intentionally with point-buy,

See above.

Quoteand its pretty much impossible to create a really superior character with it, though players will certainly spend HOURS trying to.

See above.

(Reply to One Horse Town)

Sorry, I'm not trying to wear you down with the tedium of a wall of text, just maybe getting carried away with defending the One True Way ;-)

Quote from: Omnifray;301834(Reply to One Horse Town)

Sorry, I'm not trying to wear you down with the tedium of a wall of text, just maybe getting carried away with defending the One True Way ;-)

No worries.

It wasn't really your post in isolation - just the straw that broke the camel's back.  

Within 2 days i've had people put words in my mouth, tell me what i really meant when i said something, apply meanings to what i've said when i've given no indication that this was the intention, make things up and generally make me lose interest in internet discourse.

Isn't a new thing - it's been going on for a while.

So no - it wasn't you in particular.

Losing interest in internet discourse --- is probably good for one's sanity and soul!

Quote from: Omnifray;301821In Defence of Points-Buy (2)

Regarding the suggestion that people who like points-buy are the same people who cheat on dice-rolls - what a complete and utter load of baloney.

Agreed with this.

I have used point buy systems to hamstring guy who always managed to never roll anything less than a 13 for their D&D characters (with at least one 18, sometimes a pair of 17s), for instance...I've used card-based systems to nerf the same guys...(in Marvel Classic, he rarely seemed to roll less than a 75 unless I was standing RIGHT THERE..in Marvel Saga, his luck seemed far more "comparable" to other peoples.)