Quote from: tuypo1;797403but i dont even like beer

although i guess that just makes it even more unplesent which is of course the aim

Spoken like a gentleman.

Some of us still like rolling for stats.  It really doesn't matter, though, because there are countless ways of creating characters, including many different methods for D&D.  Everyone should be able to find a method they like, and that does not restrict what others do in the slightest.l

Quote from: Tetsubo;797243An emotional investment is still an investment. I put effort and creativity into a character. I craft a back story. I want my character to be my choice, not the random outcome of the dice. Not to mention a party could end up with a set of characters completely unsuited to a campaign or adventure. The players could be borked before they ever started. Choosing a party mix is like choosing the equipment for an expedition. Choose wrong and you don't come home. I don't want someone handing me a random mix of gear if I am going to be climbing K-9. I want to choose *exactly* the gear I know will give me the best chance to succeed and return home.

But if you go that way you really are missing out on the fun of playing a different kind of character, or having to come up with new ways to overcome obstacles since no plan survives contact with the enemy. Sometimes the guy best suited/most important in the mission gets killed. Sometimes important gear is lost or destroyed. Do you just quit when those breaks go against you?

I'm not here to bust your chops over how you like to play. My earlier comments were more out of frustration with prima donna types who I find incredibly annoying. It's like someone saying "Sure I'll play football with you guys -as long as I get the ball every play and I always score".

Quote from: Elfdart;797539Do you just quit when those breaks go against you?

This post sparked an idea or analogy. What follows is not intended as a rebuttal, refutation, or argument with Elfdart's post per se.

Most people I know will concede a wargame once it reaches a point where the odds seem overwhelmingly against them rather than playing the game out attritionally to the very last piece on the board. And in complicated wargames there is frequently a feeling by the winner that the loser conceded just a bit too soon for the winner's taste. In part this stems from the winner not getting to see their long anticipated master stroke or strategic effort actually play out. However I seldom see anyone insist the the loser is somehow morally obliged to play the game out to the bitter end. And that is despite the fact that people frequently draw the line where they concede in different places.

Quote from: Elfdart;797539It's like someone saying "Sure I'll play football with you guys -as long as I get the ball every play and I always score".

I might be, if only football were anything like RPGs. Which it isn't.

Quote from: Kiero;797640I might be, if only football were anything like RPGs. Which it isn't.

OTOH, an RPG that's a mix of Blood Bowl + H.O.L. could be damn awesome.

Quote from: stuffis;791362would any well-adjusted grownup rather commit character suicide ('suicide' should not be a fucking verb) than just play the character?

If they're in character, no prob for me.

Quote from: Bren;797544However I seldom see anyone insist the the loser is somehow morally obliged to play the game out to the bitter end. And that is despite the fact that people frequently draw the line where they concede in different places.

You missed a brilliantly moronic discussion over on BGG several years back where a player was having problems with the group telling him that he HAD to help the current leader when he was loosing. And others were agreeing that yeah he was obligated to knuckle under and be the other players slave bot.

Theres allways going to be those types.

Personally Im the sort who will hang in there to the bitter end rather than concede. Risk 2210. Theres me on the last phase stubbornly trying to hold the Moon Id been pushed back to. And succeeding.

Quote from: Simlasa;791373I once got stuck playing a cleric (random roll) and kinda decided that he oughtta be a bit of a crazed zealot, picking fights and throwing himself into the deep end... mostly because I'd up till then disliked the idea of clerics and I figured he'd die off quick and I'd get to make a new character. But he kept on not dying and pretty soon I started to enjoy playing a cleric after all.

This reminds me of a game I played in years ago.  The DM had us generate characters using the dreaded 3d6 in order; my best roll was an 11 in Strength but my worst two rolls were a 6 for Dexterity and a 5 for Intelligence.  I wasn't initially excited about playing a dumb, clumsy warrior with slightly above-average strength so the play-style I adopted with this character wasn't exactly cautious.  Wouldn't you know, that character just would not die and eventually he became one of mine and the party's favorites despite the fact that everything he involved himself in became an utter gong-show.

As far as random-roll vs point-buy, I think its like arguing cars vs boats: they both are vehicles but they fulfill two very different functions.

Random roll is great if a player has no idea what they want to play or dont care what they play, they just want to get down to playing.

Points buy or allocation is great if a player has a character concept in mind already and wants to model it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;798531As far as random-roll vs point-buy, I think its like arguing cars vs boats: they both are vehicles but they fulfill two very different functions.

Random roll is great if a player has no idea what they want to play or dont care what they play, they just want to get down to playing.

Points buy or allocation is great if a player has a character concept in mind already and wants to model it.

And then there's the orthogonal issue of balance. You can have random roll/balanced, or random roll/random total.

I ADORE Lifepath systems, and coming up with random characters boiling out of weird die rolls and charts.

I also enjoy games where you can make a character as you go (like Fate's Quick Start option), so that you can decide as you roll who your character is.

(I'd love to see more lifepath stuff. I'd make up 5e Lifepath stuff, but Lifepath takes an INCREDIBLE amount of work, and it's hard to make it interesting AND generic)

Trying to enlist a Traveller character in the Scouts without really caring if the result is death in chargen for the terribly rolled character or the awesome scout skill tables to make up for it if he does survive to retire, didn't seem uncommon back in the day

Beyond the Wall has some rather nifty life path character generation, or at least ability score generation tables for each playbook. I'd really like to try those out sometime for 5e (or make new ones) and see what happens.

Quote from: Will;798537And then there's the orthogonal issue of balance. You can have random roll/balanced, or random roll/random total.

The only instance of random roll/balanced I've ever seen is that used in NEMESIS, I think, where it controlled allocation, rather than the quantum of chargen resources. Though of course in play that allocation, even if equal in quantum for all characters, might not be balanced through some options being better than others.

It's trivial to create such things, though. I've offered several examples upthread.

For example, roll 3d6 in order, calculate how far you are off, then randomly remove points.

Or you can have 'standard array' (15 14 13 12 10 and randomly determine where the numbers go.

Or...

Quote from: Omega;798345Personally Im the sort who will hang in there to the bitter end rather than concede. Risk 2210. Theres me on the last phase stubbornly trying to hold the Moon Id been pushed back to. And succeeding.

In my experience the person who keeps playing to the bitter end is a rare one. And I love to have them as an opponent when I am winning.