So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
Depends on the game/edition.
In 3e/4e/5e D&D random rolls can work badly because of the "+1 bonus per 2 points of attribute" system, PCs vary wildly in power while the systems are built for long-term characters of similar power who are rarely replaced. For those systems Default Array tends to work best, Point Buy next best - though the 4e & 5e Point Buy systems both work well IME. I would say though that in 3e/PF I found that rolling can still work ok if it's roll-in-order, whereas "roll and assign as desired" is effectively "variable point buy".
Rolling works very well with the Classic D&D attribute bonus system, and combines well with fast chargen and frequent generation of new characters. Again, roll-in-order works much better than assign-as-desired in creating organic feeling characters.
I like it. Not sure what the argument against it is honestly. I found most people would just roll again and again until they get the character they want anyway so why waste all that time?
I seriously doubt most people did the 3d6 in order chargen as if they did Paladins and Bards would have been rarer than hen's teeth in 1e.
4d6 drop the lowest and put it in any order seems like a good compromise that also works.
Quote from: Voros;954105I like it. Not sure what the argument against it is honestly. I found most people would just roll again and again until they get the character they want anyway so why waste all that time?
I seriously doubt most people did the 3d6 in order chargen as if they did Paladins and Bards would have been rarer than hen's teeth in 1e.
4d6 drop the lowest and put it in any order seems like a good compromise that also works.
I grew up with OD&D and we did 3d6 in order a lot, and yes certain classes were very rare.
Nowadays I like point-buy because it's a fair way to start out. I never did it this way prior to 5E, but I like the fact that everyone gets the same starting value in their character and they can customize it to be the way they like. In my group some players always came up with absurdly high stats and others with absurdly low stats (even with me watching) and so certain players got advantages that other didn't get. So, I'm a convert.
I'm skeptical anyone really grew up with OD&D, since OD&D lasted a grand total of 4 years before being replaced by AD&D, and even then it wasn't a national thing until '76 or so and before that was mostly restricted to college students in a handful of colleges.
I started playing in '78 (after the PHB but before the DMG came out, my DM was one of those college students, the older brother of a friend) and my first character was a Paladin. We actually did do 3d6, but not in order and I remember amazing the DM because I also had rolled an 18 in addition to the 17 I used for Charisma. (Alas, my paladin died failing an ability check (dexterity) trying to cross a crevasse by walking on a log spanning it in plate mail.)
Basic D&D I could understand, but that used a different ability bonus scale to compensate. But once the DMG came out in '79, 3d6 in order was never an option in AD&D, other than one method where you did that like 12 times and picked the best.
Anyway, as to point buy, some people like playing characters they want, not what they roll. And as those people tend to be the ones that whine and bitch a lot, point buy shuts them up. As someone who generally doesn't, I don't really care, and conversely, rolling actually gives you a chance at really high stats, while point buy generally doesn't. In either OD&D or AD&D, having a fighter with 18 strength really makes a tremendous difference. Or so does Con, for that matter. I remember once having a Ranger with 23 hp at 1st level, while one of the fighters had 6.
And as my ranger went on to have a fairly long career and the guy with the 6 hp fighter didn't, I can see how some might find the playing field to be more level
So what I generally do for games I run, is have players roll, but have minimums. If you don't have a certain minimum, you can use point buy to bring the ability scores up to a certain level of competence.
Quote from: Voros;954105I like it. Not sure what the argument against it is honestly. I found most people would just roll again and again until they get the character they want anyway so why waste all that time?
...and then there are those of us who don't
have a specific character we want and are looking to the dice to tell us, or at least to make a suggestion.
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
It a preference both work equally well. As such it is a non-issue. For me I think a system that allows both to be ideal. I would rig it so that the random roll system on average will produce a higher range of starting stats than point buy. But the risk of lower average stats will still be there. Of course there is the chance of rolling higher than what point buy allows.
Quote from: JeremyR;954114I'm skeptical anyone really grew up with OD&D, since OD&D lasted a grand total of 4 years before being replaced by AD&D, and even then it wasn't a national thing until '76 or so and before that was mostly restricted to college students in a handful of colleges.
It all about founders effect, given the spread out release of AD&D it quite plausible that people were introduced via OD&D and stuck with it. In fact while growing up I knew of one group of college age gamers who used OD&D and one group of kids who used OD&D as well. What you forget is that the White Box OD&D boxed set was in print and in stores well into the early 80s.
The norm among folks my age, high school, was kitbashing, throwing whatever one liked into a campaign, shaking it up, and playing. The difference between what going on in 1980 in my town versus 1970 in the upper midwest is that the blokes in the upper midwest had to write their own rules from scratch, while those of us in northwest PA were using stuff from Dragon, different editions of D&D, other RPGs, etc, etc and combining however we liked.
Point buy tends to elicit less at the table grousing during character creation.
Either is fine by me.
Quote from: estar;954128.....For me I think a system that allows both to be ideal. I would rig it so that the random roll system on average will produce a higher range of starting stats than point buy. But the risk of lower average stats will still be there. ......
YES! This is my thinking as well. I have actually seen an RPG that did the opposite (can't remember which one), and I thought it was ridiculous. If a player chooses to do it non-randomly, than make the rules so that the average character would be slightly weaker, and vice versa for random characters.
I like it, but only when the rules system presents you with some hard choices. TFT does a good job at this, as you can't really game the system - there are only 3 stats, and even if you treat one as a 'dump' stat, the remaining two still present you with a tricky choice. There are lots of choices that are different from one another in play, but tough to choose between because they all contain advantages and disadvantages. I find GURPS to be a bit much, which is funny because it is so closely related to TFT. I think it might be because the playing field of stats, skills and advantages is so vast that there are lots of little 'pockets' in the rules where you can game/min-max your way to a strong advantage in combat or some other situation. Plus the guidelines re. point totals are loose, so people tend to play heroic characters, which are actually sort of boring and same-y in this system.
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
Is there a need to?
Quote from: nDervish;954115...and then there are those of us who don't have a specific character we want and are looking to the dice to tell us, or at least to make a suggestion.
Congratulations for the needless establishing that people are completely in their right to like different approaches to character creation.
Good Job. :thumbsup:
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
I wouldn't say it is one against the other but that they are complementary. Both have their good points--I don't consider either as having bad points. It really depends on what the player wants to do.
If you have a particular character concept that you really want to play--point buy is awesome as it lets you create it.
If you want to play the cards you're dealt, and come up with a concept that fits
randomly non-optimal, uber-optimal, asymmetrical , or average stats--random rolls are awesome as it can create a fun character concept you hadn't considered.
Quote from: Voros;954105I seriously doubt most people did the 3d6 in order chargen as if they did Paladins and Bards would have been rarer than hen's teeth in 1e.
Quote from: 1e AD&D DMG, "CREATING THE PLAYER CHARACTER," p 11GENERATION OF ABILITY SCORES
As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters . . . (emphases in the original - BV)
1e
AD&D did not recommend 3d6 in order, but thank you for the knee-jerk edition bash, fuckwit.
Note that if you do 4d6 drop lowest six times then your average result will be.
16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9
From Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/2483)
If you do 3d6 straight you will get on average
14, 13, 11, 10, 9, 7
The AnyDice result (http://anydice.com/program/4e49)
The best defense for point buy is "some people like it."
On the other hand, I do indeed still use 3d6 in order, including last Saturday.
And I've only ever had a single person complain about stats.
I can go either way. Because ultimately - stats won't save you from dumb decisions.
But insofar as it helps you imagine your character and/or allows you to model your conception mechanically and lets you play and enjoy the game, have at it.
Most of my players prefer point-buy because it allows them to have what they want. But I always leave random stat-generation as an option if they feel lucky. Of course if they go random - they gotta stick with what they get.
I don't think it needs to be defended. It has its proponents, just like random has.
Me, I rate them at the same level, and prefer lifepath to either.
This again? Ok, once more unto the dice roll
So anyone here want to actually defend 3d6 in order then shuffle(OD&D-BX)? Or r4h3(AD&D)? Or stat array? (4e?) Or point buy? Or no stats at all? Or whatever.
All work and some work better for some players than others.
Some really dont want to play tea leaf reading to get a character or just dont like the sometimes limited range that a roll set allows that time.
Others find it fun to see just what they get and like the challenge of playing different things every time or at least playing the same class with oft wildly different capabilities.
Others want a little control over the random and so point shuffling gives them that sense of control while still enjoying the random. While others prefer the roll and arrange for much the same reason be it 3d6 or r4h3 etc. Freedom of choice combined with the unknown factor.
Point buy allows a player to get the sort of character they want. So of they want to play a magic user they can drop alot of points into intelligence. And often theres some sacrifice elsewhere. It allows for some experimenting and it certainly appeals to random-phobes. (Though those will oft still bitch about any roll.) Some like it as it speeds along chargen. (when you have the right players)
Others dont like it because it tends to generate cookie-cutter characters all with the same dam stat spread. Or min-maxing morons. Or just dithering over where to put points.
Stat array I've had the least experience with and heard the least commentary on. Pros? Cons? So far from what little have seen array style can lend to pretty fast chargen as it cuts out dithering over where to place points and just boils it down to where to place the stats. The con so far seen it it makes for very bland characters and can fall into the same cookie-cutter patterns. But removes some or all of the worst of the min-maxing problems.
Personally I like the roll in order and then point-shuffle method of O and BX. Its also a small factor in Star Frontiers.
Quote from: tenbones;954173ultimately - stats won't save you from dumb decisions.
Yup!
I prefer it, actually. But then, I'm a new school freak who thinks games should be fun for all involved, not the people who get lucky on stats (and by lucky, I'm not saying all 18's or whatnor, I'm saying numbers that people can work with, like a 14 or some such, of course this is D&D dependent. I've been the guy in a couple of D&D games in which I couldn't actually play with random because my stats had to be bumped up to be able to QUALIFY for a class. And another player had two 16 and nothing under 12.)
Quote from: JeremyR;954114I'm skeptical anyone really grew up with OD&D, since OD&D lasted a grand total of 4 years before being replaced by AD&D, and even then it wasn't a national thing until '76 or so and before that was mostly restricted to college students in a handful of colleges.
Well, my group played OD&D for a while before AD&D came out, but AD&D took 3 years to fully be released and even when it did come out our group splintered so that half of the time we played OD&D (when I was DM) and half of the time AD&D (when my buddy ran a game). I'd say over the years I've run 10x the amount of OD&D as I have AD&D and probably played twice as much. Forty years later and I still play (and run) a lot more OD&D than I do AD&D. To me, that's growing up with the game, and I'm not sure why you feel the urge to discredit folks who like OD&D more.
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
No defense needed. People like them for different reasons. Random roll can't do what point creation does, point buy cant do what random creation does.
Have a character concept for the game you want to translate into game terms? Random roll is shit at that.
Want to get on with playing and discover the character over the course of the game? Point buy is shit for that.
Want to make a character without a concept and discover his life story before the game begun, so you could then play it out? Both point-buy and random rolls are comparatively shit for that, when compared to lifepaths;).
Hey, anyone wants to defend the decision not to use lifepaths, or not every single time:D?
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
You'll find people who will defend Hitler, so probably, yeah.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954190You'll find people who will defend Hitler, so probably, yeah.
Hope you're not implying the two are analogous in some way;).
Quote from: AsenRG;954191Hope you're not implying the two are analogous in some way;).
It's Krueger, he probably is.
Quote from: AsenRG;954191Hope you're not implying the two are analogous in some way;).
Other than being objectively wrong-headed and a sign of either mental imbalance or pure evil, no. ;)
I just figured why bother with the One True Way back and forth, and just to straight to Godwin.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954194Other than being objectively wrong-headed and a sign of either mental imbalance or pure evil, no. ;)
:D
Other than that, of course:p!
QuoteI just figured why bother with the One True Way back and forth, and just to straight to Godwin.
It worked well. Or at least, it was funny in my book;).
I'll use point buy when I've got a really specific PC concept... and I generally prefer skill-based games, and purely random rolling skills usually ends up a bit odd... but I still like a bit of random chargen... so, like for Magic World, I roll random 3D6 in order for stat scores and then use point buy for the skills, based on what I can read into the random stats.
Quote from: AsenRG;954195:D
Other than that, of course:p!
It worked well. Or at least, it was funny in my book;).
Besides anyone Enlightened knows the only One True Way to Character Generation Nirvana is Lifepath creation with random rolls and choices.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954198Besides we all know the only One True Way to Character Generation Nirvana is Lifepath creation with random rolls and choices.
Of course we do. See? I didn't even need to say it myself:D!
One of the reasons I like Rolemaster Standard System is that it has many of the advantages of both. You point buy your current stats and random roll your potentials. So, even min/maxing a barbarian you might wind up with a high potential Empathy and Reason.
I think point buy is better if you have players who actually know the rules. Seriously, if you know GURPS character creation takes 5 - 15 minutes. If you don't it's virtually impossible.
Random roll is great if you have players who are mature enough to enjoy the variety and challenges it represents but it's also great for new players who have no idea what's what.
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
Different folks. Different strokes. Something like that.
One system is not inherently, objectively "better" or "purer" or whatever.
The serious answer, of course is, it depends.
Games like GURPS and HERO with complete total point buy, where I can trade disadvantages "Trick Knee" and "False Teeth" for advantages like "Hung Like John Holmes" just aren't even interesting to me as a player.
Newer Shadowrun is heavily point buy, but with a 2nd/3rd hybrid I have a Lifepath system in place.
A lot of games that come heavily point buy with no randomness, I usually get by with templates, archetypes, lifepaths, randomness, anything that can add Discovery to the Design/Build aspect.
But, that's what works for me and mine.
Personally, I kind of like to find out if a new player is going to whine and grouse about chargen. It lets me know that person is going to need a more in depth 'Expectations" talk.
I use point buy in my system to avoid levels. That is honestly my only reason for it. It allows a growing character to grow how the game and player needs. Our system has a random roll creation option for NPCs that would work for a player if they prefer.
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
Why would anyone need to defend it? Because you dislike it? Who cares what you like. Don't use it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
Why is there a need to "defend" a way to create a character?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954179I've been the guy in a couple of D&D games in which I couldn't actually play with random because my stats had to be bumped up to be able to QUALIFY for a class. And another player had two 16 and nothing under 12.)
(https://images.fitpregnancy.mdpcdn.com/sites/fitpregnancy.com/files/3-but-it-is-more-like-this.gif)
If you're playing a D&D version with a wider range of stats mods, I think you almost have to use it, to give folks a shot at not being nerfed by bad rolls. Plus, if THEY build the stats, then they can't bitch about it.
That said, I prefer random rolls. And I haven't really had many players that mind them.
Because they prefer it. No other 'defense' is required.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954238Inability to articulate his mockery...
Well, I dunno, man, when this has happened to the table I'M RUNNING I'm not all that pleased either. Because stat imbalanced means more work for me, for less fun for EVERYBODY! But then, Vulva here has probably never ran any games, so he likely has no clue what he's talking. As usual.
The hate is real.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954238(https://images.fitpregnancy.mdpcdn.com/sites/fitpregnancy.com/files/3-but-it-is-more-like-this.gif)
We need to get the tiny violin smiley back.
I recently had somebody roll the second ever Paladin in my D&D game. Considering how fucking powerful the Greyhawk paladin is, that's a damn good thing.
I'd rather have a rare, powerful paladin then a frequent, gimped paladin.
Also, in OD&d there IS no such thing as minimum stat scores for the base classes.
Shitting up the game system was the problem, not random rolling for stats. If forced to play PATHFINDER I won't use 3d6 in order because if you don't have several 13s and 14s and at least one 18 the system will ass-rape you until your nose bleeds.
I prefer Low Fantasy Gaming's rolling method (unsurpringingly ;)) -
Everyone rolls.
Anyone can choose to use anyone else's array (possibly with a small penalty)
In hindsight I would have added to the book - the GM also rolls a set, as a spare to choose from.
You get the randomness, but no-one gets left behind with a bad series of rolls.
Quote from: Psikerlord;954247I prefer Low Fantasy Gaming's rolling method (unsurpringingly ;)) -
Everyone rolls.
Anyone can choose to use anyone else's array (possibly with a small penalty)
In hindsight I would have added to the book - the GM also rolls a set, as a spare to choose from.
You get the randomness, but no-one gets left behind with a bad series of rolls.
Smart idea for its purposes.
I hate random rolls for stats. Part of what I enjoy about RPGs are the tactical elements. While RNG during play is fun and makes you come up with backup plans etc. - rolling for stats can permanently gimp your character which can utterly suck.
Random rolls for one-shots or games where I expect to die like Call of Cthulhu is fine - but for a campaign it's the touch of death.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;954250I hate random rolls for stats. Part of what I enjoy about RPGs are the tactical elements. While RNG during play is fun and makes you come up with backup plans etc. - rolling for stats can permanently gimp your character which can utterly suck.
Random rolls for one-shots or games where I expect to die like Call of Cthulhu is fine - but for a campaign it's the touch of death.
What if you are allowed to choose someone else's rolled array (possibly with a small penalty)?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;954245We need to get the tiny violin smiley back.
I recently had somebody roll the second ever Paladin in my D&D game. Considering how fucking powerful the Greyhawk paladin is, that's a damn good thing.
I'd rather have a rare, powerful paladin then a frequent, gimped paladin.
Anecdote: AD&D Paladins were not rare, they were non-existent. They weren't worth the good rolls that you got. Also fun note, you could have all six stats at 16 in AD&D and you STILL couldn't be a Paladin. Cuz in AD&D the only stat they needed high was Charisma which was 17. Which did nothing, other than modify Henchmen likely hood, which Paladins couldn't really get because any minion gained HAD to be Lawful Good. Also, in AD&D you got no stat bonus until 16 (except for Dex which started at 15, I think. Don't have the books in reach.) I think they also needed a 12? 13? In Strength and Wisdom, and 9? in everything else, so all that, when if you roll a 16, in any stat, save for Charisma (Unless you want small army at your beck and call... HYPERBOLE!) meant you got at the very least an XP bonus (I think it was 10%?) and either a bonus to certain saves and in the case of Dexterity or Strength, a bonus to hit with certain weapon types. That's better than anything that the Paladin gave.
So yeah, learn the new editions if you wanna talk smack, Smiley, otherwise, go sit in your corner and wave your cane at us some more.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;954246Also, in OD&d there IS no such thing as minimum stat scores for the base classes.
Shitting up the game system was the problem, not random rolling for stats. If forced to play PATHFINDER I won't use 3d6 in order because if you don't have several 13s and 14s and at least one 18 the system will ass-rape you until your nose bleeds.
Yeah, yeah, I get it, I'm doing it wrong again, I'm so sorry your Highness for not playing YOUR edition. The RIGHT one.
Quote from: Psikerlord;954247I prefer Low Fantasy Gaming's rolling method (unsurpringingly ;)) -
Everyone rolls.
Anyone can choose to use anyone else's array (possibly with a small penalty)
In hindsight I would have added to the book - the GM also rolls a set, as a spare to choose from.
You get the randomness, but no-one gets left behind with a bad series of rolls.
What I did is I let ALL players roll, then let the table decide which of the player rolls the entire table chooses. And let them assign the numbers to whatever stat. It's more egalitarian and prevents having one person playing the Thief with the highest roll of 7 in his Con.
When crafting a dungeon adventure, I'd rather not have to deal with issues of trying to balance around someone who will die every fight, and the rest of the table having fun. Character death should be determined by player choice, not that he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn because some random number generator gave him a bad average to work with.
I prefer it.
I want people to make the character they want to play. I don't mind life path random tables however I would never require them. You can use them for inspiration if you like, or randomly roll everything if you like but as a PLAYER I hate random stat generation. If I'm in the mood to play the Paladin, I want to create a Paladin, not toss the dice over 10 campaigns and hope I get a Paladin. I tend to GM with an eye on the players, so I don't push things I don't personally enjoy. It also makes things go faster. Once the player rolls up a crappy stat array you're just going to have to quibble to get them to play something they don't want. "How fast can I get this character killed?" comes up often during my traditional character generation sessions (as recently as a month ago in the C&C game). I'm just doing this to have fun, so less haggling and hang-wringing = more fun for me.
Well, CB, um...I think Gronan admitted he'd use something other than 3d6IO if playing something more modern (aka Pathfinder).
I also think you might be forgetting the Paladin's special abilities (lay hands, not sure about disease immunity and so on, etc.).
The fact that the new editions pretty much require high stats might not necessarily be a good thing, if survivability is nigh-impossible without them (as opposed to earlier editions, with lower stat bonuses). This means everyone is above average, in most of their abilities. I guess if the idea is that adventurers ARE above average anyway, their stats should reflect that. Some might say that being a hero is more about what you do, rather than your measurements. I can play either way, though. Just observing.
Tagential, but: I just like the stat SCORES to MEAN a a bit more than being the mechanism by which to gain +'s. In my upcoming hack, I am therefore experimenting with using scores and score progression in saving throw Mods. I thought about capping at 18 and just making the score your save mod, with a target number of 20 (always). This means any stat bump is a save bump. I still might do that, but I'm not sure how much that would throw the system out of whack.
I strongly prefer random point buy.
No, really: (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/quick-characters)
d6 Score Array
1 18, 14, 12, 8, 8, 6
2 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8
3 16, 16, 12, 10, 8, 8
4 16, 12, 12, 12, 10, 8
5 14, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12
6 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10
Or this yin-yang method I devised here (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2016/07/old-school-d-and-yin-yang-method-of.html).
In short: get an old school character sheet, roll 3d6 for Intelligence, calculate Strength, roll 3d6 for Dexterity, and so on, and you get a viable, balanced character very fast.
If you don't like subtracting, use this to find the value of the second ability in each pair:
First Ability Second
18 3
17 4
16 5
15 6
14 7
13 8
12 9
11 10
10 11
9 12
8 13
7 14
6 15
5 16
4 17
3 18
Or this one, if you prefer something closer to 4d6 drop lowest (the sum is 24, and the lowest ability is 6; if you roll 5 or lower, roll again):
First Ability Second
18 6
17 7
16 8
15 9
14 10
13 11
12 12
11 13
10 14
9 15
8 16
7 17
6 18
5 roll again*
4 roll again*
3 roll again*
* Alternatively, results from 3 to 5 in the first roll would break the mold to create a Monk, Dexterity Ranger, or some other special class.
Works greatly for AD&D.
The idea is keeping things random but balanced at the same time.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;9541661e AD&D did not recommend 3d6 in order, but thank you for the knee-jerk edition bash, fuckwit.
.......which wasn't what he said anyway. So what are you huffing and puffing about?
Quote from: cranebump;954263Well, CB, um...I think Gronan admitted he'd use something other than 3d6IO if playing something more modern (aka Pathfinder).
He also used the term 'forced', which again, implies that he disproves of any other method of character creation. Well, other editions in general.
Quote from: cranebump;954263I also think you might be forgetting the Paladin's special abilities (lay hands, not sure about disease immunity and so on, etc.).
Those were not deemed worth the roll investiture. Again, anecdote. Although we were breaking the rules anyway, because we let people assign the stats as they liked. Also, this was assuming you could get past 1st level, which was no guarantee. Also, you're forgetting the restrictions, like one (I think, might be misremembering this, was it just one? Maybe a couple more) magic weapon, one magic suit of armour... A shield and I think... 2-3 more magic items that don't fit the above? And then there's the forcing the DM to monitor alignment closely...
Too much hassle to for too little gain (after all, you get to lay on hands for what? 1 or 2 HP per class level. I know that you turned undead as a cleric two levels lower. Oh, and the mount at fourth, which if you're doing mostly Dungeon crawls meant very little use.)
I remember once we had nothing but a party of Fighting types, two Fighters, a Dwarf and a Halfling because the random rolls fit those classes best (This was a Rules Cyclopedia game, not too long ago.) We didn't last beyond the first room in the Caves of Chaos. We tried sneaking past the sleeping Ogre. That worked about as well as you might guess.
Quote from: cranebump;954263The fact that the new editions pretty much require high stats might not necessarily be a good thing, if survivability is nigh-impossible without them (as opposed to earlier editions, with lower stat bonuses). This means everyone is above average, in most of their abilities. I guess if the idea is that adventurers ARE above average anyway, their stats should reflect that. Some might say that being a hero is more about what you do, rather than your measurements.
Tagential, but: I just like the stat SCORES to MEAN a a bit more than being the mechanism by which to gain +'s. In my upcoming hack, I am therefore experimenting with using scores and score progression in saving throw Mods. I thought about capping at 18 and just making the score your save mod, with a target number of 20 (always). This means any stat bump is a save bump. I still might do that, but I'm not sure how much that would throw the system out of whack.
The mandatory high score thing was a 3 and 4e bugbear, mostly. But who doesn't want to able to do decent with their class of choice? Also, when you're stats actively penalize you all because the little random number generators decided 2's and 1's, with a smattering of 3's from time to time, it can be annoying. And I don't know about any one else, but if I'm going to play or run a game, I fully intend on having fun, with my friends.
What I was getting at is that the mod spread in 3 through 5E sorta mandates higher scores. In ye olden times, 18 was rare. It's a given in 5E that you'll reach 20 in your preferred stat, unless you skip the bumps. I would agree there is more of a need for high scores in 3,4,5E. I would disagree that scores make the game more fun, but fun is relative. I'd rather play my character, than jack off to my stat sheet (er, whoops...did that slip out?).
Paladin abilities: continuous protection from evil field, detect evil within 60' by concentrating, lay hands, holy sword, loyal mount, some turn undead, spells. That's not too shabby. They have restrictions, but the restrIcyions make sense, imho.
I think it boils down to whether you interpret modern stat bloat as "everyone is special," or "if everyone is special, no one is."
(I'm lucky--never had any player get jealous over someone else's stats. Need a poll maybe: how much do you give a shit about stats?)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954179I've been the guy in a couple of D&D games in which I couldn't actually play with random because my stats had to be bumped up to be able to QUALIFY for a class.
"Here or lower the character can only be a Fighter" Note on the Intelligence table. IIRC in that edition Fighters were the only class without minimum attribute scores.
Quote from: cranebump;954263Well, CB, um...I think Gronan admitted he'd use something other than 3d6IO if playing something more modern (aka Pathfinder).
I also think you might be forgetting the Paladin's special abilities (lay hands, not sure about disease immunity and so on, etc.).
The fact that the new editions pretty much require high stats might not necessarily be a good thing, if survivability is nigh-impossible without them (as opposed to earlier editions, with lower stat bonuses). This means everyone is above average, in most of their abilities. I guess if the idea is that adventurers ARE above average anyway, their stats should reflect that. Some might say that being a hero is more about what you do, rather than your measurements. I can play either way, though. Just observing.
Tagential, but: I just like the stat SCORES to MEAN a a bit more than being the mechanism by which to gain +'s. In my upcoming hack, I am therefore experimenting with using scores and score progression in saving throw Mods. I thought about capping at 18 and just making the score your save mod, with a target number of 20 (always). This means any stat bump is a save bump. I still might do that, but I'm not sure how much that would throw the system out of whack.
If you use a roll under stat for out of combat stuff you make stats directly relevant again, as opposed to trying to hit DCs
Quote from: Eric Diaz;954265I strongly prefer random point buy.
Or this one, if you prefer something closer to 4d6 drop lowest (the sum is 24, and the lowest ability is 6; if you roll 5 or lower, roll again):
First Ability Second
18 6
17 7
16 8
15 9
14 10
13 11
12 12
11 13
10 14
9 15
8 16
7 17
6 18
5 roll again*
4 roll again*
3 roll again*
* Alternatively, results from 3 to 5 in the first roll would break the mold to create a Monk, Dexterity Ranger, or some other special class.[/I]
Works greatly for AD&D.
The idea is keeping things random but balanced at the same time.
I like this one :D
Quote from: Psikerlord;954275If you use a roll under stat for out of combat stuff you make stats directly relevant again, as opposed to trying to hit DCs
True, but I'm aiming for uniformity in resolution (high =good, low=bad). Just a preference. I think adding stat to d20 with target of 20 is essentially the same effect though, right?
S&W:WB only has -1/0/+1 for stats. Roll 7 or less, -1; roll 14 or more +1. It's simple and keeps stats tight and less important. However, it also means there's a 10% difference between Conan the Barbarian and Conan O'Brien for Strength and Constitution.
Back in the early 80s, my crew ditched the AD&D stat charts for the Basic D&D charts because we liked 3D6 down the line (or 63 point spread). Our choice actually spread to several other game clubs in the Bay Area to the point of teen argument at the local convention about which club did it first!
These days, I think the last Gamma World may have found the best solution. You get an 18 in your prime, a 16 in your secondary and 3D6 for the rest.
I get why new editions do the array. It's fast, its balanced, its varied enough, and it results in a canonized final decision against the whining bitches.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954261Anecdote: AD&D Paladins were not rare, they were non-existent. They weren't worth the good rolls that you got. Also fun note, you could have all six stats at 16 in AD&D and you STILL couldn't be a Paladin. Cuz in AD&D the only stat they needed high was Charisma which was 17. Which did nothing, other than modify Henchmen likely hood, which Paladins couldn't really get because any minion gained HAD to be Lawful Good.
If the referee and the player can't figure out what to do with a 17 or 18 Charisma other than by the rules holding them by the hands perhaps they should be not playing tabletop roleplaying. You are right that characteristics in OD&D don't do in much terms of actual mechanics. There going to be a world of difference in my ruling between a character with a 15 strength trying to portage a rowboat around some rapids and a player with a 5 strength trying to do the same thing despite the lack of any formal mechanic to handle this in OD&D.
Is my ruling going to be as detailed as the one I make with the GURPS rules for the same situation. Not of course not. But it will do the job and regardless of whether it was GURPS or OD&D the characters to wind up in the same situation at the end of the portage. Except with GURPS you can calculate exactly how fatigued the characters are and how long it will take them to recover. With OD&D will be a similar result but more of a guessimate. But neither way is "superior" or more "evolved". The problem is that your responses are condensing and dismissive particularly when it comes to older editions of D&D versus newer edition.
For the Majestic Wilderlands RPG, I use the following charte
3-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-11: +0
12-14: +1
15-17: +2
18: +3
I don't like d20/4e/5e +/-1 per 2 as it stack up too quickly.
I think OD&D's -1/+0/+1 is too coarse.
AD&D take too put too much of a premium on rolling a 15 or better stat.
I used it successfully for a decade to run campaigns. Which makes it superior for me. For anybody else it may or not work but if you do try it you know it been used in actual play and wasn't pulled out of my ass.
Your Majestic Wilderlands chart is a good one, its minimizes the negatives and accentuates the positives starting at 12 which is easy enough to roll. Do you do 3D6 down the line or some other method?
I use the Basic D&D chart:
3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-12 = 0
13-15 = +1
16-17 = +2
18 = +3
Quote from: estar;954281If the referee and the player can't figure out what to do with a 17 or 18 Charisma other than by the rules holding them by the hands perhaps they should be not playing tabletop roleplaying. You are right that characteristics in OD&D don't do in much terms of actual mechanics. There going to be a world of difference in my ruling between a character with a 15 strength trying to portage a rowboat around some rapids and a player with a 5 strength trying to do the same thing despite the lack of any formal mechanic to handle this in OD&D.
That is because you are a) arguing in good faith and b) smart enough to shit unassisted.
CB's only purpose in this thread is to show us, once AGAIN, where random stats touched his character in a bad way.
Quote from: cranebump;954277True, but I'm aiming for uniformity in resolution (high =good, low=bad). Just a preference. I think adding stat to d20 with target of 20 is essentially the same effect though, right?
The target should be 21, other than that, you're right. That's what I'm using in Low Fantasy RPG:).
And for random, I prefer my method of "assign 24d6 to the six stats, between 3 and 6 dice to a stat, then rol and keep the best 3 in all cases";).
Charisma isn't a dump stat in OD&D because of the reaction table and mercenaries. A high CHA PC is badass RAW because on 2D6 reaction charts, a +2 is very meaningful. Also, hirelings pumped with CHA infused bravery were not only extra HP, they are extra attacks and extra pack mules to loot the dungeon.
Quote from: AsenRG;954301And for random, I prefer my method of "assign 24d6 to the six stats, between 3 and 6 dice to a stat, then rol and keep the best 3 in all cases";).
That's good stuff. It's a nice combo of random chance and a sense of control.
Quote from: Trond;954266.......which wasn't what he said anyway.
Let's review.
Quote from: Voros;954105I seriously doubt most people did the 3d6 in order chargen as if they did Paladins and Bards would have been rarer than hen's teeth in 1e.
Yes, they would've been rare in 1e if you didn't, y'know, understand that 3d6 was specifically not recommended for use with 1e.
If I gave an extra fraction of a fuck I'd dredge up the quote from the 1e
PHB about characters having at least two attribute scores of 15 or more, but it's Voros, so it's teaching a pig to sing already.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954303That's good stuff. It's a nice combo of random chance and a sense of control.
Yeah, it would work better for some games, and worse for others:).
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954179I've been the guy in a couple of D&D games in which I couldn't actually play with random because my stats had to be bumped up to be able to QUALIFY for a class. And another player had two 16 and nothing under 12.)
In what D&D? In O and BX your stats dont disqualify you from a class and in AD&D low stats just disqualify you from certain classes and with r4h3 its less likely to get enough low stats to disqualify you from every class. In which case you just re-roll as the rules say to. Heres a quick set. 5, 10, 14, 12, 13, 12. The 5 limits me to a Magic User, Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Illusionist or Assassin and the other rolls arent good enough to qualify for an Illusionist so that eliminates that class. Still five available. Wouldnt be an exactly great Cleric past level 10, but could be a passable magic user to level 15. Fighter and Thief and Assassin are good to go. Id probably go Assassin as havent played one yet in AD&D.
Quote from: cranebump;954240If you're playing a D&D version with a wider range of stats mods, I think you almost have to use it, to give folks a shot at not being nerfed by bad rolls. Plus, if THEY build the stats, then they can't bitch about it.
That said, I prefer random rolls. And I haven't really had many players that mind them.
The bell curve, especially in AD&D means getting alot of low rolls is relatively rare. And you can assign those to unimportant stats and live with it and probably try to avoid situations where that stat/s gets used alot. That Assassin I rolled up above is going to be letting someone else do the negotiating since I had to drop that 5 into charisma. (3 if opted for Half Orc)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954261Anecdote: AD&D Paladins were not rare, they were non-existent. They weren't worth the good rolls that you got. Also fun note, you could have all six stats at 16 in AD&D and you STILL couldn't be a Paladin. Cuz in AD&D the only stat they needed high was Charisma which was 17. Which did nothing, other than modify Henchmen likely hood, which Paladins couldn't really get because any minion gained HAD to be Lawful Good.
Also, in AD&D you got no stat bonus until 16 (except for Dex which started at 15, I think. Don't have the books in reach.) I think they also needed a 12? 13? In Strength and Wisdom, and 9? in everything else, so all that, when if you roll a 16, in any stat, save for Charisma (Unless you want small army at your beck and call... HYPERBOLE!) meant you got at the very least an XP bonus (I think it was 10%?) and either a bonus to certain saves and in the case of Dexterity or Strength, a bonus to hit with certain weapon types. That's better than anything that the Paladin gave.
1: Correct that paladins needed a 17 CHA. But that 17 CHA also got you a +30% reaction bonus on encounters/negotiations so potentially less hostiles to deal with. As for henchmen you got a +30% loyalty too. And why cant they get LG henchmen? They are just as likely to show up as any other alignment.
2: Actually a Cleric needs at least a 17 WIS to cast 6th level spells. 18 to cast 7th level. Magic Users need an 18 INT to cast 9th level spells.
16 in a stat gets you... +1 to hit melee, 65% chance to be able to learn a MU spell, 2 extra 1st & 2nd level cleric spells, +1 initiative, and ranged attacks and +2 AC, +2 HP, and lastly fairly good loyalty and reaction/negotiation.
Quote from: cranebump;954270What I was getting at is that the mod spread in 3 through 5E sorta mandates higher scores.
Not really. You can do just fine with dead average stats and no bonuses at all. But the magic classes will likely want to start pumping their primary stat if only so opponents arent resisting so frequently or their spells missing alot. Melee types can get by if they can lay hands on magic items. But might want to bump up their primary too at some point.
Which is one of 5e's strengths in that even with average rolls you can eventually top out most characters primary at the very least. (unless you somehow rolled all 8s or less. In which case just re-roll.)
Quote from: DavetheLost;954273"Here or lower the character can only be a Fighter" Note on the Intelligence table. IIRC in that edition Fighters were the only class without minimum attribute scores.
A STR of 5 or lower and you could only be a MU, Fighters needed at least a 9 STR. An INT of 5 or lower and you could only be a Fighter, MUs needed a 9 INT. WIS 5 or lower and it was Thief only, Clerics needed a 9. DEX 5 or lower and only a Cleric, MUs needed a 6 and Thiefs needed a 9. CON 5 or lower and only Illusionist allowed, Fighters needed a 7. CHA 5 or lower and only assassin allowed.
Dont have 2e handy so not sure if they did away with that or not?
Quote from: Omega;954317Not really. You can do just fine with dead average stats and no bonuses at all. But the magic classes will likely want to start pumping their primary stat if only so opponents arent resisting so frequently or their spells missing alot. Melee types can get by if they can lay hands on magic items. But might want to bump up their primary too at some point.
Which is one of 5e's strengths in that even with average rolls you can eventually top out most characters primary at the very least. (unless you somehow rolled all 8s or less. In which case just re-roll.)
I'll take your word for it here, since my experience of 5E, after release, is about 5 sessions. And speaking only for me, I could play with whatever hand I was dealt. I'm just not sure that's what players think when they actually sit down to play 3,4 or 5E. I say this because you have stat bumps seems to indicate that the expectation is that you will end up with at least one high number. I also think that the spread difference -- +0 for average score (if "average" means a 10 or 11) and +5 for being at the pinnacle-- also indicates that the system expects, and pushes, high scores. In fact, what is "low" in modern play is an altogether different animal than what it used to be. I can't prove it, but I am willing to bet you have a high percentage of adherents who would consider 12-13 "low" (and anything below 10 as unplayable). because, again, the expectation seems to indicate you'll be pushing at least a couple of stats to 16 or higher, in the long run.
Or, I'll put it this way. I can recall, at one time, being ecstatic with a character who had all scores ranging between 12 and 15, indicating they were a sort of badass (especially on the 18=+3 scale). I feel like such a character now might be considered slightly above average. Neither here nor there. Just shows differences in expectations/perspective.
This is why I think we should just give up, start all stats at 10, and then roll d6 or something to add to each stat. Otherwise, the frowny faces come out at having to play a character with a negative.:-/
Quote from: Spinachcat;954280These days, I think the last Gamma World may have found the best solution. You get an 18 in your prime, a 16 in your secondary and 3D6 for the rest.
No one seemed to like it that I ever talked to. Apparently it felt like catering to munchkins some, and others just didnt like rolling stats as 4th eds default was an array. 16 14 13 12 11 10. But then they also werent keen on having to roll everything except your name and starting gear.
Quote from: AsenRG;954301The target should be 21, other than that, you're right. That's what I'm using in Low Fantasy RPG:).
And for random, I prefer my method of "assign 24d6 to the six stats, between 3 and 6 dice to a stat, then rol and keep the best 3 in all cases";).
Ahhh, that's right. You are correct. (I think I was told this once before, but conveniently forgot it):-)
My main gripe with point-buy is that it tends to take a lot of time. Also, depending on the system, min-maxing with disadvantages and advantages.
Quote from: cranebump;954321I'll take your word for it here, since my experience of 5E, after release, is about 5 sessions. And speaking only for me, I could play with whatever hand I was dealt. I'm just not sure that's what players think when they actually sit down to play 3,4 or 5E. I say this because you have stat bumps seems to indicate that the expectation is that you will end up with at least one high number.
This is why I think we should just give up, start all stats at 10, and then roll d6 or something to add to each stat. Otherwise, the frowny faces come out at having to play a character with a negative.:-/
1: In 5e going array or point buy the highest your stats can get is 15 before race bonus. (During playtest it was max 16) So the expectation seems to be that the characters start out ok in two stats, average in three others and slightly sub par in one stat if array and potentially three high stats but also three sub par stats if point by min-maxing. From there you have your stat points from level up to improve as you please.
2: Drink deeply of their tears.
Quote from: Omega;9543161: And why cant they get LG henchmen? They are just as likely to show up as any other alignment.
Yeah, and all except the LG ones has to be discarded, it seems?
(Random rolls strikes again.)
-----------------------------
......Now to my actual post:
So, i'm late to the party, I see?
8 pages already to a topic which is pretty dear to me.
I most certainly think point buy is best, hands down.
For those not sure of what to play as, it could be good with Archetypes or Pre-made Characters that one can choose between or roll randomly between.
But also, as reality isn't exactly fair nor orderly in where graces are put, I see a validation for including a bit of randomization to top things off, like two random rolls that, depending on roll, may add to base stats, add a skill or two, from basket weaving .... and blacksmithing, to herbal lore or increased weapon skill.
I'd like that.
Quote from: 3rik;954324My main gripe with point-buy is that it tends to take a lot of time. Also, depending on the system, min-maxing with disadvantages and advantages.
That's another reason why I prefer White Wolf's "Storytelling" System(and similar), with stats at 1-5 and skills at 1-5.
It is pretty fast in those areas.
The deciding and min-maxing, however .... well, what's worst, peeps min-maxing or peeps complaining about having "lesser characters"?
Both can be a problem ... or not, depending on the GM and the people playing it.
Well, I guess I'm late to the party. People seem to have put forth the main and most important arguments already. My main argument is to thumbs up Omega's "This again?" and "All work and some work better for some players than others." Opinions on stat determination to me are like opinions on ascending or descending AC-- I honestly do not get why it is a big deal to anyone.
As to the stats themselves, I'm split between wanting to argue that they simply do not matter that much and acknowledging that they matter differently depending upon which edition (or edition+expansions) you are playing with. My first game, a BECMI game DMed by someone who started with OD&D or Holmes, the only thing we used the stats for was the XP bonus in your prime req, Charisma on the reaction table, and ad hoc attribute checks to do things like walk tightropes or whatever. In that, any stat generation method would have worked. 3e and 4e--you really want a high con and prime req, as these tend to modify much of the rolls you will be making (or saves the enemies make to your spells). But even then you can also just dial the challenges you are facing up or down and end up with the same result. Tenbones had it right. High stats won't save you from dumb decisions. And as corollary, low stats won't make you sink if the DM is handing out holy avengers at 2nd level. HD rolls at low levels, wizard spells if those are determined randomly, treasure tables, key save-or-die save attempts--those are the random rolls that truly make or break characters.
Quote from: Omega;954318A STR of 5 or lower and you could only be a MU, Fighters needed at least a 9 STR. An INT of 5 or lower and you could only be a Fighter, MUs needed a 9 INT. WIS 5 or lower and it was Thief only, Clerics needed a 9. DEX 5 or lower and only a Cleric, MUs needed a 6 and Thiefs needed a 9. CON 5 or lower and only Illusionist allowed, Fighters needed a 7. CHA 5 or lower and only assassin allowed.
Dont have 2e handy so not sure if they did away with that or not?
There's a table with minimums. For each of the 4 basic classes you needed a 9 in your prime req to qualify. There wasn't any 'Str <=5, then MU only' type stuff, though.
Quote from: Christopher BradyAnecdote: AD&D Paladins were not rare, they were non-existent. They weren't worth the good rolls that you got. Also fun note, you could have all six stats at 16 in AD&D and you STILL couldn't be a Paladin. Cuz in AD&D the only stat they needed high was Charisma which was 17. Which did nothing, other than modify Henchmen likely hood, which Paladins couldn't really get because any minion gained HAD to be Lawful Good.
Quote from: estar;954281If the referee and the player can't figure out what to do with a 17 or 18 Charisma other than by the rules holding them by the hands perhaps they should be not playing tabletop roleplaying. You are right that characteristics in OD&D don't do in much terms of actual mechanics. There going to be a world of difference in my ruling between a character with a 15 strength trying to portage a rowboat around some rapids and a player with a 5 strength trying to do the same thing despite the lack of any formal mechanic to handle this in OD&D.
I see that Omega already pointed this out, but Charisma also, by the rules, affects reaction adjustments. Am I the only one who thinks that's a really, really big deal? Like, makes it the most powerful stat level big deal? An 18/00 Strength and 18 Con won't make you win a fight better than circumventing the fight in the first place. I know, lots of people prefer to roleplay social encounters, including 'will the monsters charge, flee, or negotiate,' and thus don't use the reaction table. Frankly, that's what I usually do, but in doing so I acknowledge that I'm deliberately taking from the ruleset a really big part of the reason for the charisma stat existing in the first place.
Yes for my MW RPG campaigns the players roll 3d6 down the line. They can do roll a new set if they get a "bad" one but most time they are willing to put up with one or two bad stats. And because I took care not to overemphasize the bonuses, having a -1 or -2 is not as bad it would be in AD&D, 2e or 3e.
The point of me doing this is so I have just enough variation to make the difference between a Knight, Fighter, Paladin, Merchant Adventurer and a Thug meaningful. Of course one may ask why I am adding all those classes in the first place? Because 1) it reflects the reality of the Majestic Wilderlands as it developed over 30 years of play, and 2) my campaign resolves around the adventures that arise from the conflict of culture, and religion. Yes my players explore dungeon, and loot shit, but it set within in a larger context. The larger context is there because that way I give the opportunities for the player to "trash" my setting.
But I don't want to lose the straightforward nature of OD&D so I learn to juggle things and above all play test the shit out of it through actual play. Which is why these arguments are redundant because the proof in actual play. The only thing that ever done wrong it folks not communicating effectively how they made X to work in their campaign. For me I ran MW campaign that used Point buy in the form of GURPS and it worked. Also ran MW campaigns that used random rolls in the form of OD&D and it also worked. Recently I ran MW adventures using Fantasy AGE and a home brew similar to AGE that are both point buy and they too worked.
Now if somebody could point out a campaign failing because they used point buy and or randomly and give a good reason why known solutions could not apply then that would be interesting. But so far all I see is personal opinion on the order of "It's what I like" on the part of the naysayer on either said.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;954343I see that Omega already pointed this out, but Charisma also, by the rules, affects reaction adjustments. Am I the only one who thinks that's a really, really big deal? Like, makes it the most powerful stat level big deal? An 18/00 Strength and 18 Con won't make you win a fight better than circumventing the fight in the first place. I know, lots of people prefer to roleplay social encounters, including 'will the monsters charge, flee, or negotiate,' and thus don't use the reaction table. Frankly, that's what I usually do, but in doing so I acknowledge that I'm deliberately taking from the ruleset a really big part of the reason for the charisma stat existing in the first place.
Its a really big deal since it can turn foes into friends or at least keep them from jiffybaking you with their fire breath. Its also useful for snap encounter reactions. You run into some orcs as you explore some caves and for whatever reason on first sight the leader, or all of them take a liking to the high CHA PC and arent hostile as long as the party isnt. Its not quite as omni-powerful as it is in BX. But a 30%+ bonus for good CHA is potentially very far reaching.
And it can get the PC in all sorts of trouble from unwanted attention. Followers, suitors, overly friendly animals. Jealous Dragons... ow...
Quote from: Willie the Duck;954343I see that Omega already pointed this out, but Charisma also, by the rules, affects reaction adjustments. Am I the only one who thinks that's a really, really big deal? Like, makes it the most powerful stat level big deal? An 18/00 Strength and 18 Con won't make you win a fight better than circumventing the fight in the first place. I know, lots of people prefer to roleplay social encounters, including 'will the monsters charge, flee, or negotiate,' and thus don't use the reaction table. Frankly, that's what I usually do, but in doing so I acknowledge that I'm deliberately taking from the ruleset a really big part of the reason for the charisma stat existing in the first place.
I prefer to roleplay social encounters however Charisma is still hugely important. Because the difference in the ability of players to act, what I am looking for is the plan or thread of logic the player is driving for. I will give a good acting performance its due but by and large I adjudicate the effect of what the player said based on a roll based on his Charisma stat.
A player of a character with a 3 charisma will have a hard time successfully interacting with most people even if what they say is totally coherent and germane to the situation. I have had players be frustrated with low charisma characters because the NPCs kept treating them like shit. To the point where I had to explain out of game to remind them what the deal was.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;954343I see that Omega already pointed this out, but Charisma also, by the rules, affects reaction adjustments. Am I the only one who thinks that's a really, really big deal? Like, makes it the most powerful stat level big deal?
Most powerful by a wide margin. If the group is of the "Charisma is your dump stat" mentality, that's because they play "FIGHTFIGHTFIGHT" and don't have/notice/use Reaction rolls.
New players getting the idea that "maybe you can try talking to the goblins" might yield better (i.e. less lethal for the PCs) results than "roll for initiative" is transformative.
Quote from: darthfozzywig;954380Most powerful by a wide margin. If the group is of the "Charisma is your dump stat" mentality, that's because they play "FIGHTFIGHTFIGHT" and don't have/notice/use Reaction rolls.
New players getting the idea that "maybe you can try talking to the goblins" might yield better (i.e. less lethal for the PCs) results than "roll for initiative" is transformative.
Well, usually. There is an exception. If you can role-play the social interaction instead of rolling, and you aren't playing 'Keep, followers, and fiefdom after name level,' then Charisma really absolutely can become a dump stat, even if you don't play fightfightfight. However, that's deliberately taking from the charisma stat the main things that it is important for (other than qualifying for certain classes in certain editions).
- It puts every character on an even playing field, stat wise. Shaming gamers who want their PCs to start on a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming poker players who want to start with the same chips as players who put the same cash into the pot, or shaming parents who want their kids to have the same treatment and opportunities in school as other kids.
- It eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts." We can shame and blame until we're blue in the face, but everyone has a point at which an acceptable and possibly even creativity-inspiring handicap becomes an intolerable and pointless disability. Different people have different breaking points, but "he who throws the first stone," and all that.
- It's super-convenient for con adventures, and for friendly adventures where there's limited IRL time to play so you want to just be able to say "Show up with a level X (or X amount of XP) character, use point buy Y." ...Well, you can still have players roll at home of course, but that introduces the temptation to cheat.
- For those who show up with a character idea, point buy guarantees that you won't be randomly cockblocked from playing that character.
- It makes DMing easier.
- I like it.
As others on this thread have detailed, there are also stat gen methods that combine features of both random and point buy. The potluck method, the random array method, and a unique card randomizer all come to mind.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396- It puts every character on an even playing field, stat wise. Shaming gamers who want their PCs to start on a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming poker players who want to start with the same chips as players who put the same cash into the pot, or shaming parents who want their kids to have the same treatment and opportunities in school as other kids.
- It eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts." We can shame and blame until we're blue in the face, but everyone has a point at which an acceptable and possibly even creativity-inspiring handicap becomes an intolerable and pointless disability. Different people have different breaking points, but "he who throws the first stone," and all that.
- It's super-convenient for con adventures, and for friendly adventures where there's limited IRL time to play so you want to just be able to say "Show up with a level X (or X amount of XP) character, use point buy Y." ...Well, you can still have players roll at home of course, but that introduces the temptation to cheat.
- For those who show up with a character idea, point buy guarantees that you won't be randomly cockblocked from playing that character.
- It makes DMing easier.
- I like it.
As others on this thread have detailed, there are also stat gen methods that combine features of both random and point buy. The potluck method, the random array method, and a unique card randomizer all come to mind.
Pretty much what I've said. Can't add much more at this point.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;954343I see that Omega already pointed this out, but Charisma also, by the rules, affects reaction adjustments. . . . I know, lots of people prefer to roleplay social encounters, including 'will the monsters charge, flee, or negotiate,' and thus don't use the reaction table.
Lots of people are
pinche (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pinche) vavosos (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vavoso) who don't understand that it's not either/or (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/social-skills-and-roleplaying.html).
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396- It puts every character on an even playing field, stat wise. Shaming gamers who want their PCs to start on a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming poker players who want to start with the same chips as players who put the same cash into the pot, or shaming parents who want their kids to have the same treatment and opportunities in school as other kids.
- It eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts." We can shame and blame until we're blue in the face, but everyone has a point at which an acceptable and possibly even creativity-inspiring handicap becomes an intolerable and pointless disability. Different people have different breaking points, but "he who throws the first stone," and all that.
- It's super-convenient for con adventures, and for friendly adventures where there's limited IRL time to play so you want to just be able to say "Show up with a level X (or X amount of XP) character, use point buy Y." ...Well, you can still have players roll at home of course, but that introduces the temptation to cheat.
- For those who show up with a character idea, point buy guarantees that you won't be randomly cockblocked from playing that character.
- It makes DMing easier.
- I like it.
Pretty much this.
Not a fan of random rolls. If I have the opportunity to play in a OSR game, and the GM wants his old-school rolls, then so be it. His table, his rules. If I end up with eights in every attribute, I'll be playing Fritz, the delusional hobo, who believes he's a Palladin of the Sacred Temple of Genre. If he gets geeked, no biggie. Just a game.
But if it's my table, it's gonna be point-buy up in that motherfucker. Even if I run an OSR style game, which I do rarely, I'll use a homebrew point-buy system because (A) I prefer such systems and (B) just to annoy the purists. :p
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396- It puts every character on an even playing field, stat wise. Shaming gamers who want their PCs to start on a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming poker players who want to start with the same chips as players who put the same cash into the pot, or shaming parents who want their kids to have the same treatment and opportunities in school as other kids.
That is the single stupidest gawdamn thing I've read on this site since . . . geebus, who the fuck am I kidding, that's only the stupidest thing I've read on this site today.
If blue whales could pile up their shit, that's how full of shit your analogies would be.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954425That is the single stupidest gawdamn thing I've read on this site since . . . geebus, who the fuck am I kidding, that's only the stupidest thing I've read on this site today.
If blue whales could pile up their shit, that's how full of shit your analogies would be.
Vulmea's charismatic style of response aside, I have to agree that those analogies are completely inappropriate, because they both are examples of people in direct
competition, the lack of which is pretty much a common identifying feature of what makes RPGs unique.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;954429Vulmea's charismatic style of response aside, I have to agree that those analogies are completely inappropriate, because they both are examples of people in direct competition, the lack of which is pretty much a common identifying feature of what makes RPGs unique.
And there we have it. It's "if Bob has a candy bar, why can't I?" I assume you and Bob are on the same team?
(Gonna remember this the next (first) time someone balks at random roll.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It puts every character on an even playing field, stat wise. Shaming gamers who want their PCs to start on a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming poker players who want to start with the same chips as players who put the same cash into the pot, or shaming parents who want their kids to have the same treatment and opportunities in school as other kids.
As mentioned three times already, useless and irrelevant analogies.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts." We can shame and blame until we're blue in the face, but everyone has a point at which an acceptable and possibly even creativity-inspiring handicap becomes an intolerable and pointless disability. Different people have different breaking points, but "he who throws the first stone," and all that.
Most of us play with people who don't count anything other than a 100% hand-picked character as a "pointless disability". The rest might want to try it.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It's super-convenient for con adventures, and for friendly adventures where there's limited IRL time to play so you want to just be able to say "Show up with a level X (or X amount of XP) character, use point buy Y." ...Well, you can still have players roll at home of course, but that introduces the temptation to cheat.
If I can't trust players, I'm not going to attempt to social engineer them through mechanics, I'm going to flush them. Con adventures, especially if it's some form of organized play, are an ok reason.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396For those who show up with a character idea, point buy guarantees that you won't be randomly cockblocked from playing that character.
Either special snowflake players or bad GMs can't be fixed with mechanics.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It makes DMing easier.
If you can't handle grouping average stat and great stat players, or need stat arrays to make things easier, you need a lot of experience.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396I like it.
That's really the only good reason.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954448Either special snowflake players or bad GMs can't be fixed with mechanics.
.
Yeah, because having an idea for a character really makes you a special snowflake. The amount of BS here is really mind boggling. Of course this is a point in favor of point buy systems. A point in favor of random rolls is that you really don't need to come up with anything beforehand.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954414Lots of people are pinche (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pinche) vavosos (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vavoso) who don't understand that it's not either/or (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/social-skills-and-roleplaying.html).
Indeed. There are times a good CHA score just isnt going to help. Oh do my characters know that all to well. But in a really free-wheeling freeform session it can end up effecting the weirdest things. Which can make for some bemusingly weird encounters.
Quote from: Trond;954464Yeah, because having an idea for a character really makes you a special snowflake. The amount of BS here is really mind boggling. Of course this is a point in favor of point buy systems. A point in favor of random rolls is that you really don't need to come up with anything beforehand.
Its more that there are players who flip their wheels at the idea of random gen or just playing what you get. Or cant stand the thought of anyone having better luck than they. Or are just bummed that they have the suckiest stats of the party. (This last can be a very valid argument.) So point buy can help even the field as it were.
And there are those who just arent good at coming up with a good choice and so point buy or array helps here too.
The reason why some have a bad view of it is that it tends to get abused or makes for potentially boring characters. Personally I allow it and just tell a min maxer type to try again and actually create a character. Not stat mod block.
Others as noted love the challenge of random. I sure do. But I prefer OD&D and BX's allowance of control over that with point shuffling. Or allocation of rolls after all have been rolled.
Quote from: Omega;954472Others as noted love the challenge of random. I sure do. But I prefer OD&D and BX's allowance of control over that with point shuffling. Or allocation of rolls after all have been rolled.
But by even limited movement of points to get what you want, or just allocation, that's pretty much the argument against random rolling. Because you get a choice to make something closer to what you want, rather than accepting what you got.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It puts every character on an even playing field, stat wise.
Now, I really like and prefer point-buy, but this notion is a myth.
Sure, it levels the playing field in that everyone could make the same character if they wanted, but no more than that, as different stats and skills may be differently valued within the actual gameplay.
I mean, what is a fighter worth in a game that is mostly about intrigues? Or a techie in a fight? Or a rogue on a battlefield?
These are extremes, but small things may easily add up.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396Shaming gamers who want their PCs to start on a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming poker players who want to start with the same chips as players who put the same cash into the pot, or shaming parents who want their kids to have the same treatment and opportunities in school as other kids.
No. This is false equivalence. A game is still a GAME, Cash play is more serious, and Education is Entirely serious.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts." We can shame and blame until we're blue in the face, but everyone has a point at which an acceptable and possibly even creativity-inspiring handicap becomes an intolerable and pointless disability. Different people have different breaking points, but "he who throws the first stone," and all that.
No, it do not eliminate it, but it may decrease it. Having a Good DM/GM/ST/Whatever also may decrease it, mind you, as do Making Sure That The Character Generation Is Agreed Upon!
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It's super-convenient for con adventures, and for friendly adventures where there's limited IRL time to play so you want to just be able to say "Show up with a level X (or X amount of XP) character, use point buy Y." ...Well, you can still have players roll at home of course, but that introduces the temptation to cheat.
Something Truly "Super-convenient" for con games are Pre-made Characters that the GM made beforehand!
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396For those who show up with a character idea, point buy guarantees that you won't be randomly cockblocked from playing that character.
The Player may still be blocked, as the character might not fit.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It makes DMing easier.
Not really. Random Rolls are actually faster, by far.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396I like it.
I like it too, and clearly prefer it.
However, your arguments are not as solid as you may have thought they were.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954473But by even limited movement of points to get what you want, or just allocation, that's pretty much the argument against random rolling. Because you get a choice to make something closer to what you want, rather than accepting what you got.
Yeah well Gronan tends to omit that point shuffling is in OD&D whenever he mentions 3d6 in order. Yes. It is different from BX. But the systems are overall the same.
OD&D: Roll 3d6 in order, shuffle points based on class, 1 for 2 or 3 basis, additionally CON & CHA cannot be altered, DEX can be increased but not spent, 9 min.
BX: Roll 3d6 in order, shuffle points based on class, 1 for 2 basis, additionally CON & CHA cannot be altered, DEX can be increased but not spent, 9 min.
BECMI/Cyc/Classic D&D: Roll 3d6 in order, shuffle points. Only Prime, 1 for 2 basis, CON & CHA cannot be altered, DEX can be increased but not spent, 9 min.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396- It eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts."
The easier solution is to eliminate asshats from your table. Why put up with such lame bitches?
Quote from: noman;954418If I end up with eights in every attribute, I'll be playing Fritz, the delusional hobo, who believes he's a Palladin of the Sacred Temple of Genre.
THIS is the #1 reason hands down for random rolls. Fritz is a GREAT character. He is x100 more interesting than yet another point buy min/max by the numbers Paladin.
Fritz is a roleplaying gem. And nobody is going to make him in a point buy system.
Here's the joke. STR 8 is -1 to hit and DEX 8 is -1 AC. That's 5% off norm. Considering the swing of a D20, it is laughably possible that Fritz could level up again and again, becoming more memorable with each session.
Quote from: noman;954418If he gets geeked, no biggie. Just a game.
Is it a biggie when a point buy PC gets geeked?
Quote from: CRKrueger;954448If I can't trust players, I'm not going to attempt to social engineer them through mechanics, I'm going to flush them.
Player murder is a tad harsh
even by my standards, but it does keep those players out of the gene pool so you're doing God's work.
Quote from: Catelf;954486Something Truly "Super-convenient" for con games are Pre-made Characters that the GM made beforehand!
Pregens are the only way to go with conventions or game days. There is no time to waste on chargen in a 4 hour slot. Even "quick" chargen takes 15 minutes and there is always THAT DUDE who takes freaking forever to pick skills, spells or gear and now we've lost 30 minutes.
If there are 6 players, I read out 8 characters. If multiple players want the same PC, its knife fight to first blood or D20 roll highest. PCs are two sides of one sheet, they take 2 minutes to read and we're ready to rock.
Quote from: Omega;954487Yeah well Gronan tends to omit that point shuffling is in OD&D whenever he mentions 3d6 in order. Yes. It is different from BX. But the systems are overall the same.
One additional caveat--attributes mean different things between OD&D an B/X.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954499Is it a biggie when a point buy PC gets geeked?
No, it is not.
Character death is character death, regardless of the game system used or the style of play preferred. It's a game. I don't flip the board in anger when I lose at chess or look to cause trouble when I lose at poker. I don't get upset over the imaginary death of an imaginary character. I don't think anyone should either, but that's just my opinion.
Which is what this really is about. Opinion. The OP asked about defending point-buy systems. Point-buy systems no more need to be defended than strawberry ice cream does. And I
hate strawberry ice cream.*
I genuinely see the appeal of the random system; it does solve some of the problems that come up with point-buy. But I find the notion that it's somehow objectively superior to point-buy, because reasons, silly. It's personal preference, and that's all.
*
Seriously. It's like strawberry flavoured mucus. A waste of perfectly good strawberries. Dip that shit in chocolate, or put it on some cake, or something.
I didn't think one could make a dick measuring contest out of options of rolling up characters for an RPG... I guess I was wrong.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;954502One additional caveat--attributes mean different things between OD&D an B/X.
And point swapping in OD&D functioned differently. Clerics just got a potential EXP bonus if they could qualify by swapping STR for WIS. Which was because in OD&D stats didnt do much. INT got you +1 languages per point over 10, DEX got you +1 ranged bonus at 13+, CON got you +1 HP bonus if 15+, CHA granted more potential hirelings, better loyalty of hirelings and better reactions from encounters.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954511I didn't think one could make a dick measuring contest out of options of rolling up characters for an RPG... I guess I was wrong.
Wait till you see the anti-Module brigade in action. This thread is pretty mild so far.
Quote from: Omega;954487Yeah well Gronan tends to omit that point shuffling is in OD&D whenever he mentions 3d6 in order. Yes. It is different from BX. But the systems are overall the same.
Gronan omits a LOT of stuff in his 'You're doing it wrong' cane shaking rants as long as it makes him seem wise and grognardy. He's so full of shit I'm surprised he doesn't walk bow-legged. I take nothing he says beyond his claims of being at Mr. Gygax's tables, seriously. He's been spouting the same drivel since my time on TBP.
And I knew about Cyclopedia shifting of points, but a 'true Scotsman' doesn't use it. I took what I got anyway in the now three times I've played it, because the dice were too fickle. When you get a 15, in a stat you can use for a class, you stick with it, even if everything else might not be so glamourous, like 8-9s.
One last thing, this?
Quote from: Tequila SunriseIt eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts."
I've actually seen. And never in a malicious way. If the stats are so low that the player doesn't feel he can contribute, or feels like he's going to drag the team down, the few that have done this have stepped back. And again, this is anecdotal. But it's always been from a spirit of cooperation: If I can't help the party in a meaningful way, then why am I here? I've had a couple players explain it to me in that way, back in my AD&D 2e days. It's what makes me prefer arrays and point buys.
I like my players to be heroic, you know a point or three above the norm, because nothing and I mean nothing has killed my enjoyment of the game when after spending 15 to 45 minutes (depending on the game/edition/what have you) in character creation and then watching my players TPK to five Kobolds with spears in about 5 minutes in. At that point, we broke out a couple of boardgames to wash out the bad tastes in our mouths. Yeah, yeah, I get it, "That's how the dice rolled, Binky." But this is a game, not real life. Hell, one can make an argument that in real life, none of those who go into a dangerous job, Firefighting, Police, Emergency work in general, are the base normal. After all, they all train their bodies as well as their skills.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954533At that point, we broke out a couple of boardgames to wash out the bad tastes in our mouths. Yeah, yeah, I get it, "That's how the dice rolled, Binky."
It sounds like you and your players need a new hobby.
A party with straight 18s can suffer a TPK. All the point buy bullshit guarantees nothing. The D20 is swingy. Its quite possible for players to roll like shit and the DM to roll like a boss. It happens. A few years ago, I ran a 4 hour combat heavy game where none of my monsters damaged a single PC. It was hysterical and I even switched out dice. The joke was the next event where I was dropping murderous crits like mofo.
Until you remove randomness from combat, you are going to have bad dice days.
Your TPK by Kobolds is a feature, not a bug of the RPG hobby.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It puts every character on an even playing field, stat wise.
Yeah, sure... if you have a perfect system and it's properly calibrated for your specific campaign.
But there aren't a lot of those around. My experience has been that "build"-oriented systems (of which point-buy chargen is one type among many) tend to have optimal builds and inferior builds, with the end result that, instead of enforcing a level playing field, they reward system mastery. There's also a tendency to produce cookie-cutter characters, with everyone putting just enough points into a stat to reach a certain breakpoint, and not a single point more. While pursuing system mastery and optimal builds is a valid play style, enjoyed by many, it's not what I enjoy, nor something I care to encourage in the games I run.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It's super-convenient for con adventures, and for friendly adventures where there's limited IRL time to play so you want to just be able to say "Show up with a level X (or X amount of XP) character, use point buy Y."
The GM bringing an assortment of pregens for the players to choose from is even more convenient when time for play is limited.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954396It makes DMing easier.
Depends on how you run your game. Personally, I never tune anything to fit a specific group of PCs or PC level(s), so neither style of chargen is easier or harder for me to GM for.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954499Fritz is a GREAT character. He is x100 more interesting than yet another point buy min/max by the numbers Paladin.
Fritz is a roleplaying gem. And nobody is going to make him in a point buy system.
Agreed.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954499
THIS is the #1 reason hands down for random rolls.
Fritz is a GREAT character. He is x100 more interesting than yet another point buy min/max by the numbers Paladin.
Fritz is a roleplaying gem. And nobody is going to make him in a point buy system.
Here's the joke. STR 8 is -1 to hit and DEX 8 is -1 AC. That's 5% off norm. Considering the swing of a D20, it is laughably possible that Fritz could level up again and again, becoming more memorable with each session.
My players very possibly would. In my homebrew, I have optional disadvantages. They don't get you extra purchase points or anything like that, it is strictly there for character flavor. One player took a fear of being underground giving -1 to any rolls while underground (where you start with rolling a single d6 to succeed in your best area) in a dungeon focused game. Another player decided her character thinks she's stealthy but has a -1 for all stealth moves.
My 4 year old rolled up a character in DCC last night. 3d6 straight down the line with random race generation. She ended up with a gimp halfling gypsy 8 strength(-1); 8 agility (-1); 6 luck (-1). 3hp.
She drew a great stick figure halfling on the front. My wife told me I was in no way to allow that tear fest waiting to happen anywhere near a real game or I get to deal with the sobbing.
Point array it is, I guess...
I'm experimenting right now in my homebrew... its random stats, skill points, and hit points, but if you roll below average you get 1 or 2 mutations which can only be achieved by rolling poorly. We'll see how it works.
Random generation or Point Buy...why not both and make nobody/everybody happy?
http://dndgenerator.mygamesonline.org/pointbuy.php
I've been using this tool for a while now. My players seem happy with it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954499THIS is the #1 reason hands down for random rolls.
Fritz is a GREAT character. He is x100 more interesting than yet another point buy min/max by the numbers Paladin.
Fritz is a roleplaying gem. And nobody is going to make him in a point buy system.
Here's the joke. STR 8 is -1 to hit and DEX 8 is -1 AC. That's 5% off norm. Considering the swing of a D20, it is laughably possible that Fritz could level up again and again, becoming more memorable with each session.
Fritz is at -1 for everything he does. He can't hit Easy DCs half the time.
Why would the rest of the group want to be dragged down by Fritz?
Quote from: Sommerjon;954607Fritz is at -1 for everything he does. He can't hit Easy DCs half the time.
Why would the rest of the group want to be dragged down by Fritz?
Because it gives Fritz incentive to find alternatives: talk to the orcs, stampede the mammoths into the goblins, or hire henchmen and shout advice. :p
It seems to me there's a big difference between games that like D&D emphasize class & level as the primary way to determine abilities and chances of success (with maybe +/- 1 or so for particularly high/low attributes), and games that like TFT/GURPS have no classes or levels and use attributes + skills to determine abilities and chances of success.
PCs are one thing, but if attributes are needed to resolve action with NPCs too then you need them for the NPCs, and if the values all characters should have determine their power level and reflect what kind of a person they are, then the attributes for any character of a known type should practically never just be rolled up. (At least not over the whole range of possible values. Maybe if you had very limited-range tables of values appropriate for the type of character, but otherwise you'd get a fearsome knight... who's a complete wimp and/or clutz, etc. etc.) One of the best features of TFT & GURPS is that the characters (PC & NPC) should have values that reflect the abilities those people should have, which too much randomness would bork.
In GURPS I tend to only half-use the point totals anyway, and instead design characters to have values that make sense for the type of person they are. The point totals I mainly use to check if I've made someone more or less gifted than I really intended. I also do sometimes use random rolls (especially for NPCs) but only to pick specific values within an appropriate range for the character.
I tend to offer a range of options for players wanting to come up with new PCs, and usually I do have a random option or two.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954511I didn't think one could make a dick measuring contest out of options of rolling up characters for an RPG... I guess I was wrong.
Well, for dick measuring, I ALWAYS go with point buy.:-)
Quote from: cranebump;954643Well, for dick measuring, I ALWAYS go with point buy.:-)
:D
That was funny sir.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954511I didn't think one could make a dick measuring contest out of options of rolling up characters for an RPG... I guess I was wrong.
It is a traditional divide in the hobby starting with rolling 3d6 in order versus rolling 3d6 six times arrange to taste. It exist along with using miniatures or not, doing funny voices or not, etc, etc. The problem comes from the fact people ignore the fact it is an issue largely INDEPENDENT of what rule system one is using for the campaign.
If you like one over the other great! That your preference. If you are indifferent then you are indifferent. Also ignored the fact that people's preference change over time and not consistently. I may be satisfied with just rolling straight and making do with whatever the dice comes up with. Then for one campaign I have a specific idea I want to play and will arrange the scores accordingly. Then revert back to the next character to just taking whatever the dice gives me.
In short there is no right answer only what one likes at that moment in time along with the various consequences of the two mechanics.
Quote from: Trond;954464Yeah, because having an idea for a character really makes you a special snowflake. The amount of BS here is really mind boggling. Of course this is a point in favor of point buy systems. A point in favor of random rolls is that you really don't need to come up with anything beforehand.
Interesting that you triggered on my "special snowflake", but not his "cockblocked". ;)
The point is, there are assholes on both sides, both self-entitled shitheads who want to play their perfectly designed PC no matter whether or not it fits in the setting, let alone the campaign, and the control-freak GMs who force PC concepts on players. Both are rarer then their internet presence would attest to (although simple numbers of GMs vs. players shows there to be much more of the former) and
neither will be fixed by a system.
So claiming a rule or mechanic is good because it stops cheating, prevents fuckheads from being fuckheads, or forces the unwashed Gamist to think about Story..you know, the usual reasons...is utter horseshit.
Quote from: Tod13;954609Because it gives Fritz incentive to find alternatives: talk to the orcs, stampede the mammoths into the goblins, or hire henchmen and shout advice. :p
Except Fritz isn't bright enough to find these alternatives, nor charismatic enough, nor wise enough, nor strong enough, nor agile enough, nor tough enough. All he is is a burden on everyone else trying to survive. He can be a great guy, but he stays at home.
Quote from: estar;954649It is a traditional divide in the hobby starting with rolling 3d6 in order versus rolling 3d6 six times arrange to taste. It exist along with using miniatures or not, doing funny voices or not, etc, etc. The problem comes from the fact people ignore the fact it is an issue largely INDEPENDENT of what rule system one is using for the campaign.
If you like one over the other great! That your preference. If you are indifferent then you are indifferent. Also ignored the fact that people's preference change over time and not consistently. I may be satisfied with just rolling straight and making do with whatever the dice comes up with. Then for one campaign I have a specific idea I want to play and will arrange the scores accordingly. Then revert back to the next character to just taking whatever the dice gives me.
In short there is no right answer only what one likes at that moment in time along with the various consequences of the two mechanics.
If it was just folks putting out their preferences... but there is so much justification... and much seems to be how the other guy is doing it wrong. It's just weird.
I do agree there is no right answer, which makes the OP's point silly.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954650Interesting that you triggered on my "special snowflake", but not his "cockblocked". ;)
The point is, there are assholes on both sides, both self-entitled shitheads who want to play their perfectly designed PC no matter whether or not it fits in the setting, let alone the campaign, and the control-freak GMs who force PC concepts on players. Both are rarer then their internet presence would attest to (although simple numbers of GMs vs. players shows there to be much more of the former) and neither will be fixed by a system.
So claiming a rule or mechanic is good because it stops cheating, prevents fuckheads from being fuckheads, or forces the unwashed Gamist to think about Story..you know, the usual reasons...is utter horseshit.
No more rarer then the Sweet jesus Sandbox or Rammed in the ass Railroads.
Quote from: Sommerjon;954654Except Fritz isn't bright enough to find these alternatives, nor charismatic enough, nor wise enough, nor strong enough, nor agile enough, nor tough enough. All he is is a burden on everyone else trying to survive. He can be a great guy, but he stays at home.
On the one hand, it's hard to justify Fritz, that's why the Shopkeeper Rule exists.
On the other hand, from the PoV of the characters, it's not "Let's not take Fritz, let's wait for some other mysterious stranger to walk into town fresh from chargen.", it's "Do we go with Crazy Fritz, or without him?" He's not crippled to the point of actually being not worth the extra body to wear armor, swing weapons, hold a door, carry loot, etc. so if it's Fritz or one less person, hell yes, take Fritz.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954650neither will be fixed by a system.
Exactly. What the issue boils down is that the players want to play a particular character that may or may not fit into the referee's campaign. It is reasonable to expect that the player and referee can sit down and figure it out. There no general rule other than those of common courtesy.
It OK for a OD&D campaign to say OK you start with a 18 charisma so you can play as a paladin. It also OK for a referee to say you have to roll 3d6 straight it how I run my campaigns. OD&D is not going to suddenly emit a fart and have a nuclear shit in either case.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954655If it was just folks putting out their preferences... but there is so much justification... and much seems to be how the other guy is doing it wrong. It's just weird.
I do agree there is no right answer, which makes the OP's point silly.
The hobby is weird, it is what it is. My opinion it because there too much emphasis on the rules not the campaign. That it stems from the fact that when it comes to games the expectation is that you follow the rules hence if you don't following the rule you are cheating or committing any number of sins as a gamer.
However the point of playing RPGs is not to play a game but to experience a campaign. The game is a tool to make the campaign happen in a way that fun and interesting. But it not the POINT, the point is to run a interesting campaign where players play characters interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a referee.
But it is a game with rules people whine, hence we get this stuff like the debate over point-buy versus rolled attribute. Well the reality campaigns have failed using both methods, campaigns have succeeded in using both method, and both have had happened with everything in between.
There are consequences that may be interesting to discuss with both methods. For example when you roll to create characters then you will get a random range in how effective the character are. With point buy that range is under the control of player. But as people point out there are optimal methods of spending points that work better. But when people bring up those objections fail to note that is only true if you a good understanding of how the referee is going to conduct the campaign. A combat oriented campaign will require a different set of optimizations than one centered around court intrigue versus rambling across the stars trying to make a buck.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954655If it was just folks putting out their preferences... but there is so much justification... and much seems to be how the other guy is doing it wrong. It's just weird.
Well, if we were physically present together, we could go fight on the playground, or literally butt heads like rams, to sort out the social pecking order. Likewise, doing something genuinely impressive is also hard to measure, so instead we obsess over sharing opinions over relatively unimportant aspects of the game. Dick measuring contest as you said before is frankly a pretty good analogy.
Quote from: estar;954661The hobby is weird, it is what it is. My opinion it because there too much emphasis on the rules not the campaign. That it stems from the fact that when it comes to games the expectation is that you follow the rules hence if you don't following the rule you are cheating or committing any number of sins as a gamer.
This is probably part of it, too. Nothing puts the irons into the fire for internet anger like the idea that somewhere out there someone is getting away with something (and worse yet, is feeling good about it).
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954655If it was just folks putting out their preferences... but there is so much justification... and much seems to be how the other guy is doing it wrong. It's just weird.
You must be new to RPG forums....or letter pages....
The first rule of RPG forums:
every argument about RPGs always amounts to "
badwrongfun," which is shorthand for "some people somewhere that I don't know are playing make-believe wrong and it makes me mad"
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954655If it was just folks putting out their preferences... but there is so much justification... and much seems to be how the other guy is doing it wrong. It's just weird.
I do agree there is no right answer, which makes the OP's point silly.
It's a matter of preference that is traditionally being turned into a dick-measuring contest, and this site values traditions.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954655. . . [T]here is no right answer, which makes the OP's point silly.
The OP is only interested in (1) click-bait and (2) crowd-sourcing his latest 'designs.'
This tempest-in-a-pisspot is the first.
Well, misewell join in with schlongs a swingin'...
Point buy is abomination. It is the work of Satan, created by The Swinelord Beelzebub to propagate communist/marxist thought throughout the RPG hobby. Baby Jesus cries every time a character is created through point-buy. It corrupts the minds of our children, and weakens the resolve of our allies.
The only thing worse than point-buy is random roll. Random generation is a subvervise design meant to induct and addict gamers to gambling. It is unethical, suggesting that strength of character is based upon fate and luck rather than virtue and hard work. In this way it infects players with atheistic tendencies and moral relativism.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;954666Y
The first rule of RPG forums: every argument about RPGs always amounts to "badwrongfun," which is shorthand for "some people somewhere that I don't know are playing make-believe wrong and it makes me mad"
Can I use this in my sig?
I always enjoy estar's and CRK's posts, even if I disagree.
As far as Fritz is concerned, his primary role in the party is to take an arrow or an axe swing for another character. Preferably in the most hilarious way possible. His secondary role is, if I decide my GM is an ass, is to annoy the GM to the point of insanity. :)
Becuase he forced me to keep a bad roll. :p
Quote from: Tristram Evans;954674Well, misewell join in with schlongs a swingin'...
Point buy is abomination. It is the work of Satan, created by The Swinelord Beelzebub to propagate communist/marxist thought throughout the RPG hobby. Baby Jesus cries every time a character is created through point-buy. It corrupts the minds of our children, and weakens the resolve of our allies.
The only thing worse than point-buy is random roll. Random generation is a subvervise design meant to induct and addict gamers to gambling. It is unethical, suggesting that strength of character is based upon fate and luck rather than virtue and hard work. In this way it infects players with atheistic tendencies and moral relativism.
I physically lol'd at this.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;954674Point buy is abomination. It is the work of Satan, created by The Swinelord Beelzebub to propagate communist/marxist thought throughout the RPG hobby. Baby Jesus cries every time a character is created through point-buy. It corrupts the minds of our children, and weakens the resolve of our allies.
The only thing worse than point-buy is random roll. Random generation is a subvervise design meant to induct and addict gamers to gambling. It is unethical, suggesting that strength of character is based upon fate and luck rather than virtue and hard work. In this way it infects players with atheistic tendencies and moral relativism.
Indeed, which is why a good lifepath guides you through life and allows you to serve the will of the Eternal Tangra:D!
I recently ran a super hero's game that was an homage to V&V.
The players made their characters (not themselves) with the game's point-buy system and then rolled up super powers (roll 4 randomly, drop one -- and there's ALWAYS an opportunity to be a character who can kind-of dodge bullets, if you didn't really roll any defenses or otherwise dislike what you rolled).
It worked great. The characters were way, way, way more creative and idiosyncratic than pure point-buy characters tend to be, and they were also somewhat sub-optimized which made the game more enjoyable. Nothing against optimized characters, but given the opportunity, most PCs will tend to be bullet-proof, because why not?
In a supers game where you can't be bulletproof unless you rolled the right number, it made heroes fighting henchmen more... interesting, even if the outcome was really never in doubt.
I also like mixing point-buy with class frameworks. So you're going to be a thief or a magic user or whatever... you get points to spend, but within a framework defined by your class. It creates a sense of structure and a feel for the world that pure point-buy often doesn't.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Tod13;954609Because it gives Fritz incentive to find alternatives: talk to the orcs, stampede the mammoths into the goblins, or hire henchmen and shout advice. :p
If someone wants to play Fritz, cool, game on. But no one should be *forced* to play Fritz. Which is what a random system does. A player doesn't get to play the character they *want* to play. They get to play the character fate hands them. That is real life. I don't want to play real life. I want to play high fantasy.
Quote from: Tod13;954609Because it gives Fritz incentive to find alternatives: talk to the orcs, stampede the mammoths into the goblins, or hire henchmen and shout advice. :p
But he's a -1 to do that too. Why is Fritz doing that, when his friends are likely better at it than he will ever be (Unless you're playing D&D 4-5e, in which he can get a couple of stat boosts and/or feats to cover up deficiencies, but even then, the other better statted players will have the same chances. Which means Fritz is still a millstone around the party's neck.)
Quote from: Spinachcat;954556It sounds like you and your players need a new hobby.
"LISTEN TO ME ROAR! WE ARE SO HARDCORE!" Yeah, no. And that's the beauty of this hobby, we can all play our way and ignore the tryhards! Aren't RPGs awesome?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954693But he's a -1 to do that too. Why is Fritz doing that, when his friends are likely better at it than he will ever be (Unless you're playing D&D 4-5e, in which he can get a couple of stat boosts and/or feats to cover up deficiencies, but even then, the other better statted players will have the same chances. Which means Fritz is still a millstone around the party's neck.)
Maybe Fritz is there because it makes a better story?
...
...
I'll show myself out, thanks.
Quote from: Nexus;954697Maybe Fritz is there because it makes a better story?
...
...
I'll show myself out, thanks.
*Summons the Bouncers anyway.*
Quote from: Tetsubo;954691If someone wants to play Fritz, cool, game on. But no one should be *forced* to play Fritz. Which is what a random system does. A player doesn't get to play the character they *want* to play. They get to play the character fate hands them. That is real life. I don't want to play real life. I want to play high fantasy.
This! OMG this. This, This, This!
Upthread, Spinachcat made this point:
Quote from: Spinachcat;954499THIS is the #1 reason hands down for random rolls.[/B]
Fritz is a GREAT character. He is x100 more interesting than yet another point buy min/max by the numbers Paladin.
No, he's not. Fritz was the afterbirth of a bad character roll that I was forced to play because the GM insisted on it. Fine. His table, his rules. But Fritz wasn't interesting because of bad rolls. He was interesting
because I made him interesting. And guess what, folks. I can do with with a strong character as well as I can with a weak one. I can also do that regardless of the the type of character creation system employed. Interesting characters have nothing whatsoever to do with game system or game style. It's on the player.
I played Fritz out until the end, because I rarely get to be a player, and the other players were fun. The GM was decent, but he was too rigid, and too insistent on certain things the players didn't like as a whole. But like I said: it's his table. He can run it however he wants.
But at my table, I don't care if a player comes up with a character I view as interesting. That's not an important metric. I care that my players have a character they're going to enjoy playing. Does that mean I make them all super powerful to keep my players happy? Of course not. I keep the power levels pretty even. No, it means I don't mind being flexible about keeping the game fun.
And that's what this is about for me: fun. It's my first and only rule as a GM: Are my players having fun? Everything else is details.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;954586My 4 year old rolled up a character in DCC last night. 3d6 straight down the line with random race generation. She ended up with a gimp halfling gypsy 8 strength(-1); 8 agility (-1); 6 luck (-1). 3hp.
She drew a great stick figure halfling on the front. My wife told me I was in no way to allow that tear fest waiting to happen anywhere near a real game or I get to deal with the sobbing.
Point array it is, I guess...
This is why BX and AD&D tell the DM to consider asking the player re-roll if they get a really bad set of rolls.
Quote from: Nexus;954675Can I use this in my sig?
lol go for it
Quote from: Tristram Evans;954674Well, misewell join in with schlongs a swingin'...
Point buy is abomination. It is the work of Satan, created by The Swinelord Beelzebub to propagate communist/marxist thought throughout the RPG hobby. Baby Jesus cries every time a character is created through point-buy. It corrupts the minds of our children, and weakens the resolve of our allies.
The only thing worse than point-buy is random roll. Random generation is a subvervise design meant to induct and addict gamers to gambling. It is unethical, suggesting that strength of character is based upon fate and luck rather than virtue and hard work. In this way it infects players with atheistic tendencies and moral relativism.
And then we were saved by pre-gens. Till people started bitching about those too.
And then we were saved by array. Till people started bitching about those too.
Quote from: AsenRG;954686Indeed, which is why a good lifepath guides you through life and allows you to serve the will of the Eternal Tangra:D!
Alot of lifepaths are random though. Cruel heartless random.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954693But he's a -1 to do that too. Why is Fritz doing that, when his friends are likely better at it than he will ever be (Unless you're playing D&D 4-5e, in which he can get a couple of stat boosts and/or feats to cover up deficiencies, but even then, the other better statted players will have the same chances. Which means Fritz is still a millstone around the party's neck.)
Depends on the version of D&D and the DM and the Players.
In BX and according to Gronan even OD&D stats dont exactly correlate to the characters actual ability to function. Especially cognitive ability.
Aside from BX having a low INT score limiting your reading skill and languages known, or at the low end even your ability to speak in complete sentences, the stats do not hinder the character. As I have pointed out before. A character with 3 STR can walk around hauling up to 160LB at 1/4th normal movement.
And while AD&D links stats to function to some degrees. Even there some play it as not effecting cognitive ability.
Quote from: Omega;954711Alot of lifepaths are random though. Cruel heartless random.
No, lifepaths are a combination of choices, made by the player, and adapting to the rolls, representing the fate that the Eternal Tangra has chosen to befall you, just like RPGs themselves:)!
(Besides, if lifepaths were "random", then all of RPGs would be "random", and playing them would fall under the same "godlessness" objection. And while this is an accurate representation of a certain fringe religious sects, it defeats the point of using the rant in a discussion about RPGs;)).
Quote from: AsenRG;954719No, lifepaths are a combination of choices, made by the player, and adapting to the rolls, representing the fate that the Eternal Tangra has chosen to befall you, just like RPGs themselves:)!
(Besides, if lifepaths were "random", then all of RPGs would be "random", and playing them would fall under the same "godlessness" objection. And while this is an accurate representation of a certain fringe religious sects, it defeats the point of using the rant in a discussion about RPGs;)).
Says you. The lifepaths I've seen were mostly random with maybee some choice tossed in. Maybee not.
Quote from: Omega;954726Says you. The lifepaths I've seen were mostly random with maybee some choice tossed in. Maybee not.
Then we're not talking about the same lifepaths, because I've never seen "mostly random" ones.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954693"LISTEN TO ME ROAR! WE ARE SO HARDCORE!" Yeah, no. And that's the beauty of this hobby, we can all play our way and ignore the tryhards! Aren't RPGs awesome?
To be fair, the partisanship seen here so far is pretty mild compared to other hobbies I've seen.
Go to any GNU/Linux forum and type the following: "You know, I really like Ubuntu and I think Unity is a great desktop environment."
Then go pop some popcorn, come back, and watch the B-movie horror show of pure, unadulterated nerdrage commence.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954691If someone wants to play Fritz, cool, game on. But no one should be *forced* to play Fritz. Which is what a random system does. A player doesn't get to play the character they *want* to play. They get to play the character fate hands them. That is real life. I don't want to play real life. I want to play high fantasy.
You're talking to the wrong person. I never said anyone should have to play Fritz. I did say I could see one of my players building a Fritz and having fun playing it successfully.
Quote from: noman;954731To be fair, the partisanship seen here so far is pretty mild compared to other hobbies I've seen.
Go to any GNU/Linux forum and type the following: "You know, I really like Ubuntu and I think Unity is a great desktop environment."
Then go pop some popcorn, come back, and watch the B-movie horror show of pure, unadulterated nerdrage commence.
There's certain ways to trigger that here. Most of them involve Storygaming vs Roleplaying discussions. There was a good one over descriptions fairly recently.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954691If someone wants to play Fritz, cool, game on. But no one should be *forced* to play Fritz. Which is what a random system does. A player doesn't get to play the character they *want* to play. They get to play the character fate hands them. That is real life. I don't want to play real life. I want to play high fantasy.
Shopkeeper Rule - problem solved - next?
Quote from: Omega;954711Alot of lifepaths are random though. Cruel heartless random.
Dunno man, I've had Lifepath random gen give me a zero-level character. Ended up being one of the coolest characters I had.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954739Shopkeeper Rule - problem solved - next?
What is the "Shopkeeper rule"?
All the reasonable people in this thread have been repeating that both point-buy and random-roll (and all variations) are fine. It's a preference thing.
That said, people are explaining their preferences, and that's cool.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954691If someone wants to play Fritz, cool, game on. But no one should be *forced* to play Fritz. Which is what a random system does. A player doesn't get to play the character they *want* to play. They get to play the character fate hands them. That is real life. I don't want to play real life. I want to play high fantasy.
Whether in character generation or in play, the principle of random rolls is that some players are forced to get results that are different than they might want. And some players like accepting the results of random rolls.
Personally, I like random character creation in Traveller and HarnMaster. However, I'm not thrilled with random generation in D&D, mainly because (a) best 3/4d6 and arrange doesn't actually hand give you much inspiration at all, (b) 3d6 in order only gives you a little bit more inspiration, and it is unclear in-game why PCs are different than ordinary guys such that they go zero-to-hero. Also, the superhero games with random roll that I know (MSH and Heroes Unlimited) often resulted in some weird characters that didn't really fit the genre.
Note: Almost no character generation is 100% random - they're generally a mix of some rolls and some choices. Also, lifepaths are one form of possible randomization - Traveller is randomized lifepath, while Burning Wheel is non-random lifepath.
Quote from: Sommerjon;954607Fritz is at -1 for everything he does. He can't hit Easy DCs half the time.
Why would the rest of the group want to be dragged down by Fritz?
To the rest of the party, Fritz is a righteous Paladin fervent and beloved by his god in a fantasy world where the gods meddle in the affairs of man. By the time the other PCs realize Fritz is a kook, who knows what experiences the party will have encountered with him? THAT is interesting roleplay.
Also, -1 on D20 is -5% on D100. It's not some earth shattering penalty.
In the reverse, the PC with all 13s and +1 to everything is only 10% better than Fritz.
The raw math doesn't support the panic over the numbers.
Quote from: estar;954649In short there is no right answer only what one likes at that moment in time along with the various consequences of the two mechanics.
That's the main issue. There are significant consequences
for both methods.
Quote from: Sommerjon;954654Except Fritz isn't bright enough to find these alternatives, nor charismatic enough, nor wise enough, nor strong enough, nor agile enough, nor tough enough. All he is is a burden on everyone else trying to survive. He can be a great guy, but he stays at home.
In 3D6 systems, the human average is 10.5. Fritz is slightly below average with his straight 8s.
Also, his INT 8 is based on what? Lack of brains? Lack of education? Lots of bad ideas? That's a conversation for players and GM.
And Fritz thinks he's chosen by his god, he can't stay home when there is a world to save.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;954674Baby Jesus cries every time a character is created through point-buy.
That's one check in the positive column!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954693"LISTEN TO ME ROAR! WE ARE SO HARDCORE!"
Wow.
In 2017, the new definition of HARDCORE is the ability to play a character with slightly suboptimal stats without having an emotional meltdown???
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954693Aren't RPGs awesome?
They are!
In fact, they are so awesome most children can play them without collapsing on fainting couches after a random TPK.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954691If someone wants to play Fritz, cool, game on. But no one should be *forced* to play Fritz. Which is what a random system does. A player doesn't get to play the character they *want* to play. They get to play the character fate hands them. That is real life. I don't want to play real life. I want to play high fantasy.
I agree with everything except the part I've bold. In 'real life' if Fritz REALLY wanted to adventure, he'd train his body to be able to do it. After all, police officers are trained to carry 9lbs. of gear on their waist, that will increase your strength and constitution. Same thing with weapon's training, that will build your body.
Quote from: Nexus;954741What is the "Shopkeeper rule"?
It's the convention Omega was talking about, where the GM is encouraged to let the player reroll a truly hapless character. I call it the Shopkeeper Rule just because it was actually defined in Hackmaster:
QuoteShopkeeper Rule. If your character has no raw single stat of at least 13 or two raw stats of 5 or less, you may name your character and then turn your sheet in to the GM for use as a shopkeeper, peasant or other hapless NPC and re-roll your character. Any other set of rolls is playable; you need to play that character for a complete game session before retiring him and introducing a new one (excepting the always-likely event of early mortality during play, of course).
Quote from: Spinachcat;954761THAT is interesting roleplay.
Why would you want that?
Quote from: Spinachcat;954761Also, -1 on D20 is -5% on D100. It's not some earth shattering penalty.
In the reverse, the PC with all 13s and +1 to everything is only 10% better than Fritz.
The raw math doesn't support the panic over the numbers.
It has nothing to do with math or statistics. It has to do with people crying because their character isn't the star of the show based on nothing but certain measurements.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954761Wow.
In 2017, the new definition of HARDCORE is the ability to play a character with slightly suboptimal stats without having an emotional meltdown???
To those who never recovered from the horrors of D&D in 5th grade.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954761In fact, they are so awesome most children can play them without collapsing on fainting couches after a random TPK.
Some can, others carry scars for life.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954765It's the convention Omega was talking about, where the GM is encouraged to let the player reroll a truly hapless character. I call it the Shopkeeper Rule just because it was actually defined in Hackmaster:
I thought that was a good rule they had.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954765It's the convention Omega was talking about, where the GM is encouraged to let the player reroll a truly hapless character. I call it the Shopkeeper Rule just because it was actually defined in Hackmaster:
I see. Thanks.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;9541661e AD&D did not recommend 3d6 in order, but thank you for the knee-jerk edition bash, fuckwit.
It didn't recommend it, but we still did it and do it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954740Dunno man, I've had Lifepath random gen give me a zero-level character. Ended up being one of the coolest characters I had.
Tekumel's is to date the strangest one Ive seen. Universe's was the first ever saw.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954765It's the convention Omega was talking about, where the GM is encouraged to let the player reroll a truly hapless character. I call it the Shopkeeper Rule just because it was actually defined in Hackmaster:
Thats alot older than Hackmaster. Ive seen at least two RPGs and Dragon suggest keeping the un-used PCs for everything from backup, henchmen, NPCs and whatever.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954764In 'real life' if Fritz REALLY wanted to adventure, he'd train his body to be able to do it.
That makes Fritz even more awesome!!
Instead of a lazy mook with straight 8s, maybe Fritz was a straight 5s peasant has been busting his ass for years to improve himself to his mighty 8s ever since his god started visiting him (through his favorite sheep) and made him a paladin!!
Quote from: CRKrueger;954766Why would you want that?
Dudebro, didn't you hear? In 2017 pretending to be an elf without crying is
FUCKING HARDCORE!!!.
I've DM'd and GM'd for decades. I've seen hundreds of different PCs in three dozen different RPGs that players created with random vs. point-buy. The point buy PCs are usually more competent and well balanced and the random PCs are usually more interesting as dramatic personas to be inhabited.
Not always, but usually. Call it 70/30.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954766It has nothing to do with math or statistics. It has to do with people crying because their character isn't the star of the show based on nothing but certain measurements.
I absolutely get wanting to play a superhero. But zero-to-hero games all have TPKs happen at low levels.
Plenty of 4e PCs started with +5 to hit, 20 AC and 20 HP. Plenty of them died because some days that damn D20 won't show double digits.
Same with Rifts. I've seen plenty of overpowered PCs get toasted because the Dice Gods can be fickle.
Yeah, dice are fickle, but in real life, we try to stack the deck in our favour as best we can, some succeed better than others. But I don't see why RPG's have to make it so hard for players to be what they'd like to be. Apparently, it's wrong to want to be a smidge competent, I guess.
A roleplaying gamer complaining about bad dice rolls is like a soccer player complaining about not being given good passes to give them a shot on goal.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954766Some can, others carry scars for life.
Are you even serious?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954764. . . [P]olice officers are trained to carry 9lbs. of gear on their waist, that will increase your strength and constitution.
"Increase your strength and constitution?" No, it gives you miserable lower back problems, you ignorant wretch.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954803"Increase your strength and constitution?" No, it gives you miserable lower back problems, you ignorant wretch.
Right. Sorry, man, but you never took the RCMP training course, I know someone who has, before he went to NWT and yeah, the belt is 9lbs. Also, as you usual you're skipping the part where most adventurers would take similar training because wielding a blade or an axe, wearing armour (even just leather) requires quite a bit of athletic skill.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;9541661e AD&D did not recommend 3d6 in order, but thank you for the knee-jerk edition bash, fuckwit.
Grow up. I simply pointed out if you did use the vaunted 3d6 in order chargen you'd never be able to play a paladin or bard in 1e (or 2e for that matter) because of their stat requirements. I didn't say that system came from 1e as Gygax in fact gives a variety of options from what I recall. You are a sensitive bunch around here. Ready to go off on an edition rant at a moment's notice. I guess I hurt your feelings along with Gronan's somewhere along the line and now have two manchildren biting at my heels.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954691If someone wants to play Fritz, cool, game on. But no one should be *forced* to play Fritz. Which is what a random system does. A player doesn't get to play the character they *want* to play. They get to play the character fate hands them. That is real life. I don't want to play real life. I want to play high fantasy.
I've largely stayed out of this since its mostly involved D and D, something I don't play (in part due to the emphasis on random character generation). But I'll agree with the above. I'm not playing to emulate "real life" and more to capture some of the feel of fiction that I enjoy. So when I play I usually have at least a basic character in mind or develop one pretty soon after starting the process of char gen. Plus it is a game, something I'm doing for fun and playing the character I wanted to play is part of my fun. It doesn't have to be exceptionally powerful (but I have been in the sucks to be you side of bad char gen rolls).
I don't think there's anything Badwrongfun about random rolls. I've played in some random games as a change of pace and used things like random background tables to flesh a character's history. (loved the Central Casting stuff) but overall I like Point Buy as it provides the play experience I find the most enjoyable. As a GM, I want to give that some enjoyment to my players. And I have had folks in Point Buy games play a "Fritz" and it seemed like the enjoyed it more if they wanted it than when it was handed to him but they've been of similar preferences to mine.
Along with giving the players the options of point buy or rolling, I am sometimes just as big a fan of pre-made characters. Provided the game gives you some good options of course (like The One Ring)
What I remember from failing and giving up trying to figure out White Box D&D in 5th grade (over 30 years ago) was that attribute values actually had pretty much zero effect on anything except for rules of the form:
The Prime Attribute for a Fighter is Strength.
The Prime Attribute for Cleric is Wisdom.
...
If your Prime Attribute is X, your character gains needs Y% less experience to gain an experience level.
Were there other effects of attributes that had non-house rules in White Box D&D?
Quote from: Nexus;954737There's certain ways to trigger that here. Most of them involve Storygaming vs Roleplaying discussions. There was a good one over descriptions fairly recently.
Oh yeah and "Total Sandbox" vs...well anything else often explodes.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954761To the rest of the party, Fritz is a righteous Paladin fervent and beloved by his god in a fantasy world where the gods meddle in the affairs of man. By the time the other PCs realize Fritz is a kook, who knows what experiences the party will have encountered with him? THAT is interesting roleplay.
Also, -1 on D20 is -5% on D100. It's not some earth shattering penalty.
In the reverse, the PC with all 13s and +1 to everything is only 10% better than Fritz.
The raw math doesn't support the panic over the numbers.
Actually the raw math does support the panic over the numbers.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954761In 3D6 systems, the human average is 10.5. Fritz is slightly below average with his straight 8s.
Also, his INT 8 is based on what? Lack of brains? Lack of education? Lots of bad ideas? That's a conversation for players and GM.
And Fritz thinks he's chosen by his god, he can't stay home when there is a world to save.
2 sessions in and everyone else around Fritz realizes he has massive delusions of grandeur and leaves him home.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954766Why would you want that?
Has zero zilch nada to do with roleplay.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954766It has nothing to do with math or statistics. It has to do with people crying because their character isn't the star of the show based on nothing but certain measurements.
I am not going to constantly keep rolling characters to appease some dumbfuck Dm's love of Krueger's shitfuck of a character.
I play as if I am actually there, you may have heard of this concept, why in the hell would I want to put my life on the line for someone I know is not cut out for this line of work?
What was that? Because that's what Krueger rolled? I give a fuck what Krueger rolled, we don't have to suffer his special snowflake character, play something remotely in the realm of realism or GTFO.
Quote from: noman;954418Pretty much this.
Not a fan of random rolls. If I have the opportunity to play in a OSR game, and the GM wants his old-school rolls, then so be it. His table, his rules. If I end up with eights in every attribute, I'll be playing Fritz, the delusional hobo, who believes he's a Palladin of the Sacred Temple of Genre. If he gets geeked, no biggie. Just a game.
But if it's my table, it's gonna be point-buy up in that motherfucker. Even if I run an OSR style game, which I do rarely, I'll use a homebrew point-buy system because (A) I prefer such systems and (B) just to annoy the purists. :p
More or less the same here. I started D&Ding using random stats, and I've enjoyed being a player despite rolling for stats, but I can't even remember the last time a player rolled for stats at my table.
My wife likes to roll, so I'm really excited to playtest a new D&D-ish indie game that has options for both rolling (a randomly arranged array) and point buy. Players who like to roll to discover their character can do that, and those who show up with a character in mind can make it happen. Imagine that! ;)
Quote from: Sommerjon;954846Actually the raw math does support the panic over the numbers.
2 sessions in and everyone else around Fritz realizes he has massive delusions of grandeur and leaves him home.
Yeah unless he rolled a 10 for hitpoints and more money than anyone else to have the best armor. Then he just became a frontline fighter.
Quote from: Sommerjon;954846I am not going to constantly keep rolling characters to appease some dumbfuck Dm's love of Krueger's shitfuck of a character.
I play as if I am actually there, you may have heard of this concept, why in the hell would I want to put my life on the line for someone I know is not cut out for this line of work?
What was that? Because that's what Krueger rolled? I give a fuck what Krueger rolled, we don't have to suffer his special snowflake character, play something remotely in the realm of realism or GTFO.
Somehow this morphed into choosing to roleplay a person with all 8's just because, when the GM gives you the opportunity to reroll...quite the goalpost shift.
You're acting as if your newly minted 1st level D&D group is DeNiro's crew in Heat, or Seal Team Six instead of a group going on their first adventure.
But the whole "basket-weaver" tangent, as this kind of discussion is called by jackholes over at TGD is just that, a tangent.
Some GM forcing someone when they were 12 to play a guy with all 8's, and Brady's resulting mental anguish, isn't compelling evidence for Point Buy. As said numerous times, a simple threshold for playable characters aka Shopkeeper Rule is all you need, and people have been using that method since the beginning.
Quote from: Nexus;954824I've largely stayed out of this since its mostly involved D and D, something I don't play (in part due to the emphasis on random character generation).
Er... WHAT emphasis? The only random in chargen in D&D is rolling stats and gold? And every edition has given one or more options or controls over that random. Everything from point swapping right out the gate, to arranging, to multiple rolls, to targeted rolls, to weighted rolls, to point buy, to array, and so on.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954804Sorry, man, but you never took the RCMP training course, I know someone who has, before he went to NWT and yeah, the belt is 9lbs.
You stupid fuck, I wore a Sam Browne with all the trimmings on duty for thirteen years, on road patrol, foot patrol, and mounted patrol, in front country and backcountry and wilderness, so kiss my entire fucking ass, you ignorant pile of shit.
Quote from: Omega;954862Er... WHAT emphasis? The only random in chargen in D&D is rolling stats and gold? And every edition has given one or more options or controls over that random. Everything from point swapping right out the gate, to arranging, to multiple rolls, to targeted rolls, to weighted rolls, to point buy, to array, and so on.
When I tried D and D (Redbox/BEMCI, I guess?) there was only randomly rolling your attributes. That pretty much was the character. Its the core of what they are and determines allot of what they can be or how they'll be depicted. The other options came later or in different editions that I didn't get into. Every time someone talked me into playing D and D it was strictly random character generation. It always struck me as the intended default. These other options are just something I've heard about fairly recently since I didn't keep up with the game much at all. And there's other mechanical reason I moved on to different games but primacy of random character generation was one of them.
Quote from: Skarg;954841What I remember from failing and giving up trying to figure out White Box D&D in 5th grade (over 30 years ago) was that attribute values actually had pretty much zero effect on anything except for rules of the form:
The Prime Attribute for a Fighter is Strength.
The Prime Attribute for Cleric is Wisdom.
...
If your Prime Attribute is X, your character gains needs Y% less experience to gain an experience level.
Were there other effects of attributes that had non-house rules in White Box D&D?
Omega had the right of it: "INT got you +1 languages per point over 10, DEX got you +1 ranged bonus at 13+, CON got you +1 HP bonus if 15+, CHA granted more potential hirelings, better loyalty of hirelings and better reactions from encounters."
That's one of the issues with this discussion: In some editions, stats really aren't that important (they're just something that's easy to argue over). In others, they at least can be (the difference between a Str 9 fighter and Str 18/90+ fighter in AD&D is pretty significant).
But 1st level HD roll and GP rolls probably contribute more to whether you survive the low levels.
Quote from: Skarg;954841What I remember from failing and giving up trying to figure out White Box D&D in 5th grade (over 30 years ago) was that attribute values actually had pretty much zero effect on anything except for rules of the form:
The Prime Attribute for a Fighter is Strength.
The Prime Attribute for Cleric is Wisdom.
...
If your Prime Attribute is X, your character gains needs Y% less experience to gain an experience level.
Were there other effects of attributes that had non-house rules in White Box D&D?
You mean the ones I enumerated above? Also you missed that Intelligence is the prime for Magic Users.
So once more.
Strength = just an EXP bonus if was high enough.
Intelligence = Learn additional languages if high enough
Wisdom = just an EXP bonus if was high enough.
Constitution = +1 HP and better survival chance if high enough.
Dexterity = +1 ranged attack bonus if high enough.
Charisma = more hirelings, better loyalty and reaction bonus if high enough.
And stuff that is mentioned but far as I can tell. Never explained.
Quote from: Nexus;954867When I tried D and D (Redbox/BEMCI, I guess?) there was only randomly rolling your attributes. That pretty much was the character. Its the core of what they are and determines allot of what they can be or how they'll be depicted.
BECMI still had the point swapping. Not as free as BX. But was still there.You were still free to play whatever class you wanted even with low stats as they didnt lock you out like in AD&D or 2e. They might narrow your options a little but you could play a fighter with a 3 STR if you really wanted to.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954866You stupid fuck, I wore a Sam Browne with all the trimmings on duty for thirteen years, on road patrol, foot patrol, and mounted patrol, in front country and backcountry and wilderness, so kiss my entire fucking ass, you ignorant pile of shit.
You get Sam Browne Syndrome?
Quote from: Willie the Duck;954868But 1st level HD roll and GP rolls probably contribute more to whether you survive the low levels.
HP possibly, but even that can be mitigated to some degree. Gold can be not so much a problem if characters are willing to share or the PC can scrounge a weapon from a patron or monster ASAP. Or just make a club and go fourth.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954866You stupid fuck, I wore a Sam Browne with all the trimmings on duty for thirteen years, on road patrol, foot patrol, and mounted patrol, in front country and backcountry and wilderness, so kiss my entire fucking ass, you ignorant pile of shit.
Translated from the original Vulmean: "The ambassador says he respectfully disagrees!" (big, nervous grin)
Quote from: Omega;954890BECMI still had the point swapping. Not as free as BX. But was still there.You were still free to play whatever class you wanted even with low stats as they didnt lock you out like in AD&D or 2e. They might narrow your options a little but you could play a fighter with a 3 STR if you really wanted to.
Honestly, I don't recall any point swapping rules so I'll take your word for it. Its going on 30 yrs ago. But even though you could switch things about to some degree it was still random character generation so wasn't my cuppa.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;954511I didn't think one could make a dick measuring contest out of options of rolling up characters for an RPG... I guess I was wrong.
Always good for a laugh. Fucking nerds acting like tough guys based on their choice of make believe character creation. Give me a break.
Quote from: Necrozius;954906Always good for a laugh. Fucking nerds acting like tough guys based on their choice of make believe character creation. Give me a break.
Always good for a laugh. Fucking nerds acting like tough guys based on their choice of elfgames discussion threads to consider themselves above posting in. Give me a break.
Quote from: Omega;954885You mean the ones I enumerated above? Also you missed that Intelligence is the prime for Magic Users.
So once more.
Strength = just an EXP bonus if was high enough.
Intelligence = Learn additional languages if high enough
Wisdom = just an EXP bonus if was high enough.
Constitution = +1 HP and better survival chance if high enough.
Dexterity = +1 ranged attack bonus if high enough.
Charisma = more hirelings, better loyalty and reaction bonus if high enough.
And stuff that is mentioned but far as I can tell. Never explained.
Oh thanks. Yes I must've missed your post. In other words, not really much actual effect - almost meaningless what your attributes are except for a few peculiar rules.
Quote from: Tequila SunriseShaming gamers who want their PCs to start on a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming poker players who want to start with the same chips as players who put the same cash into the pot, or shaming parents who want their kids to have the same treatment and opportunities in school as other kids.
Quote from: CatelfNo. This is false equivalence. A game is still a GAME, Cash play is more serious, and Education is Entirely serious.
Quote from: Tristram EvansVulmea's charismatic style of response aside, I have to agree that those analogies are completely inappropriate, because they both are examples of people in direct competition, the lack of which is pretty much a common identifying feature of what makes RPGs unique.
Primary school education is a
direct competition? :confused: Well ok, given how Republicans like to underfund classrooms and promote 'school choice'...:p
I can come up with endless analogies. Shaming gamers who want a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming a casual poker player who wants to start with the same number of equally valueless chips as his friends. Shaming gamers who want a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming hobbyists who want an equal stake in the bullets they chipped in equally for, the yarn they chipped in equally for, etc.. But let's be real here -- I can come up with endless analogies, and someone somewhere will come up with an objection to every one of them. So let's talk about the thing itself rather than images of the thing:
One of the most common and strongest of human values is that of fairness -- insofar as being fair to others is feasible, we teach kids to do so, and we often shame and judge harshly adults who act unfairly in the face of self-interest or when it conflicts with other values. Anecdotally, there is exactly one activity I can think of where being fair is automatically 100% worthy of ridicule, and that activity is nothing like any rpg. One of the big appeals of point buy is that it introduces more fairness to the chargen process. (And before someone who thinks themselves clever says "life isn't fair," reread the first sentence of this paragraph, and remember that we're talking about fantasy elfgames.)
So if you do believe that D&Ders who want an even playing field are worthy of shame -- and I'm asking here, because neither of you did more than object to my analogies, so maybe you don't believe so -- let's turn this issue around. What in your mind makes a cooperative hobby like D&D, or any other ttrpg, such an appropriate medium for shaming those who want more fairness, a foundational human value?
Quote from: Nexus;954867When I tried D and D (Redbox/BEMCI, I guess?) there was only randomly rolling your attributes. That pretty much was the character. Its the core of what they are and determines allot of what they can be or how they'll be depicted. The other options came later or in different editions that I didn't get into. Every time someone talked me into playing D and D it was strictly random character generation. It always struck me as the intended default. These other options are just something I've heard about fairly recently since I didn't keep up with the game much at all. And there's other mechanical reason I moved on to different games but primacy of random character generation was one of them.
Your perception is entirely understandable and largely reasonable. D&D has gradually grown less chargen random over the years, but ability scores remain a foundational part of a character's options and representation, and 4e remains the only edition where something other than rolling scores as well as other odds and ends is the default.
Quote from: Tod13;954733You're talking to the wrong person. I never said anyone should have to play Fritz. I did say I could see one of my players building a Fritz and having fun playing it successfully.
I was speaking to the topic rather than you personally.
Quote from: Skarg;954926Oh thanks. Yes I must've missed your post. In other words, not really much actual effect - almost meaningless what your attributes are except for a few peculiar rules.
Pretty much. Which makes one wonder why roll stats in the first place since aside from Charisma and Intelligence they don't actually do much? Some holdover from Chainmail? Or there for stat checks?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;954764I agree with everything except the part I've bold. In 'real life' if Fritz REALLY wanted to adventure, he'd train his body to be able to do it. After all, police officers are trained to carry 9lbs. of gear on their waist, that will increase your strength and constitution. Same thing with weapon's training, that will build your body.
A person rarely enters the police academy unable to carry their gear. They train prior to entry. There may well be minimum standards for entry. Otherwise, they enter already close to what they want to be. they get to 'play' the 'character' they want from day one. They have already done their point-buy.
Adventurers are effectively special forces units. They are not conscripts. Random generation is conscripts. You go adventuring not with the team you want but the team you have. I want special forces units. I don't think that is unreasonable. And I shouldn't be judged for that choice. But I am, constantly.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954739Shopkeeper Rule - problem solved - next?
That isn't a 'solution'. That is at best a band-aid. If the player wants to play X they should get to play X. If they are happy to play anything, cool. Not everyone wants that. They want X. They should get to play X.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954948Primary school education is a direct competition? :confused: ?
Absolutely.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;954957Absolutely.
Who doesn't have fond memories of Kindergarten Death-match?
Quote from: Tetsubo;954950I was speaking to the topic rather than you personally.
Cool. :D
Quote from: Tetsubo;954959Who doesn't have fond memories of Kindergarten Death-match?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCIGN-jpYJo&t=28s
Quote from: CRKrueger;954891You get Sam Browne Syndrome?
I had lower back injuries dating to track in high school and college, so I wore mine as little as possible. I took wildland firefighter's web gear, dyed it cordovan, and used that in place of my Sam Browne whenever I was in the backcountry; it had an integral hip pack which incredibly convenient and the web suspension distributed the weight to my shoulders as well as my hips. Gave my district ranger kittens since it wasn't as secure as the Sam Browne and I couldn't wear it in the front country because I would have to take it off any time I was operating a vehicle, but one of our risk managers liked it so much she asked me to make one for her to show her bosses - she said Sam Brownes were often the source of lost days and career-ending injuries.
Quote from: Tequila SunriseIt eliminates the temptation of "Let's see how fast I can get this lame set of stats killed" and "See ya lucky guys, let me know when the next campaign starts." We can shame and blame until we're blue in the face, but everyone has a point at which an acceptable and possibly even creativity-inspiring handicap becomes an intolerable and pointless disability. Different people have different breaking points, but "he who throws the first stone," and all that.
Quote from: Christopher BradyI've actually seen. And never in a malicious way. If the stats are so low that the player doesn't feel he can contribute, or feels like he's going to drag the team down, the few that have done this have stepped back. And again, this is anecdotal. But it's always been from a spirit of cooperation: If I can't help the party in a meaningful way, then why am I here? I've had a couple players explain it to me in that way, back in my AD&D 2e days. It's what makes me prefer arrays and point buys.
I like my players to be heroic, you know a point or three above the norm, because nothing and I mean nothing has killed my enjoyment of the game when after spending 15 to 45 minutes (depending on the game/edition/what have you) in character creation and then watching my players TPK to five Kobolds with spears in about 5 minutes in. At that point, we broke out a couple of boardgames to wash out the bad tastes in our mouths. Yeah, yeah, I get it, "That's how the dice rolled, Binky." But this is a game, not real life. Hell, one can make an argument that in real life, none of those who go into a dangerous job, Firefighting, Police, Emergency work in general, are the base normal. After all, they all train their bodies as well as their skills.
Indeed. I get why people like to roll, but I've experienced that bad as well as the good, and selfishness is not the only motivation for rejecting a set of low or consistently average rolls.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954499The easier solution is to eliminate asshats from your table. Why put up with such lame bitches?
I've never met the human being without a fault or two, so the question is: Which faults can I deal with, which can I turn into non-issues, and which are going to kill my enthusiasm for running a game? Every time I designate a fault as 'asshat,' I narrow my pool of potential players, and if I demand faultlessness I'll have nobody to game with except myself. ;) So we all have our priorities.
Personally, I'd rather game with good people who may not be impervious to the temptation to reject a bad set of rolls than game with some of the manchildren I've seen on this forum.
I played many early games that did not offer random generation (D6 Star Wars, Shadowrun, and WoD) more than I played D&D, so for me random was never the default method. I got back into D&D with 3e, and when I saw it offered a point-buy option, it seemed more natural to me than random rolling. This preference continues to this day.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954953A person rarely enters the police academy unable to carry their gear. They train prior to entry. There may well be minimum standards for entry. Otherwise, they enter already close to what they want to be. they get to 'play' the 'character' they want from day one. They have already done their point-buy.
Which is my point: Fritz's stats would not have been that low, he'd have trained them up so he could be an adventurer. So random rolls are not only unrealistic, the fact that earlier versions of D&D locked you into them with no chance of improving them aside from magic! makes it as much of a fantasy as Dragons are.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954953Adventurers are effectively special forces units. They are not conscripts. Random generation is conscripts. You go adventuring not with the team you want but the team you have. I want special forces units. I don't think that is unreasonable. And I shouldn't be judged for that choice. But I am, constantly.
Totally with you there.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954954That isn't a 'solution'. That is at best a band-aid. If the player wants to play X they should get to play X. If they are happy to play anything, cool. Not everyone wants that. They want X. They should get to play X.
So when we play a TOS Federation campaign, I guess we'll do it aboard the U.S.S. Snowflake with a Q Captain, an Organian Doctor, Gorn First Officer, Borg Science Officer, Romulan Engineer, Klingon Security Officer, and Medusan Navigator.
Or I guess everyone should just play with a full statline of 18s? In fact, you know, they win...what's the next game?
Or maybe you actually meant players should be able to play characters allowed within the logic of the setting and the campaign?
So if certain races are extremely rare in the campaign and must be qualified for with a very rare roll, or certain classes, social statuses, cultures, whatever are adequately represented through randomness, thus keeping the integrity of the setting intact, that's less important than fulfilling a player's every wish?
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954853More or less the same here. I started D&Ding using random stats, and I've enjoyed being a player despite rolling for stats, but I can't even remember the last time a player rolled for stats at my table.
My wife likes to roll, so I'm really excited to playtest a new D&D-ish indie game that has options for both rolling (a randomly arranged array) and point buy. Players who like to roll to discover their character can do that, and those who show up with a character in mind can make it happen. Imagine that! ;)
Now that's just crazy talk:D!
(It's also what I do at my tables:)).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954866You stupid fuck, I wore a Sam Browne with all the trimmings on duty for thirteen years, on road patrol, foot patrol, and mounted patrol, in front country and backcountry and wilderness, so kiss my entire fucking ass, you ignorant pile of shit.
Completely unrelated question, but are road patrol, foot patrol and mounted patrol performed by different officers?
(I'm working on my notes for a game, yes).
Quote from: Willie the Duck;954868Omega had the right of it: "INT got you +1 languages per point over 10, DEX got you +1 ranged bonus at 13+, CON got you +1 HP bonus if 15+, CHA granted more potential hirelings, better loyalty of hirelings and better reactions from encounters."
That's one of the issues with this discussion: In some editions, stats really aren't that important (they're just something that's easy to argue over). In others, they at least can be (the difference between a Str 9 fighter and Str 18/90+ fighter in AD&D is pretty significant).
But 1st level HD roll and GP rolls probably contribute more to whether you survive the low levels.
My experience confirms this.
Yet you never hear people complaining about low HD rolls on forums. Sometimes I wonder why.
Quote from: Nexus;954901Honestly, I don't recall any point swapping rules so I'll take your word for it. Its going on 30 yrs ago. But even though you could switch things about to some degree it was still random character generation so wasn't my cuppa.
I just checked my copy of OD&D, it seems to have been there from the beginning.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954948One of the most common and strongest of human values is that of fairness -- insofar as being fair to others is feasible, we teach kids to do so, and we often shame and judge harshly adults who act unfairly in the face of self-interest or when it conflicts with other values. Anecdotally, there is exactly one activity I can think of where being fair is automatically 100% worthy of ridicule, and that activity is nothing like any rpg. One of the big appeals of point buy is that it introduces more fairness to the chargen process. (And before someone who thinks themselves clever says "life isn't fair," reread the first sentence of this paragraph, and remember that we're talking about fantasy elfgames.)
So if you do believe that D&Ders who want an even playing field are worthy of shame -- and I'm asking here, because neither of you did more than object to my analogies, so maybe you don't believe so -- let's turn this issue around. What in your mind makes a cooperative hobby like D&D, or any other ttrpg, such an appropriate medium for shaming those who want more fairness, a foundational human value?
To me, at least, fairness doesn't translate to "equal starting point". We strive to be fair to them despite that.
(And even point-buy does, in quite a few games, create very unequal characters. Do I need to mention White Wolf, or how some concepts will make you suck XP penalties even in Savage Worlds, not to mention GURPS?)
Quote from: Tetsubo;954954That isn't a 'solution'. That is at best a band-aid. If the player wants to play X they should get to play X. If they are happy to play anything, cool. Not everyone wants that. They want X. They should get to play X.
I disagree, it is a solution. In fact, it's the same solution the states enact to decide who gets to be in the special forces and who doesn't: they set qualification minimums:p.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;954969I had lower back injuries dating to track in high school and college, so I wore mine as little as possible. I took wildland firefighter's web gear, dyed it cordovan, and used that in place of my Sam Browne whenever I was in the backcountry; it had an integral hip pack which incredibly convenient and the web suspension distributed the weight to my shoulders as well as my hips. Gave my district ranger kittens since it wasn't as secure as the Sam Browne and I couldn't wear it in the front country because I would have to take it off any time I was operating a vehicle, but one of our risk managers liked it so much she asked me to make one for her to show her bosses - she said Sam Brownes were often the source of lost days and career-ending injuries.
Been wearing armour lately, so I can definitely appreciate how much of a difference the weight distribution makes!
Quote from: CRKrueger;954986So when we play a TOS Federation campaign, I guess we'll do it aboard the U.S.S. Snowflake with a Q Captain, an Organian Doctor, Gorn First Officer, Borg Science Officer, Romulan Engineer, Klingon Security Officer, and Medusan Navigator.
Or I guess everyone should just play with a full statline of 18s? In fact, you know, they win...what's the next game?
Or maybe you actually meant players should be able to play characters allowed within the logic of the setting and the campaign?
So if certain races are extremely rare in the campaign and must be qualified for with a very rare roll, or certain classes, social statuses, cultures, whatever are adequately represented through randomness, thus keeping the integrity of the setting intact, that's less important than fulfilling a player's every wish?
You two are talking about what's important, and you probably value the same things, but you shouldn't expect everyone to value the same things
equally Green One;)!
Quote from: Tetsubo;954953Adventurers are effectively special forces units. They are not conscripts. Random generation is conscripts. You go adventuring not with the team you want but the team you have. I want special forces units. I don't think that is unreasonable.
There is no reason for adventurers to be special forces units - especially at low levels. They certainly can be fantasy superheroes. That's a whole genre of its own. I play 4e and its definitely fantasy special forces from Day 1.
But that's not zero-to-hero which is what early D&D, Gamma World, RuneQuest, CoC, T&T, etc was about.
The majority of the early games were about rolling a bunch of dice and PART OF THE FUN was figuring out WTF to do with your rolls.
That's a feature, not a bug.
But its not for everyone, nor does it need to be.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954953And I shouldn't be judged for that choice. But I am, constantly.
We all have our cross to bear.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954954If the player wants to play X they should get to play X.
That's certainly one way to play. There are plenty of those games out there, and all others are easy to houserule to do that.
But in my experience, I find that method produces bland characters most of the time. Not always, just most.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954972I've never met the human being without a fault or two, so the question is: Which faults can I deal with, which can I turn into non-issues, and which are going to kill my enthusiasm for running a game? Every time I designate a fault as 'asshat,' I narrow my pool of potential players, and if I demand faultlessness I'll have nobody to game with except myself. ;) So we all have our priorities.
The asshats who shit themselves during chargen don't magically become good players when other randomness shows up - like bad saving throws, bad combats, etc. Their min/max +10 bonus doesn't do squat when they roll a 2 vs. a TN 14.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954986Or I guess everyone should just play with a full statline of 18s? In fact, you know, they win...what's the next game?
Here's the joke. In most OSR stuff, that's +3 to all D20 rolls. AKA, the best stats possible is only a 15% bump vs. a normal dude and a 30% bump vs. a mook with all 3s.
Let's give'em max HP at 1st level so Fighter with 13 or Barbarian with 15? Now what? If he enters combat and rolls badly while his opponents roll well, Mr. Perfect Statline is splattered and the player must commence their mandatory crying.
It's why 2D10 is better math, but its slower and less exciting than D20.
Also why stats in GURPS are more meaningful than most other RPGs. 3D6 enforces averages more than 2D10 and hugely more than D20.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954948I can come up with endless analogies. Shaming gamers who want a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming a casual poker player who wants to start with the same number of equally valueless chips as his friends. Shaming gamers who want a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming hobbyists who want an equal stake in the bullets they chipped in equally for, the yarn they chipped in equally for, etc..
What about the argument that point-buy
doesn't provide a level playing field, but instead tends to reward system mastery and penalize the lack of same? (Hell, with their admitted inclusion of "trap options", D&D3 was
deliberately intended to give unfair advantages to those who weren't aware of the traps!)
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954948One of the most common and strongest of human values is that of fairness -- insofar as being fair to others is feasible, we teach kids to do so, and we often shame and judge harshly adults who act unfairly in the face of self-interest or when it conflicts with other values. Anecdotally, there is exactly one activity I can think of where being fair is automatically 100% worthy of ridicule, and that activity is nothing like any rpg. One of the big appeals of point buy is that it introduces more fairness to the chargen process.
Assuming nobody is using loaded dice, fudging rolls, etc., I find random chargen to be completely fair. Everyone has the same chance of rolling a 3 or an 18 as anyone else does.
I imagine your response will be that it's still unfair that the player who rolls well will have an enduring advantage for as long as the characters survive. While it is true that any single instance of random chargen will produce advantages for some players and disadvantages for others, over the course of
multiple sets of characters, it tends to even out. Unlike point-buy systems, where the high-system-mastery player will reliably have an enduring advantage over the low-system-mastery player every single time. You're free to disagree, of course, but, personally, it feels more fair to me if either of us has an equal chance to have an advantage than if I know, even before we start making characters, that you're going to have an advantage every time.
Quote from: Tetsubo;954953Adventurers are effectively special forces units. They are not conscripts.
Adventurers
may effectively be special forces. They
may be conscripts. Neither is necessarily the case. You prefer to play character who are special forces from day one, I prefer to play conscripts who, over time, may or may not grow into a special forces role, if they survive that long.
Quote from: AsenRG;954987Yet you never hear people complaining about low HD rolls on forums. Sometimes I wonder why.
That's an easy one: In the last couple editions of D&D, you automatically get maximum HP at level 1 by RAW, and this was a common house rule even before it became official. If you're not rolling for HP, then you can't roll low.
Quote from: nDervish;954992That's an easy one: In the last couple editions of D&D, you automatically get maximum HP at level 1 by RAW, and this was a common house rule even before it became official. If you're not rolling for HP, then you can't roll low.
Sounds likely:).
Quote from: CRKrueger;954986So when we play a TOS Federation campaign, I guess we'll do it aboard the U.S.S. Snowflake with a Q Captain, an Organian Doctor, Gorn First Officer, Borg Science Officer, Romulan Engineer, Klingon Security Officer, and Medusan Navigator.
Or I guess everyone should just play with a full statline of 18s? In fact, you know, they win...what's the next game?
Or maybe you actually meant players should be able to play characters allowed within the logic of the setting and the campaign?
So if certain races are extremely rare in the campaign and must be qualified for with a very rare roll, or certain classes, social statuses, cultures, whatever are adequately represented through randomness, thus keeping the integrity of the setting intact, that's less important than fulfilling a player's every wish?
And yet another strawman is thrown into this fire. Two different ideas, if one is going to play in a Original Series Star Trek, then everyone has likely bought into the setting. In fact, most people WANT to play an 'approved' race because it's Star Trek. But that still has nothing to do with random rolls being better than point buy.
Quote from: AsenRG;954987You two are talking about what's important, and you probably value the same things, but you shouldn't expect everyone to value the same things equally Green One;)!
Hell, you could call the Enterprise the USS "Special Snowflake"...
Its odd to assume that because some people want to enter a rpg with a character they want to play rather than what the dice hand them they're motivated by need for "power" (whatever the Hell that means in a game where the gm sets the challenge level to the fit the PCs anyway) or "special snowflakeness" (which always struck me as an odd notion but that's another flame inducing topic).
If a group likes having their characters determined by the dice and seeing what happens, fine. If they want to design their characters in an organized fashion that's fine. Most games are somewhere between the two, few are purely random and few are "Pick anything you want." Its games, play them how you enjoy them. There's no moral, ethical, virility or whatever weight attached to the choice of how you play Let's Pretend.
Edit: Admittedly, the "Point Buy: Threat or Menace?" nature of the OP certainly didn't start things off on a level headed footing.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955002And yet another strawman is thrown into this fire. Two different ideas, if one is going to play in a Original Series Star Trek, then everyone has likely bought into the setting. In fact, most people WANT to play an 'approved' race because it's Star Trek. But that still has nothing to do with random rolls being better than point buy.
I mean you could call the Enterprise the USS "Special Snowflake" from its first appearance. Allot of the characters were pretty unusual even if they weren't exceptionally "powerful" in setting terms. The generic Star Fleet Guys were usually the extras in red shirts and skirts that didn't last too long. It doesn't seem that over the top that some people want to do their Let's Pretend to be in Star Fleet in a fashion the emulates that aspect of what inspired them about the show.
Quote from: Nexus;955005I mean you could call the Enterprise the USS "Special Snowflake" from its first appearance. Allot of the characters were pretty unusual even if they weren't exceptionally "powerful" in setting terms. The generic Star Fleet Guys were usually the extras in red shirts and skirts that didn't last too long. It doesn't seem that over the top that some people want to do their Let's Pretend to be in Star Fleet in a fashion the emulates that aspect of what inspired them about the show.
If I remember correctly, didn't they lose like... 2? Maybe 3 Constitution class battle cruisers 'on screen' and several others were lost?
I stand corrected, they lost three on screen, the Excalibur, the Defiant and the Constellation. The Farragut was lost somewhere in space as was the Valiant before the series even started. And finally, the Intrepid was lost, and it was a crew of all Vulcans.
So about nearly half were lost, out of the 12/13 ships. And of the remaining ones, only ONE ship actually made an impact on the galaxy at large. The Enterprise. Which supports your statement of the NCC-1701 being crewed by Special Snowflakes.
Quote from: AsenRG;954987I just checked my copy of OD&D, it seems to have been there from the beginning.
Thanks for the information, I guess. But as I indicated, its pretty tangential to my point: D and D's character generation platforms were random when I was trying it so I moved on.
So the red box with the dude about to killed by a dragon, Aleena the cleric, Bargle, etc is "OD and D"?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/D%26D_1983_Basic_Rules_cover.jpg)
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954948Primary school education is a direct competition? :confused: Well ok, given how Republicans like to underfund classrooms and promote 'school choice'...:p
-----------------------------------------snip------------------------------------------
What in your mind makes a cooperative hobby like D&D, or any other ttrpg, such an appropriate medium for shaming those who want more fairness, a foundational human value?
Did I SAY it was a direct competition?
I said it was SERIOUS.
Also, in a way, yes it is a competition to some, especially those that aim for high grades instead of actually LEARNING about things, but this discussion is not about the school system.
What you rather seem to be getting at, is that some seem to consider point-buy to be a vessel for creating "snowflake" characters, tailor-made characters for each player.
And it is.
The problem is that "snowflake" is used as a derogatory when it doesn't have to be.
Beyond that, no one is shaming anyone for anything here.
So your analogies are worthless, because the situation are different than you seem to assume it is.
Some prefer point-buy, some prefer rolls, some consider both fully valid, and those few that may be saying bad things about "snowflake characters" and similar .... are either nitwits or yanking your chains!
Some people do that on here to test your mettle.
As I mentioned, I PREFER POINT-BUY.
I'm just adding it again, in case you missed it.
Also, yes it is make-believe games, but that argument goes both ways.
Is there any point in arguing about it at all?
We have different ways to do things.
And some likes to argue.
That's it.
Also, if you read all comments, you'd know that this thread is, to some, only partially serious.
Someone pointed out that it was "clickbait" even.
And in a way, it is.
Quote from: Nexus;955004Its odd to assume that because some people want to enter a rpg with a character they want to play rather than what the dice hand them they're motivated by need for "power" (whatever the Hell that means in a game where the gm sets the challenge level to the fit the PCs anyway) or "special snowflakeness" (which always struck me as an odd notion but that's another flame inducing topic).
Do you remember that quite a few people don't change the challenge level to fit the PCs:p?
QuoteEdit: Admittedly, the "Point Buy: Threat or Menace?" nature of the OP certainly didn't start things off on a level headed footing.
When has Pundit started threads that were aimed at producing a level-headed discussion:D?
Quote from: Nexus;955014Thanks for the information, I guess. But ss I indicated, its pretty tangential to my point: D and D's character generation platforms were random when I was trying it so I moved on.
I got your point. You also expressed doubt that rule existed, so I checked the closest edition to it that I have access to. So it was a "you probably just forgot about it, because it didn't work for you anyway".
Which, let me remind you, is fine by me:). I was pretty firmly pro-point buy, too, at some point. I have, since then, expanded into more random generation, and discovered that as long as the GM isn't being a dick* about it, it works fine.
*"You'll play the only class you stated you don't want to play before joining, unless you qualify for another" certainly comes close in my book;). But then again, playing with dicks ain't going to result in a good game in point-buy systems, either.
QuoteSo the red box with the dude about to killed by a dragon, Aleena the cleric, Bargle, etc is "OD and D"?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/D%26D_1983_Basic_Rules_cover.jpg)
Definitely not - I think that's BECMI?
Anyway, I don't have access to that edition. So, as stated above, I checked an earlier one, and concluded that it probably wasn't dropped. (I do know that it existed in B/X from playing a forum game, where the GM just informed us we can do some switching, and stated "he's going to allow it". It seems more than a few GMs didn't allow it, which might be why you didn't remember this;)).
Quote from: Catelf;955015Also, yes it is make-believe games, but that argument goes both ways.
Is there any point in arguing about it at all?
We have different ways to do things.
And some likes to argue.
That's it.
Seems like a nice summary of the thread...:D
Of course, it's only natural. We're here to discuss RPGs, are we not? And some of us might value both the "discuss" and "RPGs" parts about equally;)!
Quote from: AsenRG;955017Do you remember that quite a few people don't change the challenge level to fit the PCs?
What are you talking about?
QuoteWhen has Pundit started threads that were aimed at producing a level-headed discussion:D?
Beats me but this one certainly wasn't an example of it.
QuoteI got your point. You also expressed doubt that rule existed, so I checked the closest edition to it that I have access to. So it was a "you probably just forgot about it, because it didn't work for you anyway".
I said "I didn't remember it one way or the other so I'll take your word for it." I meant exactly what I said: I don't remember that, but you do so I'll go with it. You may have misread my tone. Easy enough to do in this medium.
Quote from: Nexus;955019What are you talking about?
You stated, AFAICT, that "power" isn't that important since the challenge is going to be tailored to the PCs anyway, as if it's a non-controversial fact. I reminded you that this is against the playstyle that many people on this site abhor:).
QuoteI said "I didn't remember it one way or the other so I'll take your word for it." I meant exactly what I said: I don't remember that, but you do so I'll go with it. You may have misread my tone. Easy enough to do in this medium.
Yeah, that seems to be the case;).
There seems to be a few points that has been noted here:
* "Special snowflakes" are far more common in fiction than some in this thread seem to realize, and when you play an rpg, you very often want to emulate them, and not a redshirt in Star Trek, a non-descript warrior in LotR, or some such.
* An Adventurer may be Conscript-like, or Mercenaries, or anything inbetween. This may be reached both by point-buy and random rolls, although minimum requirements are needed for Mercenaries in both cases.
*"Shopkeepers" may be discarded or kept as NPC's. (They might even have been adventures once, before ... (insert meme).)
...I'm getting off track here.
"Special snowflake" characters are no problem.
Heck, in his own way, that "Fritz" character is a special snowflake in his own way, even though he were randomly rolled to be sub-par and sub-mediocre.
The question is:
Do the character fit both the player and the setting?
If yes, there is no arguing.
If no, then tweaks are in order, within the rules, until it works well enough.
If tweaks do not fix it, then there are other problems, with the Player and/or the GM/DM/ST/Referee that simply can not be fixed at the table!
Quote from: AsenRG;955022You stated, AFAICT, that "power" isn't that important since the challenge is going to be tailored to the PCs anyway, as if it's a non-controversial fact. I reminded you that this is against the playstyle that many people on this site abhor:).
The power level of the PCs still isn't a concern in that case either They can be mighty or mighty sad. Either way the pursuit of "power" in char gen seems futile due to the nature of the game and gm choices.
Though I'd imagine in the most boxy of Sandboxes, there will be some degree of threat management and placement. Just explicit setting "level ups" as the characters progress. If you want your Noobie Adventurers to take on Lichicus Maximus on Day One, got for it. But he's not going to arbitrarily cross their paths while they're clearing rats in the city sewers on pure happenstance despite such an event being theoretically possible in a "real world". *
*Of course, some body probably does play that way.
Quote from: AsenRG;955022You stated, AFAICT, that "power" isn't that important since the challenge is going to be tailored to the PCs anyway, as if it's a non-controversial fact. I reminded you that this is against the playstyle that many people on this site abhor:).
The power level of the PCs still isn't a concern in that case either They can be mighty or mighty sad. Either way the pursuit of "power" in char gen seems futile due to the nature of the game and gm choices.
Though I'd imagine in the most boxy of Sandboxes, there will be some degree of threat management and placement. Just explicit setting "level ups" as the characters progress or fenced off zones like some MMOs. Its a world do what you want but its not totally random. If you want your Noobie Adventurers to take on Lichicus Maximus on Day One, got for it. The Tower of Ultimate Despair is right over there. But he's not going to arbitrarily cross their paths while they're clearing out a nest of goblins in the city sewers on pure happenstance despite such an event being theoretically possible in a "real world". *
*Of course, some body probably does play that way.
tl;dr: Trying to outgun the GM with clever char generation is pretty pointless in most playstyles.
Quote from: AsenRG;955017We're here to discuss RPGs, are we not? And some of us might value both the "discuss" and "RPGs" parts about equally;)!
Not to mention those that seem to think that people are here for abuse instead of arguing. :D
Quote from: Catelf;955015Did I SAY it was a direct competition?
The problem is that "snowflake" is used as a derogatory when it doesn't have to be.
Come to think of it. Playing RPGs is a bit "snowflakey" to begin with :D
Quote from: Nexus;955004
Edit: Admittedly, the "Point Buy: Threat or Menace?" nature of the OP certainly didn't start things off on a level headed footing.
It was a Pundit post. I assume anyone who replies assumes the question was asked in way designed generated lots of responses, conflict, and site traffic. Your best bet for level-headedness is to quit reading any thread within the first dozen posts. :cool:
Quote from: Catelf;955023There seems to be a few points that has been noted here:
* "Special snowflakes" are far more common in fiction than some in this thread seem to realize, and when you play an rpg, you very often want to emulate them, and not a redshirt in Star Trek, a non-descript warrior in LotR, or some such.
* An Adventurer may be Conscript-like, or Mercenaries, or anything inbetween. This may be reached both by point-buy and random rolls, although minimum requirements are needed for Mercenaries in both cases.
*"Shopkeepers" may be discarded or kept as NPC's. (They might even have been adventures once, before ... (insert meme).)
...I'm getting off track here.
"Special snowflake" characters are no problem.
Heck, in his own way, that "Fritz" character is a special snowflake in his own way, even though he were randomly rolled to be sub-par and sub-mediocre.
The question is:
Do the character fit both the player and the setting?
If yes, there is no arguing.
If no, then tweaks are in order, within the rules, until it works well enough.
If tweaks do not fix it, then there are other problems, with the Player and/or the GM/DM/ST/Referee that simply can not be fixed at the table!
Fun fact: if Fritz survives, he'd fit the literary definition of a Marty Stu. He's the weak guy who survives great dangers that would have destroyed far stronger people 9and in old D&D, got rich from adventuring;))!
Quote from: Nexus;955025The power level of the PCs still isn't a concern in that case either They can be mighty or mighty sad. Either way the pursuit of "power" in char gen seems futile due to the nature of the game and gm choices.
Though I'd imagine in the most boxy of Sandboxes, there will be some degree of threat management and placement. Just explicit setting "level ups" as the characters progress or fenced off zones like some MMOs. Its a world do what you want but its not totally random. If you want your Noobie Adventurers to take on Lichicus Maximus on Day One, got for it. The Tower of Ultimate Despair is right over there. But he's not going to arbitrarily cross their paths while they're clearing out a nest of goblins in the city sewers on pure happenstance despite such an event being theoretically possible in a "real world". *
*Of course, some body probably does play that way.
tl;dr: Trying to outgun the GM with clever char generation is pretty pointless in most playstyles.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about outgunning the GM. It's outgunning the other players that might be a problem, or not reaching the level of the other players. Imagine someone who tries to make a slow, though warrior in Exalted only to find out everyone else is Dex 5 with two medium weapons:p!
Quote from: Catelf;955026Not to mention those that seem to think that people are here for abuse instead of arguing. :D
We have all kinds of funny individuals, indeed:D!
Quote from: Catelf;955026Not to mention those that seem to think that people are here for abuse instead of arguing. :D
You want room 12A, next door (http://www.enworld.org/forum/forum.php).
Quote from: nDervish;954992What about the argument that point-buy doesn't provide a level playing field, but instead tends to reward system mastery and penalize the lack of same?
Quote from: nDervish;954992Assuming nobody is using loaded dice, fudging rolls, etc., I find random chargen to be completely fair. Everyone has the same chance of rolling a 3 or an 18 as anyone else does.
Quote from: nDervish;954992Adventurers may effectively be special forces. They may be conscripts. Neither is necessarily the case. You prefer to play character who are special forces from day one, I prefer to play conscripts who, over time, may or may not grow into a special forces role, if they survive that long.
Worth repeating.
Quote from: Catelf;955023Special snowflakes" are far more common in fiction than some in this thread seem to realize, and when you play an rpg, you very often want to emulate them, and not a redshirt in Star Trek, a non-descript warrior in LotR, or some such.
nDervish's last point goes to this: if I play my character well and Fate is kind, then my character may become a special snowflake. Until then, he's just this guy, y'know?
Let's face it: regardless of creation method, all characters are snowflakes, or snowflakes-in-waiting. Until they're dead, of course.:-)
Quote from: cranebump;955049Let's face it: regardless of creation method, all characters are snowflakes, or snowflakes-in-waiting. Until they're dead, of course.:-)
And then they're...melted snowflakes...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]846[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Nexus;955052And then they're...melted snowflakes...
Oh, what a world! What a world!
(So, new character. Point buy?):-)
It highly depends on the system as well. If you're playing some TSR D&D variant, monster saving throws aren't affected by your ability scores, and your THAC0 will scale just fine as long as you aren't taking a penalty. So you can be Fritz and still be fine. You won't be attracting a large body of followers, but the game is playable. In the WotC variants, if you've got ability scores of 9 straight through, the dice will catch up to you. It might be amusing at first, but eventually, not hitting attacks, failing saves, and being useless on skill checks will stop being fun. That's why I prefer random point-buy for my 5e games. You've got the randomness, but the most mediocre you can get is 13/13/13/12/12/12, which is still an entirely playable array.
Random generation or point buy system both involve some system mastery at some point. Having a system beyond "flip a coin" rewards system mastery (and I'm almost certain some smartass will point out how someone could game that. :P :D). The argument you can make is that system mastery can be learned,taught or assisted. You can't learn to have better luck bur no, Point buy doesn't ensure an even playing field. It still takes gm management but, IME, it does make it easier if that's the goal.
As for playing "some guy" or "special forces" from thwe beginning, that boils down to preferences again. But using point buy doesn't guarantee the PCs are any more potent than random extra #252 just that they're more likely to be the type of character the player had in mind (if they had one). Preferring point buy isn't about being more uber than everyone else for allot of people.
Quote from: AsenRG;955045Yeah, but I'm not talking about outgunning the GM. It's outgunning the other players that might be a problem, or not reaching the level of the other players. Imagine someone who tries to make a slow, though warrior in Exalted only to find out everyone else is Dex 5 with two medium weapons:p!
Yeah but interplayer dick measuring wasn't what my point was addressing and your counterargument appeared to be focused on gming styles not player rivalries.
Quote from: noman;954418Not a fan of random rolls. If I have the opportunity to play in a OSR game, and the GM wants his old-school rolls, then so be it. His table, his rules. If I end up with eights in every attribute, I'll be playing Fritz, the delusional hobo, who believes he's a Palladin of the Sacred Temple of Genre. If he gets geeked, no biggie. Just a game.
I normally run OD&D (Brown Box/White Box from the mid-1970s) variants and I usually have players roll 3d6 in order. Then they can swap two rolls between attributes if they wish. Attribute bonuses and penalties are modest:
3-5 = -1
6-14 = +0
15-17 = +1
18 = +2
In my system Fritz would be no better or worse attribute bonus-wise than a character with all 14s. The difference between a 3 and an 18 is only 15% better on rolls. Attributes just are not that important in this system. Regardless of attributes, any character can be any of the four main classes (cleric, fighter, magic-user or thief). Attribute restrictions are reserved for classes that are relatively rare in the setting (like ranger or paladin). The Intelligence attribute is a measure of a PC's perception, intuition, formal education and knowledge and not a measure of how smart the PC is – as a PC's wit and cleverness are that of the player. (For NPCs and monsters, however, INT is also a measure of raw "smarts"). While Fritz could not actually be a Paladin, he could certainly be a capable character who believes he was called by his deity to do the work of a paladin. If he took cleric as his class but called himself a paladin, chances are most of the common people in the world would have no reason to doubt him provided he acted as they believe a paladin would.
I find this system solves most of the common objections (beyond "I just don't like random rolls") to random attributes.
Quote from: Nexus;955057Yeah but interplayer dick measuring wasn't what my point was addressing and your counterargument appeared to be focused on gming styles not player rivalries.
OK, it seems I'm not communicating my point well enough when I'm sick, so I'll excuse myself from the thread and come back to it when I feel better.
Quote from: AsenRG;954987My experience confirms this.
Yet you never hear people complaining about low HD rolls on forums. Sometimes I wonder why.
Oh theres been bitching about it for a long time. Pretty sure theres examples and "fixes" in Dragon somewhere.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954988But that's not zero-to-hero which is what early D&D, Gamma World, RuneQuest, CoC, T&T, etc was about.
Gamma World, least the early versions, your characters start off fully fledged and, barring mutations, dont change.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955048nDervish's last point goes to this: if I play my character well and Fate is kind, then my character may become a special snowflake. Until then, he's just this guy, y'know?
I have a better suggestion, I dare say:
If you roll at random, and most rolls end up as 8 or less, then your character may actually be a child, following a parent or auntie/uncle on adventures(or being a runaway), and if you get a lot over 12, then your character is already a seasoned veteran.
However, both are as much of "special snowflakes" as their players want them to be, because I find that to be more of a mindset.
I mean, anyone taking on adventures with so low stats are either desperate, stupid, or having help.
Neither choice sound truly like "just this guy".
By the way, the arguments made for straight rolls has made me interested in trying them, as long as I get to place each roll where I like it.
Quote from: Nexus;955014Thanks for the information, I guess. But ss I indicated, its pretty tangential to my point: D and D's character generation platforms were random when I was trying it so I moved on.
So the red box with the dude about to killed by a dragon, Aleena the cleric, Bargle, etc is "OD and D"?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/D%26D_1983_Basic_Rules_cover.jpg)
B to BX to niminally BECMI is OD&D, just better organized and a few minour tweaks. And yes. Red box dies have point swapping. And yes your dismissal of the game just because of random stat gen does come across as a bit heavy handed.
Quote from: cranebump;955049Let's face it: regardless of creation method, all characters are snowflakes, or snowflakes-in-waiting. Until they're dead, of course.:-)
From experience as a DM and a player. Snowflakes also melt away to nothing when the heat gets turned on.
You just need a DM willing to turn up the heat and not be a doormat.
All that said. Sometimes the accusation gets applied to characters who arent really. The player selected a rare race or class because it interested them. Not for the attention. Just because it looked fun.
And lets face it. Playing a bad statted character can also very much be a snowflake too of the "oh woe is me! I is for the gimpethed!"
But for some of us we'll play it for the challenge. To see how far they will go.
Quote from: Omega;955075B to BX to niminally BECMI is OD&D, just better organized and a few minor tweaks.
Cool, I rarely know what people are talking about when the used the shortened nicknames. Like I said I don't follow D and D much at all.
QuoteAnd yes. Red box dies have point swapping.
I wasn't arguing that it didn't. It doesn't affect my point.
QuoteAnd yes your dismissal of the game just because of random stat gen does come across as a bit heavy handed.
Yes, I didn't like the play experience it provided after I'd tried it so I moved on to something I liked better. Why play a game I wasn't a having fun and why is that anymore "heavy handed" than not playing in a play style you don't like or a genre you don't enjoy? It wasn't the only reason but random chargen was one of the major ones. And I now avoid random character generation games unless they're easy to mod because I don't enjoy them. Like I avoid Rom-Coms or Vegan cooking because I don't enjoy them. I get that it a neutral issue or a plus for others. Its not "heavy handed" for others to dismiss Point Buy chargen because they don't like either. I'm not so arrogant as to think my personal preferences are some universal objective standard.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;955054In the WotC variants, if you've got ability scores of 9 straight through, the dice will catch up to you. It might be amusing at first, but eventually, not hitting attacks, failing saves, and being useless on skill checks will stop being fun.
That's why I prefer random point-buy for my 5e games. You've got the randomness, but the most mediocre you can get is 13/13/13/12/12/12, which is still an entirely playable array.
1: This is what I was told as a player in 3e. That you pretty much needed certain stats a certain level to get by even. Im still dubious if thats true as my character never got really deep in levels before the campaign puttered out. But comments by others seem to indicate it can be an issue?
2: And with a human character that turns into a 14/14/14/13/13/13. Not bad really. The group I play with as a player actually have discussed doing an all fighter group with all the same stats at the start like that.
Quote from: Omega;955078Playing a bad statted character can also very much be a snowflake too of the "oh woe is me! I is for the gimpethed!"
But for some of us we'll play it for the challenge. To see how far they will go.
What's also being missed is that if low stats
genuinely are a problem, your character will die soon and then you have a chance to roll up something better. And if they
don't die and you're "stuck" with this crappy character... maybe they actually aren't that crappy?
Quote from: estar;954659Exactly. What the issue boils down is that the players want to play a particular character that may or may not fit into the referee's campaign. It is reasonable to expect that the player and referee can sit down and figure it out. There no general rule other than those of common courtesy.
It OK for a OD&D campaign to say OK you start with a 18 charisma so you can play as a paladin. It also OK for a referee to say you have to roll 3d6 straight it how I run my campaigns. OD&D is not going to suddenly emit a fart and have a nuclear shit in either case.
And in OD&D the only difference is a damn experience point boost. Crom's corn-loaded shit on toast, a fighter with a strength of 3 advances slower due to the XP bonus/penalty, but IN ALL OTHER WAYS is totally identical to a fighter with Strength of 18.
Quote from: AsenRG;954797Are you even serious?
Where the hell have you been for the last ten years? Sadly, though his intent was sarcastic, he is indeed as serious as chest pains and tingling down your left arm.
I notice those who scream loudest about bad stats are those most ignorant of the difference between editions.
Quote from: Spinachcat;954782Dudebro, didn't you hear? In 2017 pretending to be an elf without crying is FUCKING HARDCORE!!!
QFMFAT, unfortunately.
Quote from: CRKrueger;954766To those who never recovered from the horrors of D&D in 5th grade.
Some can, others carry scars for life.
This is why my "Third Law of Gaming" is "Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 13, does not constitute a need to change the rules.
Quote from: Omega;954951Pretty much. Which makes one wonder why roll stats in the first place since aside from Charisma and Intelligence they don't actually do much? Some holdover from Chainmail? Or there for stat checks?
Because Gygax wanted to scar players' psyches' for years to come!! WAAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Because "he thought it was fun" can't possibly be right. Rolling to see what you get was considered by us to be fun.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;954948What in your mind makes a cooperative hobby like D&D, or any other ttrpg, such an appropriate medium for shaming those who want more fairness, a foundational human value?
If everyone rolls 3d6 in order six times, that's completely fair. Everyone has the same chances.
Quote from: Nexus;955014Thanks for the information, I guess. But as I indicated, its pretty tangential to my point: D and D's character generation platforms were random when I was trying it so I moved on.
So the red box with the dude about to killed by a dragon, Aleena the cleric, Bargle, etc is "OD and D"?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/D%26D_1983_Basic_Rules_cover.jpg)
Nope. OD&D is the woodgrain box with three booklets.
http://www.dragontrove.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/product_full/8295.jpg
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955046You want room 12A, next door (http://www.enworld.org/forum/forum.php).
It's getting hit on the head lessons here.
This is like rappers trying to show their street cred... random in order is so OG!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955120Nope. OD&D is the woodgrain box with three booklets.
http://www.dragontrove.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/product_full/8295.jpg
Huh, I've never seen that. Not in the wild anyway :)
Quote from: Tequila SunriseMy wife likes to roll, so I'm really excited to playtest a new D&D-ish indie game that has options for both rolling (a randomly arranged array) and point buy. Players who like to roll to discover their character can do that, and those who show up with a character in mind can make it happen. Imagine that! ;)
Quote from: AsenRGNow that's just crazy talk:D!
(It's also what I do at my tables:)).
Lol, perish the thought that gamers with different tastes get to have fun at the same table, right?
You know, random chargen and point buy aren’t ‘natural enemies’ the way we tend to treat them in these online flame wars. There are ways to do random that don’t infringe on the fairness that point buy fans value. BUT sadly a lot of D&D fans don’t just want random chargen — they want
D&D-style random chargen. Or at least there’s a perception that many of us want to specifically grab those d6s, rather than use any other random method like random arrays, and play the chargen lottery ‘the way it’s always been done.’ (Airquoted because apparently the way stats are rolled in latter editions is not the same as they are in prior editions.)
Which is why, after 40 years of D&D, the latest edition is
still causing flame wars over its default stat gen methods.
Quote from: Tequila SunriseOne of the most common and strongest of human values is that of fairness -- insofar as being fair to others is feasible, we teach kids to do so, and we often shame and judge harshly adults who act unfairly in the face of self-interest or when it conflicts with other values. Anecdotally, there is exactly one activity I can think of where being fair is automatically 100% worthy of ridicule, and that activity is nothing like any rpg. One of the big appeals of point buy is that it introduces more fairness to the chargen process. (And before someone who thinks themselves clever says "life isn't fair," reread the first sentence of this paragraph, and remember that we're talking about fantasy elfgames.)
So if you do believe that D&Ders who want an even playing field are worthy of shame -- and I'm asking here, because neither of you did more than object to my analogies, so maybe you don't believe so -- let's turn this issue around. What in your mind makes a cooperative hobby like D&D, or any other ttrpg, such an appropriate medium for shaming those who want more fairness, a foundational human value?
Quote from: AsenRGTo me, at least, fairness doesn't translate to "equal starting point". We strive to be fair to them despite that.
(And even point-buy does, in quite a few games, create very unequal characters. Do I need to mention White Wolf, or how some concepts will make you suck XP penalties even in Savage Worlds, not to mention GURPS?)
No doubt point buy doesn't magically make everything in a game fair. What do you mean by striving to be fair to them despite unequal an starting point? It sounds like perhaps point buy simply introduces fairness a step earlier than you care for.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955118If everyone rolls 3d6 in order six times, that's completely fair. Everyone has the same chances.
So is playing Russian Roulette where everyone has 1/6 of being shot. That doesn't mean that I want to play it.
Quote from: Tequila SunriseI've never met the human being without a fault or two, so the question is: Which faults can I deal with, which can I turn into non-issues, and which are going to kill my enthusiasm for running a game? Every time I designate a fault as 'asshat,' I narrow my pool of potential players, and if I demand faultlessness I'll have nobody to game with except myself. So we all have our priorities.
Quote from: SpinachcatThe asshats who shit themselves during chargen don't magically become good players when other randomness shows up - like bad saving throws, bad combats, etc. Their min/max +10 bonus doesn't do squat when they roll a 2 vs. a TN 14.
You may be surprised to learn that many players who object to random chargen are totally kool with random gameplay, no magic involved.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;955129So is playing Russian Roulette where everyone has 1/6 of being shot. That doesn't mean that I want to play it.
So if you get bad rolls the DM shoots you? And I thought
I was a hardcore DM!
Quote from: Tequila SunrisePrimary school education is a direct competition? Well ok, given how Republicans like to underfund classrooms and promote 'school choice'...
-----------------------------------------snip------------------------------------------
What in your mind makes a cooperative hobby like D&D, or any other ttrpg, such an appropriate medium for shaming those who want more fairness, a foundational human value?
Quote from: CatelfDid I SAY it was a direct competition?
No, Tristram Evans did (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36607-Point-Buy&p=954429&viewfull=1#post954429), and my comment about education was directed at him.
In my experience public grade school was very non-competetive, education wise. (Obviously juvenile politics is a different story.) Same story with public secondary ed, different story with private secondary ed. But like you say, this is pretty OT, so I won't get into the hows and whys.
Quote from: CatelfBeyond that, no one is shaming anyone for anything here.
I disagree. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36607-Point-Buy&p=954238&viewfull=1#post954238) I'm sure now that I've linked directly to his post, he and others will pop up within hours to defend his toxic attitude with variations of "Lighten up fuckwit, it's just a forum nerdwar, if you can't deal with a little joshin' you need to grow up, grow some goddamn skin, etc.." Such is the excuse of every anonymity-entitled internet manchild.
But if that's not shaming, I don't know what is, and I don't see what we have to talk about.
Quote from: CatelfAs I mentioned, I PREFER POINT-BUY.
I'm just adding it again, in case you missed it.
I didn't miss it, nor did I miss any of your other point-by-point objections to my initial post. If I replied to every comment directed at me, I'd need to quit my job and all my hobbies.
Quote from: CatelfAlso, if you read all comments, you'd know that this thread is, to some, only partially serious.
Someone pointed out that it was "clickbait" even.
And in a way, it is.
Oh, it's undoubtedly clickbait right from post #1. I imagine Pundy must be having a good chuckle at us, but I like a good flamewar once in a while too. :D And yes, I've picked up on the forum's macho-grog culture, and how some members get their jollies from stirring shit up and then abdicating all responsibility for their posts.
Quote from: Tequila SunriseI can come up with endless analogies. Shaming gamers who want a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming a casual poker player who wants to start with the same number of equally valueless chips as his friends. Shaming gamers who want a level playing field is as ridiculous as shaming hobbyists who want an equal stake in the bullets they chipped in equally for, the yarn they chipped in equally for, etc..
Quote from: nDervishWhat about the argument that point-buy doesn't provide a level playing field, but instead tends to reward system mastery and penalize the lack of same? (Hell, with their admitted inclusion of "trap options", D&D3 was deliberately intended to give unfair advantages to those who weren't aware of the traps!)
My opinion is this: If you're concerned with PC-PC balance, and I am, depending on fate to start the noob or casual gamer with great stats and the system master with poor stats is a sad solution. It only ends up that way sometimes, and when fate is a bitch, the system master gets even more of an advantage.
Quote from: Tequila SunriseOne of the most common and strongest of human values is that of fairness -- insofar as being fair to others is feasible, we teach kids to do so, and we often shame and judge harshly adults who act unfairly in the face of self-interest or when it conflicts with other values. Anecdotally, there is exactly one activity I can think of where being fair is automatically 100% worthy of ridicule, and that activity is nothing like any rpg. One of the big appeals of point buy is that it introduces more fairness to the chargen process.
Quote from: nDervishAssuming nobody is using loaded dice, fudging rolls, etc., I find random chargen to be completely fair. Everyone has the same chance of rolling a 3 or an 18 as anyone else does.
I imagine your response will be that it's still unfair that the player who rolls well will have an enduring advantage for as long as the characters survive. While it is true that any single instance of random chargen will produce advantages for some players and disadvantages for others, over the course of multiple sets of characters, it tends to even out. Unlike point-buy systems, where the high-system-mastery player will reliably have an enduring advantage over the low-system-mastery player every single time. You're free to disagree, of course, but, personally, it feels more fair to me if either of us has an equal chance to have an advantage than if I know, even before we start making characters, that you're going to have an advantage every time.
I don't mind random stats so much for one-shot adventures, for this very reason. But an extended campaign is far more time than I want to spend with rolled stats.
The nature of rolled fairness is this: Rolling for stats is completely 100% fair...right up until the moment those first d6s are rolled, and those rolled stats are completely 100% unfair the moment everyone has finished rolling. And as you say, it's the post-rolling unfairness that carries through each character's life. So yeah, you got my response pretty spot-on.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955117Because Gygax wanted to scar players' psyches' for years to come!! WAAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Because "he thought it was fun" can't possibly be right. Rolling to see what you get was considered by us to be fun.
heh-heh. Rolling stats is fun.
Now if we could wean Chris and some others off the notion high stats are mandated or some god given right in pre-3e...
Or stencil it on everyones frontal love that high and low stats are generally rare and then educate them on the damn bell curve effect which even a total math failure like me can grasp...
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955137If you're concerned with PC-PC balance, and I am -
Why?
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;955129So is playing Russian Roulette where everyone has 1/6 of being shot. That doesn't mean that I want to play it.
Hate to break it to you. But point buy can be just as un-fair in the wrong hands.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955139Why?
Because some player fucking OBSESS over and worship the great god BALANCE! And they were bitching during the 5e playtest too.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955139Why?
As near as I can tell, some people throw a full-on screaming shit fit if they don't get to be awesome every round. I don't know if that's why Tequila cares about it, but I've seen it often enough as a motivator. If I had to play with people like that I'd care about it too.
No, I lie. I'd quit the fucking hobby.
Let's hear what Tequila has to say. I know that even Socrates in his Dialogues just made up the shit the other guy said, I mean it's a lot easier arguing against someone if you've made up his arguments, too. But Socrates was a bit of a cunt, really. Let's not do that.
Why does PC-PC balance matter, Tequila?
I don't think I've ever come across a player who obsesses over being awesome every round. I'm willing to bet that's projection.
Only time I've ever seen people actually upset about their stats at character creation, is because of feelings of the character being nigh on useless, and not being able to contribute to the party in any meaningful way. If you've rolled a character who isn't even going to be remotely competent, what's the point of playing in the first place? It just amounts to dog fucking.
The OP hardly seems designed to stir up the levels of nerdrage we've experienced in this thread.
Quote from: Voros;955147The OP hardly seems designed to stir up the levels of nerdrage we've experienced in this thread.
It doesn't take much when you're dealing with such important matters as how you like to generate your imaginary elves.
Quote from: Voros;955147The OP hardly seems designed to stir up the levels of nerdrage we've experienced in this thread.
Oh, it was very cleverly worded to create
exactly this effect.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;955152Oh, it was very cleverly worded to create exactly this effect.
If the water is already full of hungry sharks it doesn't take much chum...
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955144I don't think I've ever come across a player who obsesses over being awesome every round. I'm willing to bet that's projection.
Ive seen it on rare occasion. Others have over the years mentioned it. So yeah its happening. But how much? I dont know? As mentioned in other threads... I can tell you there were people trying to
fix the "empty spaces" in stat bonus progression in 5e because +1 every other point was not enough for them. I wish I was making this up.
As for wanting to be awesome every round. Yup. Seen that too on mercifully only very rare occasion. Seen complaints of it on-line too in various shapes and sizes.
Quote from: Nexus;955025Though I'd imagine in the most boxy of Sandboxes, there will be some degree of threat management and placement. Just explicit setting "level ups" as the characters progress or fenced off zones like some MMOs. Its a world do what you want but its not totally random. If you want your Noobie Adventurers to take on Lichicus Maximus on Day One, got for it. The Tower of Ultimate Despair is right over there. But he's not going to arbitrarily cross their paths while they're clearing out a nest of goblins in the city sewers on pure happenstance despite such an event being theoretically possible in a "real world". *
*Of course, some body probably does play that way.
Of course!
All of my encounter tables have one or more entries along the lines of "roll again on [adjacent area's] encounter table". So, if Lichicus Maximus is available as a wandering encounter in his lair, there's a one-in-several-billions chance that he could be dropping in on the city's sewer-goblins for an earnest discussion about their last three months' rent payments.
Quote from: Nexus;955052And then they're...melted snowflakes...
Whoa...
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;955129So is playing Russian Roulette where everyone has 1/6 of being shot. That doesn't mean that I want to play it.
How about point-buy Russian roulette?
Quote from: Omega;955155Ive seen it on rare occasion. Others have over the years mentioned it. So yeah its happening. But how much? I dont know? As mentioned in other threads... I can tell you there were people trying to fix the "empty spaces" in stat bonus progression in 5e because +1 every other point was not enough for them. I wish I was making this up.
As for wanting to be awesome every round. Yup. Seen that too on mercifully only very rare occasion. Seen complaints of it on-line too in various shapes and sizes.
That specific example seems to be the exact opposite of the people wanting to change the system because they don't get to be special every round. It seems like they just don't like empty spaces from a 'so why is this here?' perspective. I've had, when explaining BECMI or 5e to a new player, them say, "so, if this 3-18 stat doesn't do anything except inform this other chart that goes from [either -3 to +3 or -4 to +4], why don't we just write down the +2 down and forget the 3-18 result?"
Thing is, they're not wrong about that. I'm not afraid of the answer, "it's mostly just a legacy system, " but they are, in fact, right. There are rare instances where the initial score matters (such as wishes or whatever raising the score), and in my BECMI I tend to use attribute checks for task resolution (but not the RC skill system), but for the most part, they are right.
You've mentioned this one before, with roughly the same 'I wish I was making this up.' So I have to ask, what about this particular example is so ridiculous to you that you pull it out as a favorite example regarding other people wanting something different in the system?
Not a fan of point buy. I like to start with a "blank slate" and random rolls and then see what I get and where I can take that character. The opposite approach is to start with a character in mind from the beginning, rather than a blank slate. If I already have a character in mind, I'd rather just assign the stats that best fit that character. The way I see it, the main draw of point buy is to make starting PCs "balanced," which I'm not terribly concerned about in the games I play, and which comes with its own set of problems (starting PCs built with point buy often have the same basic array of "ideal" stats for their class, et cetera).
Quote from: Omega;955155Ive seen it on rare occasion. Others have over the years mentioned it. So yeah its happening. But how much? I dont know? As mentioned in other threads... I can tell you there were people trying to fix the "empty spaces" in stat bonus progression in 5e because +1 every other point was not enough for them. I wish I was making this up.
As for wanting to be awesome every round. Yup. Seen that too on mercifully only very rare occasion. Seen complaints of it on-line too in various shapes and sizes.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but it reeks of projection on the parts of those who say it does with such vehemence. I'm not implying that you have done so of course.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955127No doubt point buy doesn’t magically make everything in a game fair.
Amen. I think I'm really buying into the argument that point buy rewards system mastery more than anything else. For the record, I'm "pro" whatever a table agrees to use. But, as I am just now starting a 5E group in earnest (after passing on it multiple times), I've had to consider this very question. I'm going with the traditional 4d6, drop lowest, assign. When I put that out to the players yesterday (in preparation for tonight's world tweaking session), not a peep back, including the one who prefers point buy (which he uses in the games he GMs). Nothing is perfect, of course, but I think this method, which I've used since ye olden days of wine, roses, honey and corn muffins, works pretty well, on the whole. Some randomness from the rolls, so you can't plan out the "uber build"
(yet). Should provide enough of a range for "competent" characters. Some player control over what goes where. And we might get some outlier numbers to provide some "RP" interest (although my players' RPing is hardly ever based off the numbers, but more on the concept).
That said, we'll see what happens tonight if someone rolls a 5...
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955165"it's mostly just a legacy system, "
There are rare instances where the initial score matters (such as wishes or whatever raising the score),
Let's see if I get this straight:
Some people are arguing that random rolls isn't unfair, because .... it barely has any impact?!
Also, Gronan claim that it is funny?
No, no, no, no, no.
Nonsense.
Sure, I grasp that it can be fun, when there is no direct importance in something that is supposedly required, you frequently fill it with fun instead.
That is a known psychological effect, albeit subconscious, as the thing itself perhaps isn't that funny.
Or perhaps it is funny, and that is removed as soon as it gets too important.
So why have a game with stats that are redundant?
Also, If the stats are redundant, then that is not any game where this discussion is very important now, is it?
Essentially, at least 2/3, probably more, of this thread is totally unimportant for the TOPIC!
Sheesh.
I am fine with both, but I do think in terms of balance, random is better over the long haul while point by tends to open the door to min-maxing more. With random, you can end up with a better character through luck (but everyone has the same chances of getting high stats). With Point Buy its easier to find the better options and combos and make a point of taking them. Still point buy allows for greater customization. So it largely boils down to the group and the game for me.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955132So if you get bad rolls the DM shoots you? And I thought I was a hardcore DM!
This is one of the arguments some people sometimes have used against "realism" in RPGs...
Quote from: Catelf;955172Let's see if I get this straight:
Some people are arguing that random rolls isn't unfair, because .... it barely has any impact?!
Also, Gronan claim that it is funny?
No, no, no, no, no.
Nonsense.
Sure, I grasp that it can be fun, when there is no direct importance in something that is supposedly required, you frequently fill it with fun instead.
That is a known psychological effect, albeit subconscious, as the thing itself perhaps isn't that funny.
Or perhaps it is funny, and that is removed as soon as it gets too important.
So why have a game with stats that are redundant?
Also, If the stats are redundant, then that is not any game where this discussion is very important now, is it?
Essentially, at least 2/3, probably more, of this thread is totally unimportant for the TOPIC!
Sheesh.
Well, since I started and stuck with games where the attributes are the main things that do directly affect what the characters can do, I share your wonder at why D&D works as it does. These systems (mainly TFT & GURPS) are also point-buy systems. They mention random as an option, but someone should really tweak those tables because too much randomness makes really bizarre characters in those games, which expect more regular and related stats for most people, and also you still need to pick talents and so on in ways that make sense, as those games also don't use character classes.
If players can choose which random rolls go for which attribute, then that seems sort of like point-buy to me, at least after you see what numbers you get to move around.
In TFT & GURPS, really random characters could be extremely different in power level. If the range of possible values goes from lowest normal human value to the highest you could start with, then someone could start with a character as powerful as one who has gained experience through several years of successful play, or be an athletically hopeless dullard.
TFT & GURPS also generally design in a wide variety of choices so there is not just one ideal set of best values for the same class. (Although original GURPS Magic did have a "too good/efficient/common" combo for IQ + Magery.)
Quote from: Catelf;955172Let's see if I get this straight:
Some people are arguing that random rolls isn't unfair, because .... it barely has any impact?!
Also, Gronan claim that it is funny?
No, no, no, no, no.
Nonsense.
Sure, I grasp that it can be fun, when there is no direct importance in something that is supposedly required, you frequently fill it with fun instead.
That is a known psychological effect, albeit subconscious, as the thing itself perhaps isn't that funny.
Or perhaps it is funny, and that is removed as soon as it gets too important.
So why have a game with stats that are redundant?
Also, If the stats are redundant, then that is not any game where this discussion is very important now, is it?
Essentially, at least 2/3, probably more, of this thread is totally unimportant for the TOPIC!
Sheesh.
I think you are missing what I am saying (although it is really hard to tell, could you perhaps explain yourself better?). In the passage you are quoting, I am not saying that stats barely has any impact and/or are redundant. I am saying that (in B/X, BECMI, and 5e) the stat itself (say an 18), has very little relevance distinct from the bonus it informs (a +3 in B/X, or a +4 in 5e). Omega commenting with incredulity that people he knows dislike those "empty spaces" in attribute charts (where increasing the base attribute does nothing), and I'm pointing out that they are correct.
As to stats themselves being redundant or not mattering--well, Gronan is right. In OD&D w/o Greyhawk expansion, stats don't really do all that much. You can call it nonsense all you want, but that's the case.
As to 'So why have a game with stats that are redundant?' --that is a good question, and Omega already asked that. And Gronan answered:
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955117Because "he thought it was fun" can't possibly be right. Rolling to see what you get was considered by us to be fun.
Now, that only matters if you care what Gronan and EGG, etc. considered fun. You could reasonably argue that for your OD&D campaign, you don't even need stats. I doubt very many people will do that though.
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955168Not saying it doesn't happen, but it reeks of projection on the parts of those who say it does with such vehemence. I'm not implying that you have done so of course.
Or maybe we've spent 44 years filtering out tempermental players.
Also, Certain Other Boards are full of this shit, don't take my word for it.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955182Now, that only matters if you care what Gronan and EGG, etc. considered fun. You could reasonably argue that for your OD&D campaign, you don't even need stats. I doubt very many people will do that though.
I've played both; TFT is point buy, for instance.
Some people like one, some like the other. Non disputatus de gustibus. It's when people start whining about why one or the other is "objectively BAD" that the shit starts to fly.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955182Now, that only matters if you care what Gronan and EGG, etc. considered fun. You could reasonably argue that for your OD&D campaign, you don't even need stats. I doubt very many people will do that though.
Why can't people admit that there is something to D&D being just a fun way of running tabletop RPGs. One that captured the imagination of hundreds of thousands if not millions. Not everybody has to like D&D, and hand in hand with that not everybody will like D&D. But in terms of mass popularity D&D in all of it different forms is THE RPG for most hobbyists.
OD&D is the rare instance where the creators of a hobby and industry got it right from the get go. Most of the time it takes two or three cycles of development to get it right for something novel and different.
And this situation doesn't take anything way from what other RPGs have accomplished or developed. Ever since Tunnel & Trolls and other alternatives came into the hobby there been a minority that has it out for D&D regardless of editions.
And before anybody criticizes me as been a stuck in the mud old school, I ran multiple fantasy campaigns using multiple system including a Fantasy Age variant the fourth quarter of 2016.
Again rolling random stats works, point buy works, just go with what you like. The consequences to both methods, and there are hybrids that also work with their own consequences. None of them are "best" in all circumstances. And you will find your interested in specific methods of chargen changing over time as you participate in the hobby.
Quote from: estar;955185Why can't people admit that there is something to D&D being just a fun way of running tabletop RPGs. One that captured the imagination of hundreds of thousands if not millions. Not everybody has to like D&D, and hand in hand with that not everybody will like D&D. But in terms of mass popularity D&D in all of it different forms is THE RPG for most hobbyists.
Who are these people who aren't admitting that D&D is a fun, popular game?
QuoteOD&D is the rare instance where the creators of a hobby and industry got it right from the get go. Most of the time it takes two or three cycles of development to get it right for something novel and different.
And this situation doesn't take anything way from what other RPGs have accomplished or developed. Ever since Tunnel & Trolls and other alternatives came into the hobby there been a minority that has it out for D&D regardless of editions.
And before anybody criticizes me as been a stuck in the mud old school, I ran multiple fantasy campaigns using multiple system including a Fantasy Age variant the fourth quarter of 2016.
Again. This seems like you are getting very excited and a bit defensive against accusations that have not been made.
QuoteAgain rolling random stats works, point buy works, just go with what you like. The consequences to both methods, and there are hybrids that also work with their own consequences. None of them are "best" in all circumstances. And you will find your interested in specific methods of chargen changing over time as you participate in the hobby.
Cool.
Quote from: nDervishWhat about the argument that point-buy doesn't provide a level playing field, but instead tends to reward system mastery and penalize the lack of same? (Hell, with their admitted inclusion of "trap options", D&D3 was deliberately intended to give unfair advantages to those who weren't aware of the traps!)
Quote from: Tequila SunriseMy opinion is this: If you're concerned with PC-PC balance, and I am, depending on fate to start the noob or casual gamer with great stats and the system master with poor stats is a sad solution. It only ends up that way sometimes, and when fate is a bitch, the system master gets even more of an advantage.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955139Why?
Because I've experienced the frustration that results from named-crew-plus-redshirts parties, from both the player side and the DM side. And contrary to what some interwebbers seem to believe, being a mature adult able to swallow your disappointment for a game session or three doesn't magically make a frustrating experience any less disappointing. But this is all tangential to my exchange with nDervish and to the thread's topic, so that's all I'll say for now.
Here's an (I think) interesting question for D&D players who like rolling for stats:
1. What if you also rolled for starting level? How much of a random level spread would seem good? Or does that seem like a non-starter?
2. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?
Are either of those actual options that anyone here has tried or even prefers?
(It comes to mind because the effect on, say TFT of rolling 3d6 for its attributes would be about like rolling for level with "crippled retarded lvl 0" and "already a powerful hero" and "clumsy muscleman genius" as fairly likely results.)
Quote from: cranebump;955170Amen. I think I'm really buying into the argument that point buy rewards system mastery more than anything else.
That said, we'll see what happens tonight if someone rolls a 5...
1: Like any game, mechanic, system, whatever. In the wrong hands its going to be broken somehow, some way. Ive seen designers obsess over "fixing" this with more and more stringent mechanics and I keep telling them that its not going to stop bad behavior.
2: See my AD&D example earlier where I rolled a 5. I guess I should congratulate myself for beating the odds and getting something under a 6 even. In 5e depending on the race chosen the 5 can become a 6 or 7 if you really wanted. It will become a 6 with a standard human. And from practice I dont suggest allowing the option human.
Quote from: Catelf;955172So why have a game with stats that are redundant?
Also, If the stats are redundant, then that is not any game where this discussion is very important now, is it?
Essentially, at least 2/3, probably more, of this thread is totally unimportant for the TOPIC!
Sheesh.
I agree. But... I do believe even OD&D had stat checks. And aside from Strength and Wisdom the stats do actually grand some small bonus.
Think of it more like that roll to see if you get psionics or qualifying for a Paladin or one of the other high stat requirement classes in AD&D. Its a pretty low chance.
Its there to reward a lucky roll. You got a 17 DEX? Here, have a +1 to hit with bows.
Pretty much the same in BX but you got sometimes a slightly better bonus. up to +3. But those are still fairly rare.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955193Who are these people who aren't admitting that D&D is a fun, popular game?
Let me guess... You are really young to the internet?
Quote from: Skarg;955215Here's an (I think) interesting question for D&D players who like rolling for stats:
1. What if you also rolled for starting level? How much of a random level spread would seem good? Or does that seem like a non-starter?
2. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?
Are either of those actual options that anyone here has tried or even prefers?
(It comes to mind because the effect on, say TFT of rolling 3d6 for its attributes would be about like rolling for level with "crippled retarded lvl 0" and "already a powerful hero" and "clumsy muscleman genius" as fairly likely results.)
1: Personally I wouldn't like it for the same reason I don't like pure random rolling for race or class. Its too much random I have no say over. Which is part of why I am not fond of Rev AD&D and 2e's roll 3 in order and no point swapping. One main problem I know exists in 5e would be that the lower leveled character can never quite catch up to the higher level one. They will get close and probably fairly fast if they survive. But will perpetually be about 1 level behind. In BX and AD&D to 2e that can be a problem too for some classes. But a fast levelling class like the Thief and Cleric will catch up or even possibly pass them. The Thief and Cleric will certainly pull ahead of the Fighter and Magic User even if all start at level 1.
2: There is actually at least one RPG that does that. But I cannot recall what it was. Essentially if you rolled really low stats you got a bump in level. I think you could also sacrifice stat points to start out at a higher starting level?
3: Id give rolling levels a go long as the difference was not too huge. It would be the same as asking if I''d be ok with everyone rolling for a chance to start out with a piece of +1 equipment.
4: From what little I know of TFT rolling stats would be a stupid idea as the system doesnt really work with it? Its geared around a different balance. It would be like how some suggest changing D&D stat rolls to a flat d20. And I have to explain that the system is not designed for that as its designed for stats within the bell curve and a different spread of numbers.
This entire argument is just a distraction from the true choice separating REAL roleplayers from those whiny posers...
Solid polyhedral dice, which as everyone knows are fair, well-balanced, stalwart and the only choice for true old school players
vs
those sinister clear polyhedral dice, the choice for hipsters and swine! Deceitful, childish, and a mockery of everything our hobby holds dear.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;955234This entire argument is just a distraction from the true choice separating REAL roleplayers from those whiny posers...
Solid polyhedral dice, which as everyone knows are fair, well-balanced, stalwart and the only choice for true old school players
vs
those sinister clear polyhedral dice, the choice for hipsters and swine! Deceitful, childish, and a mockery of everything our hobby holds dear.
Sadly, this topic is exactly as worthy as the ass-wipings of the actual thread.
Well played, TE.
Interesting. Thanks Omega.
Ya, the effect on TFT would be crazy, in D&D terms, either rolling wildly for level, or rolling 3d6 -10 (so -7 to +8) and applying that instead of the usual possible +/- 1-3 effect of D&D attributes on actually doing anything. Because in TFT, you generally roll on DX itself to hit, and ST _is_ your hitpoints, and determines how much damage you do per hit, and so on.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955183Or maybe we've spent 44 years filtering out tempermental players.
Also, Certain Other Boards are full of this shit, don't take my word for it.
If you find yourself continually at odds with these so called temperamental players over these 44 years... the problem isn't them, it's you. Especially if it's more than 1 or 2 of them, then you are the common denominator of the problem at hand.
OK, I'll do Nexus' reply first...:D
Quote from: AsenRG;955061OK, it seems I'm not communicating my point well enough when I'm sick, so I'll excuse myself from the thread and come back to it when I feel better.
Because of this.
So, Nexus...you stated that you don't understand why some people think that point-buy is motivated by the desire for "power", if the GM is changing the challenge level to fit the party "anyway".
Simple answer: because with point-buy, you can optimise. As you stated in the follow-up reply, yes, you can't "beat the GM"...except when you pull some real good optimising in a system prone to it (ah, sweet memories:p)...but you can make stuff easier for you and reduce the need for improvising.
And that's not "beating the GM", but it is breaking the expectations that you hopefully discussed before the game - like the expectations about power level.
(Same thing for "special snoflakiness", BTW: you can create a one-trick or two-trick pony, and if X doesn't work, try Y...and take 95% of the campaign to the level of your X and Y. Did anyone say "paranoia comboes" already?)
And both of these
usually lead to a game that sucks. (Did anyone miss the word "usually" already:)? I can totally think of examples where the one-trick pony would be appropriate).
As for your subsequent reply - I admit my follow-up comment was due to me forgetting what we were talking about. As I mentioned, I'm sick atm - hope you could forgive me:)!
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955127No doubt point buy doesn’t magically make everything in a game fair.
Then the argument about "fairness" rather falls flat.
QuoteWhat do you mean by striving to be fair to them despite unequal an starting point?
They're not unequal: they all had the same odds to roll or not to roll and the same odds of rolling above-average.
They start at an unequal place, but they had the same chances to start there, so it's fair to the players.
QuoteIt sounds like perhaps point buy simply introduces fairness a step earlier than you care for.
Than
I care for? I actually tend to slightly prefer point-buy...:D
I just didn't see the need to defend it, to the Pundit or to anyone else, as you can see in my first comment in the thread.
(And I consider both to be inferior to lifepaths, as you can see in my second or third comment in the thread:p).
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955126Lol, perish the thought that gamers with different tastes get to have fun at the same table, right?
Told you it's crazy talk!
QuoteYou know, random chargen and point buy aren’t ‘natural enemies’ the way we tend to treat them in these online flame wars.
Yeah, but people are having so much fun treating them this way. Wouldn't it be cruel to take away their little pleasure?
Quote from: nDervish;955162How about point-buy Russian roulette?
I'd hate to be the one who sucked at optimising if we were to plat that:D!
Quote from: Omega;955140Hate to break it to you. But point buy can be just as un-fair in the wrong hands.
Yeah, this.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955114Where the hell have you been for the last ten years? Sadly, though his intent was sarcastic, he is indeed as serious as chest pains and tingling down your left arm.
I notice those who scream loudest about bad stats are those most ignorant of the difference between editions.
I haven't discussed point-buy with the Green One, or don't remember it:).
Scars, my ass.
Quote from: Omega;955072Oh theres been bitching about it for a long time. Pretty sure theres examples and "fixes" in Dragon somewhere.
OK, that actually makes sense. Thank you for the info-I haven't read Dragon;).
I'm with Skarg here. It really depends on the game system. In some versions of D&D, stats are little more than descriptors. In other versions, stats matter more, but are still not the main measure of what you can do - so random is fine and probably preferable. In all versions of D&D "power" is measured primarily by level, not by stats. Some games like GURPs, that are stat driven, would be a mess with random roll chargen. Random 3d6 roll stats in GURPS or TFT would be like playing d&d with each character's level in the party being generated on a d12 or there-abouts. The point is, whether random or point buy is better is apples and oranges unless you are talking about a specific game.
Similarly, the breadth of a character's abilities in D&D is determined primarily by class (race, stats and other factors contribute and modify). A game like GURPS is designed to break down class like boundaries. That doesn't make it better or worse, but point buy is a strong method for defining the breadth of character abilities where there are vast options, where options is part of the point of the design. Point buy is a natural solution for GURPs' design goals, it isn't for D&D. Asking which is better overall, is just inflammatory.
Is point buy better for D&D? Absolutely not. It's just a weird hybridization, or a stump for those obsessed with non-existent game balance. Is it better for GURPs? Absolutely, it's practically essential.
Quote from: Skarg;955215Here's an (I think) interesting question for D&D players who like rolling for stats:
1. What if you also rolled for starting level? How much of a random level spread would seem good? Or does that seem like a non-starter?
It would feel weird, but (for OD&D the way I play it, at least), it would not break anything. Parties are soon full of characters of all different levels anyway. I tossed the "all characters should be about the same level" memo that came out later years in the trash after a few moments of thought. So rolling say 1d8 for level (max level in my current game is 10), would work -- and plays who rolled a 1 would be at 8th level about the same time players who rolled an 8 reached 9th level.
Quote2. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?
I actually do something like that for games set in Arn (one of my homebrew settings) but its based on the race players choose. Races with fewer/less powerful racial abilities start at a higher level. With attributes, I don't see much need for it as they have very little effect on the game (compared to later versions of D&D, at least), but I don't see any reason why it could not work. Again, PCs aren't all of the same level in my games anyway.
The big disconnect in this thread is the different in stat importance in OD&D vs. AD&D vs. 3e / 4e / 5e.
In OD&D, an average of 10 is perfectly playable and acceptable by players. But 12-14 is the new 10 for later editions due to how TNs are calculated for various things.
AKA, if the average monster AC is 14 vs. 12, then a +2 bonus is required to be "equal" to the previous edition.
During the 3e era, a friend of mine wanted to bring random chargen into their campaign so I suggested they do 2D6+6 for stats. His group liked it. The 13 in 3e = 10 in 0e seems workable.
BTW, ability checks in OD&D are homebrewed. Different groups did different things. Many rolled under on D20. Others rolled under 3D6 (or 4D6 for hard stuff). Others converted stats into percentiles for D100 (aka, stat x 5%, roll under).
FYI, my middle school nuked the whole point buy vs. random decades ago. You choose - roll 3D6 down the line or spread 63 points (min 3, max 18). The funny thing was how often players would go for the 3D6 like little gambling fiends. But as I've mentioned before, we quickly dropped the AD&D whack ass charts for the B/X chart.
Quote from: Omega;955073Gamma World, least the early versions, your characters start off fully fledged and, barring mutations, dont change.
GW1e had an XP chart for levels which gave you a random stat or ability bonus (a D10 chart).
Also, the radiation chart was usually deadly, but you could randomly gain new mutations too.
Quote from: Skarg;9552152. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?
In high school, our AD&D group had a stack of whacky chargen homebrew rules. Because demihumans were so much better than humans in AD&D and our crew would never use the level limits, it was my house rule that humans got +1 level. I did this because whole campaigns in high school didn't have any PC humans except the Cleric and Paladin. Human thief? LOL. Never gonna happen. But the +1 level thing actually got human PCs into play.
As for bad stats, we had various houserules:
1) roll 4D6, drop one, assign OR 3D6 down the line and get a free level.
2) everyone rolls 3D6 and you get +100 XP per stat point under 9 and -100 XP per stat point over 12. Then you could increase stats by taking -200 XP per point. It was crazy because we had all these guys with -2000 XP at 1st level. But the Champions players in our group loved this shit for whatever reason. I guess more math.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;955234This entire argument is just a distraction from the true choice separating REAL roleplayers from those whiny posers...
Solid polyhedral dice, which as everyone knows are fair, well-balanced, stalwart and the only choice for true old school players
vs
those sinister clear polyhedral dice, the choice for hipsters and swine! Deceitful, childish, and a mockery of everything our hobby holds dear.
Agreed, the only real D&D ployhedrals are ugly, opaques with little stubs of sprues made of cheap high impact plastic by col. Z. I hate the number 14 and prefer that my dice bounce rather than roll. Kids bring in these chessex lumps with swirly colors that roll and roll until they fall of the table... and don't even get started on those illegible rune-crusted QW monstrosities. Fie on those so called "dice"!
Quote from: Madprofessor;955244The point is, whether random or point buy is better is apples and oranges unless you are talking about a specific game.
I'm totally with you on that one, but the thread is so much fun;)!
Quote from: Tristram Evans;955234This entire argument is just a distraction from the true choice separating REAL roleplayers from those whiny posers...
Solid polyhedral dice, which as everyone knows are fair, well-balanced, stalwart and the only choice for true old school players
vs
those sinister clear polyhedral dice, the choice for hipsters and swine! Deceitful, childish, and a mockery of everything our hobby holds dear.
hah! The answer is obviously those semi-transpatent dice with sparklies in them!
Quote from: Omega;955253hah! The answer is obviously those semi-transpatent dice with sparklies in them!
Blasphemy!
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955210contrary to what some interwebbers seem to believe, being a mature adult able to swallow your disappointment for a game session or three doesn't magically make a frustrating experience any less disappointing.
So if you roll crappy stats, you just sit around disappointed for 1-3 sessions? You don't... try to make the best of it?
Quote from: Skarg;9552151. What if you also rolled for starting level? How much of a random level spread would seem good? Or does that seem like a non-starter?
It's a non-starter because level has far more of an effect on gameplay than stats. In AD&D, for example, a 4th level fighter has in effect a +4 to hit, which is more than a 1st level fighter with 18/00 Strength (+3); the strong guy also has +6 damage, but it doesn't matter how much damage you can do if you can't hit. And obviously hit points and so on. In versions like D&D3.5 the difference in character ability will be even greater due to "feats" and similar shenanigans. So I wouldn't start them off that way.
They can however end up that way through play. A bunch of 1st level guys start, later they're 3rd level and one of them dies, now that player starts with a 1st level character. But this is more tenable, since the higher-level ones will tend to equip the newbie - a 1st level fighter with plate mail and a longsword +1 and a 3rd level cleric around to heal them up or a thief to toss them a
haste potion can hold their own with the 3rd level guys.
Quote2. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?
Then someone would complain, "ah but your Fighter 4 with Strength 10 is actually better than my Fighter 1 with Strength 18/00", and then you'd have them reroll - and it'd be Point-Buy By Reroll.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955182I think you are missing what I am saying (although it is really hard to tell, could you perhaps explain yourself better?). In the passage you are quoting, I am not saying that stats barely has any impact and/or are redundant. I am saying that (in B/X, BECMI, and 5e) the stat itself (say an 18), has very little relevance distinct from the bonus it informs (a +3 in B/X, or a +4 in 5e). Omega commenting with incredulity that people he knows dislike those "empty spaces" in attribute charts (where increasing the base attribute does nothing), and I'm pointing out that they are correct.
As to stats themselves being redundant or not mattering--well, Gronan is right. In OD&D w/o Greyhawk expansion, stats don't really do all that much. You can call it nonsense all you want, but that's the case.
As to 'So why have a game with stats that are redundant?' --that is a good question, and Omega already asked that. And Gronan answered:
------------------------------------------------------
Now, that only matters if you care what Gronan and EGG, etc. considered fun. You could reasonably argue that for your OD&D campaign, you don't even need stats. I doubt very many people will do that though.
For starters, I responded to you, not as criticism, but because your reply was the reply where I finally fully realized WTF I was reading!
After that, I went on to comment on said things in a manner that is slightly lacking in coherency, as it was my direct thoughts on the subject.
As for more thoughts:
* One could just as well roll 2D4 for the bonus.
* Also, the reason for point buy is because in systems where the Base Stats are important, random rolls are more like rolling your LEVEL with anything from 2D4 to 3D6, depending on the system!
* So, like Skarg, I DO wonder if the ones that seem to be so very much for random rolls and anti - point buy, would still like randomness in the starting levels.
Or skills, for that matter.
Quote from: Omega;955221I agree. But... I do believe even OD&D had stat checks. And aside from Strength and Wisdom the stats do actually grand some small bonus.
Think of it more like that roll to see if you get psionics or qualifying for a Paladin or one of the other high stat requirement classes in AD&D. Its a pretty low chance.
Its there to reward a lucky roll. You got a 17 DEX? Here, have a +1 to hit with bows.
Pretty much the same in BX but you got sometimes a slightly better bonus. up to +3. But those are still fairly rare.
And yet, one big recurring argument for randomness seem to be that those stats
are not (very) important?
Quote from: AsenRG;955240OK, I'll do Nexus' reply first...:D
Because of this.
So, Nexus...you stated that you don't understand why some people think that point-buy is motivated by the desire for "power", if the GM is changing the challenge level to fit the party "anyway".
You misunderstood.
I think the quest of "power" via optimization is a fool's errand because, outside of some games where the GM resources are limited, you can't outgun the GM or the game is such your "power" won't matter that much like the Virtual Reality Sandbox playstyle. If you violate the expectations of the game either the GM will adjuast or refuse your character, IME. Of course some novice gms will have issues but this isn't solely a problem with point buy.
Tequila Sunrise (I think) does point a potential issue when one person optimizes and others don't. "Main character and his team of Redshirts"
And you can optimize in random roll chargen schemes. It just take place at different times and places during the process. Unless every single step is random and even then there's brute force: keep rolling until you get something you like. Most of the complaints about power gaming and hyper optimization I've seen where about D and D. Random generation isn't a cure all for that.
And I get why
some people think that preference for Point Buy is strictly motivated by the drive for power, desire to be "special" or whatever derogatory reason they want to attach to it. Because
some people find it satisfying to shit on people with different preferences. It goes the other way as well. Its a big reason why this thread over a relatively trivial difference in opinion has been so contentious.
Quote from: Catelf;955259And yet, one big recurring argument for randomness seem to be that those stats are not (very) important?
As noted. dont know about OD&D. But BX stats could be used for stat checks for success of some action when in doubt.
Also stats can be useful to a DM as a guide for how to play a randomly rolled NPC. So while they might not do alot for the player. They are of use to the DM.
Quote from: Omega;955263As noted. dont know about OD&D. But BX stats could be used for stat checks for success of some action when in doubt.
Also stats can be useful to a DM as a guide for how to play a randomly rolled NPC. So while they might not do alot for the player. They are of use to the DM.
Of use to the DM, but not to the player?
Guide how to play it?
/EDIT: Here I missed that you were referring to NPCs, sorry, my mistake./
Even if that would be true, which it do not seem to be, as I see it, it is not an argument for Random over Point-buy.
There is also the matter that others have brought up, that there are clear differences between the different editions of D&D, concerning the effects that the stats have on the actual play, unless I have interpreted it wrong.
Some apparently used houserules to make attributes more important as well, but that is the well-known ingenuity of old-time roleplayers, and not the RAW or similar.
Also, if 3D6 were so good, then why add rules like "The Shopkeeper rule" or "roll 4 remove lowest"?
If it isn't broken, then it should not have to be fixed, right?
But a lot of those houserules and fixes lived on to later editions, so they must have improved at least
something.
Quote from: Omega;955221I agree. But... I do believe even OD&D had stat checks. And aside from Strength and Wisdom the stats do actually grand some small bonus.
Think of it more like that roll to see if you get psionics or qualifying for a Paladin or one of the other high stat requirement classes in AD&D. Its a pretty low chance.
Its there to reward a lucky roll. You got a 17 DEX? Here, have a +1 to hit with bows.
Pretty much the same in BX but you got sometimes a slightly better bonus. up to +3. But those are still fairly rare.
So what you are saying is that Gronan was wrong?
Shocking.
Quote from: RPGPundit;954071So, anyone here want to actually defend point-buy character creation over random rolls?
There's nothing wrong with it, particularly if you have a group of players who know what they are doing and know what they want to play. I actually prefer it because it minimizes minmaxing and broken characters. However with that in mind, the last 5e campaign I started one player started rolling ability scores and the next thing you know everyone was pulling out dice, so I decided that letting them have their way meant we could be playing sooner. :D
I think for OSRs, rolling is part of the experience though hardly necessary. I think as far as point buy goes, the system I liked most was the one used in True20. They dropped ability scores completely and used the bonus/penalty as the score. You had six points to distribute among 5 abilities, with +5 and -2 being soft caps pending GM approval. If you wanted to adjust the feel of your game you could adjust the number of points accordingly. I built Lassiviren the Dark on 5 points, though I pretty much translated him straight from the Rogue's Gallery. Personally I'd love to use that method in an OSR but M+M and AGE are already using it. That and it looks weird if you're used to ability scores.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955269So what you are saying is that Gronan was wrong?
Shocking.
Well the minute the game got on the shelves all the original players were proven wrong as people promptly started using OD&D for every style of play known.
Shocking. :eek:
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955239If you find yourself continually at odds with these so called temperamental players over these 44 years... the problem isn't them, it's you. Especially if it's more than 1 or 2 of them, then you are the common denominator of the problem at hand.
Or maybe the problem is you.
Quote from: Omega;955278Well the minute the game got on the shelves all the original players were proven wrong as people promptly started using OD&D for every style of play known.
Shocking. :eek:
Cindy Lou Brady comes into a thread to call me a big meanie poo-poo head and tell us all where D&D touched him in a bad way?
Shocking.
Yeah and I'd still rather debate with Chris than most of the fruitcakes out there that have latched onto RPGs as their reason to act clinically insane.
Quote from: Skarg;9552151. What if you also rolled for starting level? How much of a random level spread would seem good? Or does that seem like a non-starter?
Haven't actually done that, but I did consider it in the last ACKS campaign I ran. I still wanted it to skew towards lower levels, so I was thinking roll 2d4 (or
maybe 2d6) and take the lower die as your starting level. But, like I said, we never got around to testing it out. I do kind of like the idea, though, at least in the specific case of ACKS (because it allows you to hire henchmen of up to 4th level in a large enough city, so why can't one of those random 4th levels be a PC instead?).
Quote from: Skarg;9552152. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?
I'm not fond of this idea because it's such a blatant balancing mechanism. Aside from avoiding decision paralysis, the other major reason I like random gen is because I prefer to play in the manner of "given a world such as this, what would happen if it were real?" and, in the real world, being weak, ugly, and stupid (bad stat rolls) doesn't make you more experienced (higher starting level).
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955239If you find yourself continually at odds with these so called temperamental players over these 44 years... the problem isn't them, it's you. Especially if it's more than 1 or 2 of them, then you are the common denominator of the problem at hand.
Depends on the size of the group we're talking about. If I have problems with more than one or two people out of five, then, yeah, there's a good chance I'm the problem. If I have problems with more than one or two people out of five
hundred, then the issue is much more likely to be them.
I'm going to go and innocently stick my head into what appears to be some sort of long-running holy war that I was never aware of the existence of, and risk getting it bitten off for saying:
I quite like point buy. It allows (and, conversely, forces) the players to decide what their priorities are. Getting to make more or less the character they want to play tends to get them more invested in the game than if they just got handed a random pile of numbers and told to make sense of it.
Exceptions abound, of course. So do extreme cases. I have one player who absolutely adores randomised chargen, to the point where she'll ask me to help her roll up new characters just to see what she ends up with. I have another player who seems to genuinely not understand the concept of not being in control. (the former loves Warhammer Fantasy; the latter is the reason why I can't play Warhammer Fantasy with this group. :p ) I'm somewhere in between, I can get into the spirit of just rolling with what I'm thrown sometimes, but by and large, for the most parts, at the end of the day:
I quite like point buy. What can I say? I was never a gambling man.
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955239If you find yourself continually at odds with these so called temperamental players over these 44 years... the problem isn't them, it's you. Especially if it's more than 1 or 2 of them, then you are the common denominator of the problem at hand.
I tell potential new players the following (and more, of course) about my campaigns:
1) There are no rules, just guidelines for the GM -- as the needs of the setting, the current situation, and the campaign's style of play are far more important that following the "rules as written."
2) These guidelines are based on OD&D and B/X with additions and subtractions. These means random rolls for attributes. Spell-casters start with a random selection of spells and add spells by finding them in the world. There are lots of "limitations" that are not found in WOTC editions of D&D. Etc.
3) I run sandbox campaigns. I have no story to tell so there is no story except what your characters do in the world. The world is what it is. If orcs are in a location, they are what you encounter there whether you are 1st level or 10th level. Same with dragons, etc. Random events and wandering monsters happen.
4) Rules lawyers and min-maxers are not tolerated at my table.
5) Combat is fast and theater of the mind.
6) Players are expected to have characters what fit the campaign world, are basically friendly to other party members and are interested in adventuring.
7) Players are expected to focus on the game while it is running -- not their phone, tablet, laptop, etc.
I expect at least 90% of potential players to walk after hearing these facts about my campaign. I'm sure many of that 90% feel that I am the problem as I am unwilling to run my campaigns to suit there needs. However, in reality, neither I nor they are the problem -- in fact there is no problem; just a campaign that is not designed to try to make everyone happy. The lack of trying to meet the needs of all potential players admittedly really annoys some people but as those people have never been willing to pay me a living wage with full benefits to run my campaigns for them their way, I really don't care if they are annoyed.
Quote from: Omega;955222Let me guess... You are really young to the internet?
Ha, I wish! Maybe then I'd be young in general and get my hair back. No, I was on Usenet D&D discussions in, what would it be? '88 or '89. I'm just skeptical that when someone says something that starts with, "Why can't
people admit that..." that it is informed by actual people that they've recently seen saying something truly unacceptable. Certainly I do not see who on this forum said anything to elicit that response.
Quote from: RandallS;955325However, in reality, neither I nor they are the problem -- in fact there is no problem; just a campaign that is not designed to try to make everyone happy.
This boils down the entire thread into one succinct line. The whole thing discussion has been a desperate search for a problem, where none exists. :p
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955290Or maybe the problem is you.
Did you really just use a "No, you" argument? I'd expect that from my three year old (well, maybe not
my three year old, since he's got better reasoning skills than that), not from a grown ass man who has 44 years of role playing experience.
Quote from: nDervish;955314Depends on the size of the group we're talking about. If I have problems with more than one or two people out of five, then, yeah, there's a good chance I'm the problem. If I have problems with more than one or two people out of five hundred, then the issue is much more likely to be them.
If out of five hundred people, you have problems with say 2% of them, then yeah the issue is likely to be them. But Gronan is acting like he has such problems the majority of the time. If out of 500 people you only have a problem with 10 of them, that's such a small amount of people it's not even worth bringing up. There's no point to even mention it as part of an argument. Only an unreasonable person would bother stating something so statistically trivial.
Quote from: RandallS;955325I tell potential new players the following (and more, of course) about my campaigns:
1) There are no rules, just guidelines for the GM -- as the needs of the setting, the current situation, and the campaign's style of play are far more important that following the "rules as written."
2) These guidelines are based on OD&D and B/X with additions and subtractions. These means random rolls for attributes. Spell-casters start with a random selection of spells and add spells by finding them in the world. There are lots of "limitations" that are not found in WOTC editions of D&D. Etc.
3) I run sandbox campaigns. I have no story to tell so there is no story except what your characters do in the world. The world is what it is. If orcs are in a location, they are what you encounter there whether you are 1st level or 10th level. Same with dragons, etc. Random events and wandering monsters happen.
4) Rules lawyers and min-maxers are not tolerated at my table.
5) Combat is fast and theater of the mind.
6) Players are expected to have characters what fit the campaign world, are basically friendly to other party members and are interested in adventuring.
7) Players are expected to focus on the game while it is running -- not their phone, tablet, laptop, etc.
I expect at least 90% of potential players to walk after hearing these facts about my campaign. I'm sure many of that 90% feel that I am the problem as I am unwilling to run my campaigns to suit there needs. However, in reality, neither I nor they are the problem -- in fact there is no problem; just a campaign that is not designed to try to make everyone happy. The lack of trying to meet the needs of all potential players admittedly really annoys some people but as those people have never been willing to pay me a living wage with full benefits to run my campaigns for them their way, I really don't care if they are annoyed.
There's hardly any relevance of all this to my quote which you were replying to, but none of what you say here is unreasonable, nor is it even bad form to have a list of what new players can expect. If they leave beforehand, that's one thing. If they're bummed because their character rolls are effectively useless and they feel that there's no point in even playing when their character is just going to drag the party down and make things worse... and then you project your own ideas and say that they want some kind of power fantasy, when they're likely just wanting a character that's not completely incompetent and can actively help the party, that's something entirely different.
Quote from: RandallS;955325I tell potential new players the following (and more, of course) about my campaigns:
1) There are no rules, just guidelines for the GM -- as the needs of the setting, the current situation, and the campaign's style of play are far more important that following the "rules as written."
2) These guidelines are based on OD&D and B/X with additions and subtractions. These means random rolls for attributes. Spell-casters start with a random selection of spells and add spells by finding them in the world. There are lots of "limitations" that are not found in WOTC editions of D&D. Etc.
3) I run sandbox campaigns. I have no story to tell so there is no story except what your characters do in the world. The world is what it is. If orcs are in a location, they are what you encounter there whether you are 1st level or 10th level. Same with dragons, etc. Random events and wandering monsters happen.
4) Rules lawyers and min-maxers are not tolerated at my table.
5) Combat is fast and theater of the mind.
6) Players are expected to have characters what fit the campaign world, are basically friendly to other party members and are interested in adventuring.
7) Players are expected to focus on the game while it is running -- not their phone, tablet, laptop, etc.
I expect at least 90% of potential players to walk after hearing these facts about my campaign. I'm sure many of that 90% feel that I am the problem as I am unwilling to run my campaigns to suit there needs. However, in reality, neither I nor they are the problem -- in fact there is no problem; just a campaign that is not designed to try to make everyone happy. The lack of trying to meet the needs of all potential players admittedly really annoys some people but as those people have never been willing to pay me a living wage with full benefits to run my campaigns for them their way, I really don't care if they are annoyed.
I get a kick out of this every time you post it.
Thanks for everyone's responses to my question about adding different starting levels.
One other comment on a slightly different idea:
Although I often don't use the points in GURPS in many ways (not for experience or strict balance), it seems to me that the weird apples & oranges variety of things with points does allow more room for PCs to be quite different in types and levels of abilities while still providing for some balance and fairness in many different ways. In this way, players can be allowed to play with the type of character they want even if those are different power levels, by balancing in other ways, such as starting in relatively (un)fortunate circumstances, such as patrons, enemies, reputation, legal problems, etc, which could even be just the starting conditions of the adventure and the reason to bring the PCs together for the starting adventure. Of course, you can use that to whatever degree you care or don't care about fairness and balance in starting conditions.
Pundit... I blame you for all this.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955326The whole thing discussion has been a desperate search for a problem, where none exists. :p
Well, yeah. And every time somebody says "Different people like different stuff," somebody else chimes in with "Point buy/random roll molested my baby sister!" and the monkeys load up on shit and start flinging again.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955364Well, yeah. And every time somebody says "Different people like different stuff," somebody else chimes in with "Point buy/random roll molested my baby sister!" and the monkeys load up on shit and start flinging again.
Pretty much. As I said earlier, I'm skeptical that when someone says something in defense of themselves or their 'side' (in internet debates), it's really because there are slavering hordes out there waiting to take a swing at them. Instead it's little things like this where each side of this point-buy/random-roll can walk away telling themselves that this was a royal case of those unfair and ridiculous random-roll/point-buy people who absolutely are always attacking them and that's why they need to be so defensive (setting the stage for the next drama explosion next episode), and interpret the next time-waster discussion on the subject as proof that they and their side... ad naseum.
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955332Did you really just use a "No, you" argument? I'd expect that from my three year old (well, maybe not my three year old, since he's got better reasoning skills than that), not from a grown ass man who has 44 years of role playing experience.
It's Gronan, you quickly learn that he claims all sorts of things, and then regresses to that particular style of argument when he realizes he's out of touch with other gamers. You'll note that there are quite a few Tryhards here, they're quick to show up so it's easy to spot them.
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955332If out of five hundred people, you have problems with say 2% of them, then yeah the issue is likely to be them. But Gronan is acting like he has such problems the majority of the time. If out of 500 people you only have a problem with 10 of them, that's such a small amount of people it's not even worth bringing up. There's no point to even mention it as part of an argument. Only an unreasonable person would bother stating something so statistically trivial.
Again, it's how he makes his play style seem more important than what it really is and feel like he's actually contributing.
As for the argument of min-maxers and power gamers abusing arrays or/point buys, I'm sure there are, but for me, I don't have to actually worry about them, because my friends (the people I run games for) would rather run a concept than be 'efficient' (As it's often euphemistically called) so I don't need to 'worry' about them.
Even then, if you know your table, what's the worry?
Quote from: AsenRG;955240Then the argument about "fairness" rather falls flat.
They're not unequal: they all had the same odds to roll or not to roll and the same odds of rolling above-average.
They start at an unequal place, but they had the same chances to start there, so it's fair to the players.
For reasons already discussed (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36607-Point-Buy&p=955137#post955137), I find this argument no more compelling than "FITNESS TRAINERS DON'T WANT TO YOU KNOW, GET THE ABS OF YOUR DREAMS IN SIX WEEKS FLAT USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!!!"
Quote from: AsenRG;955240Than I care for? I actually tend to slightly prefer point-buy...:D
I just didn't see the need to defend it, to the Pundit or to anyone else, as you can see in my first comment in the thread.
(And I consider both to be inferior to lifepaths, as you can see in my second or third comment in the thread:p).
My bad, I at best skimmed everything after the first page. :D
Quote from: Tequila SunriseYou know, random chargen and point buy aren't 'natural enemies' the way we tend to treat them in these online flame wars.
Quote from: AsenRG;955240Yeah, but people are having so much fun treating them this way. Wouldn't it be cruel to take away their little pleasure?
Indeed it would, let's pop some more corn!
Quote from: Skarg;955358Thanks for everyone's responses to my question about adding different starting levels.
One other comment on a slightly different idea:
Although I often don't use the points in GURPS in many ways (not for experience or strict balance), it seems to me that the weird apples & oranges variety of things with points does allow more room for PCs to be quite different in types and levels of abilities while still providing for some balance and fairness in many different ways. In this way, players can be allowed to play with the type of character they want even if those are different power levels, by balancing in other ways, such as starting in relatively (un)fortunate circumstances, such as patrons, enemies, reputation, legal problems, etc, which could even be just the starting conditions of the adventure and the reason to bring the PCs together for the starting adventure. Of course, you can use that to whatever degree you care or don't care about fairness and balance in starting conditions.
One problem as it were with some point buy and especially Gurps is that while its pretty even at the start. That all breaks down when someone starts to take on disadvantages to get more points. All of a sudden the character with no flaws may end up woefully underpowered compared to the character whos taken possibly several disads to garner alot of points.
Normally this isnt a problem when you have a competent GM. But seems way too often either the GM doesnt enforce those disads, or the player tries to rules lawyer the disads into a little corner where it can rarely show, or turn it into an ongoing advantage somehow. Which is why I warn players up front that if they take a disadvantage I am going to enforce it.
I had one player who was dismayed that their PC who flips out under stress was... flipping out under stress...
Normally nobody minds if the other guy is more powerful but also dealing with disads. Some may though resent the more problematic ones that interfere too much.
With random rolling normally no one cares there overall because the system tends to push you towards average and getting a high or low roll tends to be more a badge of luck, good or ill. They may grumble if someone gets really lucky. But even then there tends to be less trouble unless its the same player rolling suspiciously high again and again. And some are ok with being joe average or even less as it tends to mean the guy with the 18s is going to be drawing alot of fire and they wont.
In the end part of the roll vs something else problem comes from players simply not understanding the system or getting it in their head the system does some unfair thing when that is not the case. And the other part coming from bad first impressions leaving them SCARRED FOR LIFE!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955364Well, yeah. And every time somebody says "Different people like different stuff," somebody else chimes in with "Point buy/random roll molested my baby sister!" and the monkeys load up on shit and start flinging again.
Yes, indeed, Glorious General - and would you want more popcorn:)?
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955385For reasons already discussed (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36607-Point-Buy&p=955137#post955137), I find this argument no more compelling than "FITNESS TRAINERS DON'T WANT TO YOU KNOW, GET THE ABS OF YOUR DREAMS IN SIX WEEKS FLAT USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!!!"
:D
I don't care about the "weird tricks" people have been trying to sell me, because they never seem to work quite as advertised.
Both point-buy and random have worked for me, albeit not as well as lifepaths did and do;). So no, I don't find them to be in the same category.
QuoteMy bad, I at best skimmed everything after the first page. :D
It's understandable in this thread.
QuoteIndeed it would, let's pop some more corn!
Definitely sounds like a plan to me, with salt or without;)?
Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955332There's hardly any relevance of all this to my quote which you were replying to, but none of what you say here is unreasonable, nor is it even bad form to have a list of what new players can expect. If they leave beforehand, that's one thing. If they're bummed because their character rolls are effectively useless....
I've had a few people over the years walk because they could not have their way (the character they want, the rules the want interpreted the way they want, etc.). This in spite of my warnings before they started play. I've never forced anyone to play a character that was truly useless -- for course, my opinion of what is truly useless is probably much different than that of most players of more modern editions of RPGs. But yes, I've had a player or three walk because actually making their less than stellar but more than useless character useful required player skill and thought and that apparently bummed them. I just shook my head and hoped they could find a campaign more like what they wanted.
Quote...and they feel that there's no point in even playing when their character is just going to drag the party down and make things worse... and then you project your own ideas and say that they want some kind of power fantasy, when they're likely just wanting a character that's not completely incompetent and can actively help the party, that's something entirely different.
I've never understood how a character who is less that "optimal" can somehow drag a party down to the point that the player feels useless -- let alone that the other players don't want the character to be in the group. As PCs always have the "mind" of their player, even the most useless mechanically can contribute in my games. If nothing else they can handle hirelings and the like which are pretty important in the games I run. But then I come from a playstyle that stresses player skill over character skill, doesn't have a lot of mechanical rules widgets for any player to manipulate, and assumes that there may often be great differences in the abilities of characters (for example, if a PC dies, the replacement is either a lower level NPC from the party or a new first level character).
Quote from: Omega;955388One problem as it were with some point buy and especially Gurps is that while its pretty even at the start. That all breaks down when someone starts to take on disadvantages to get more points. All of a sudden the character with no flaws may end up woefully underpowered compared to the character whos taken possibly several disads to garner alot of points.
Normally this isnt a problem when you have a competent GM. But seems way too often either the GM doesnt enforce those disads, or the player tries to rules lawyer the disads into a little corner where it can rarely show, or turn it into an ongoing advantage somehow. Which is why I warn players up front that if they take a disadvantage I am going to enforce it.
I had one player who was dismayed that their PC who flips out under stress was... flipping out under stress...
Normally nobody minds if the other guy is more powerful but also dealing with disads. Some may though resent the more problematic ones that interfere too much.
With random rolling normally no one cares there overall because the system tends to push you towards average and getting a high or low roll tends to be more a badge of luck, good or ill. They may grumble if someone gets really lucky. But even then there tends to be less trouble unless its the same player rolling suspiciously high again and again. And some are ok with being joe average or even less as it tends to mean the guy with the 18s is going to be drawing alot of fire and they wont.
Any player who is going to be envious of another player's character power is not going to care if the character was point-bought or random rolled. It really seems disingenuous to imply that issues with character power imbalance is only an issue in one and not the other.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;955408Any player who is going to be envious of another player's character power is not going to care if the character was point-bought or random rolled. It really seems disingenuous to imply that issues with character power imbalance is only an issue in one and not the other.
Reading comprehension... you seem to lack.
Quote from: RandallS;955407I've had a few people over the years walk because they could not have their way (the character they want, the rules the want interpreted the way they want, etc.). This in spite of my warnings before they started play. I've never forced anyone to play a character that was truly useless -- for course, my opinion of what is truly useless is probably much different than that of most players of more modern editions of RPGs. But yes, I've had a player or three walk because actually making their less than stellar but more than useless character useful required player skill and thought and that apparently bummed them. I just shook my head and hoped they could find a campaign more like what they wanted.
I've never understood how a character who is less that "optimal" can somehow drag a party down to the point that the player feels useless -- let alone that the other players don't want the character to be in the group. As PCs always have the "mind" of their player, even the most useless mechanically can contribute in my games. If nothing else they can handle hirelings and the like which are pretty important in the games I run. But then I come from a playstyle that stresses player skill over character skill, doesn't have a lot of mechanical rules widgets for any player to manipulate, and assumes that there may often be great differences in the abilities of characters (for example, if a PC dies, the replacement is either a lower level NPC from the party or a new first level character).
This? Is a projection. You use words that Thegn doesn't. 'Optimal'? He never said this. He said that a player doesn't want to play a character that will drag the party down. Someone who can barely make the rolls needed to do something, like say pick a lock or disarm a trap, isn't complaining about 'optimal' characters, they're talking about feeling useful. You could argue that if he kills himself by failing to disarm a trap he's actually hurt the party. Less fire power/hp resource available for when the inevitability of combat comes up.
Here's a better analogy, who would you hire as a locksmith after having locked yourself out of your own car? Some fumbled finger no name goon, or someone who can do the job and has all the tools, both physical and mental?
I can tell ya, most people, gamers or not, would rather be the guy who can do the job. Which is why if they can, they will learn to do the job, or more likely get the one who can do it, and do it well.
Why the hell do RPGs have to force you, and I do mean FORCE, into choosing to have the idiot who can barely pick his own nose without drawing his own blood into a role he's not suited for?
It's not realistic in the least. Hell, in older editions you could HIRE people who were good at the job you wanted for a decent amount of gold.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955428This? Is a projection. You use words that Thegn doesn't. 'Optimal'? He never said this. He said that a player doesn't want to play a character that will drag the party down. Someone who can barely make the rolls needed to do something, like say pick a lock or disarm a trap, isn't complaining about 'optimal' characters, they're talking about feeling useful. You could argue that if he kills himself by failing to disarm a trap he's actually hurt the party. Less fire power/hp resource available for when the inevitability of combat comes up.
Here's a better analogy, who would you hire as a locksmith after having locked yourself out of your own car? Some fumbled finger no name goon, or someone who can do the job and has all the tools, both physical and mental?
I can tell ya, most people, gamers or not, would rather be the guy who can do the job. Which is why if they can, they will learn to do the job, or more likely get the one who can do it, and do it well.
Why the hell do RPGs have to force you, and I do mean FORCE, into choosing to have the idiot who can barely pick his own nose without drawing his own blood into a role he's not suited for?
It's not realistic in the least. Hell, in older editions you could HIRE people who were good at the job you wanted for a decent amount of gold.
Might be better to judge the quality of the game by the quality of the people playing it, not their characters.
Quote from: RandallS;955407I've never understood how a character who is less that "optimal" can somehow drag a party down to the point that the player feels useless -
I thought that too until I played PATHFINDER. You're using your stats in everything you do, and if your prime requisite isn't at least a 16 all you're good for is absorbing hit points from bad guy attacks. Sure, you can still use your brain, but at that point you can contribute and use your brain without a PC, too. I would not dream of making people use 3d6 in order in PATHFINDER.
Quote from: cranebump;955430Might be better to judge the quality of the game by the quality of the people playing it, not their characters.
So you're saying you can pound a nail with a hammer with a wobbly, rusted pig iron head, just as well with a fully functional and capable steel claw hammer?
Because it's the same thing. Why risk your hand with a substandard hammer, when you have a perfectly functional one. And that's the thing, functional, NOT superiour.
A character is a tool, a tool to play make believe, to have fun dredging through dungeons and ruins, to explore mental landscapes, whether that involves a story or narrative or not. And as long as the tool does the job it's often fun. But if you have to find excuses and reasons as to why you must make a less capable (there's that word again!) tools with you, maybe you should consider what you're doing.
Here's the rub, if your beer and pretzel's game is all about running through various deathtrap laden mazes with the sole goal of seeing how far you can go, then hell yeah, a character with substandard abilities is just as good as a demigod. Probably because both will have about the same rate of 'survival'.
But for those of us who like to stick with a character, hopefully (cuz you know, dice and all other randomizers), longer than a single session, something better than Louie The Loser might be in order.
And quite frankly, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick and tired of having the likes of Gronan and Black Vulmea throwing their e-peens around and yelling at 'those damn kids' when games have changed to reflect more modern sensibilities. We get it, you're damn proud of the fact that you had to walk up hill, in the snow, in the dead of winter, both ways. But there's a reason bus services got created.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955210A character is a tool, a tool to play make believe, to have fun dredging through dungeons and ruins, to explore mental landscapes, whether that involves a story or narrative or not. And as long as the tool does the job it's often fun. But if you have to find excuses and reasons as to why you must make a less capable (there's that word again!) tools with you, maybe you should consider what you're doing.
It's a bad tradesman who blames his tools.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955468It's a bad tradesman who blames his tools.
A good tradesman wouldn't work with substandard ones in the first place, as if it was a point of pride.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955454I thought that too until I played PATHFINDER. You're using your stats in everything you do, and if your prime requisite isn't at least a 16 all you're good for is absorbing hit points from bad guy attacks. Sure, you can still use your brain, but at that point you can contribute and use your brain without a PC, too. I would not dream of making people use 3d6 in order in PATHFINDER.
Yeah, I'm starting to wonder how many people arguing this have played WotC-era D&D or Pathfinder a whole lot. If you have 9/9/9/9/9/9 in your stats in AD&D, you can be a fighter with no penalties to anything. If you've got that in the modern iterations, you'll be rolling successfully about half as often, and if it's a weapon attack, doing about half the usual damage as well. Since you roll for everything from disarming traps to convincing a bandit to free a hostage, you'll just be worthless.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955428This? Is a projection. You use words that Thegn doesn't. 'Optimal'? He never said this. He said that a player doesn't want to play a character that will drag the party down. Someone who can barely make the rolls needed to do something, like say pick a lock or disarm a trap, isn't complaining about 'optimal' characters, they're talking about feeling useful. You could argue that if he kills himself by failing to disarm a trap he's actually hurt the party. Less fire power/hp resource available for when the inevitability of combat comes up.
Here's a better analogy, who would you hire as a locksmith after having locked yourself out of your own car? Some fumbled finger no name goon, or someone who can do the job and has all the tools, both physical and mental?
I can tell ya, most people, gamers or not, would rather be the guy who can do the job. Which is why if they can, they will learn to do the job, or more likely get the one who can do it, and do it well.
Why the hell do RPGs have to force you, and I do mean FORCE, into choosing to have the idiot who can barely pick his own nose without drawing his own blood into a role he's not suited for?
It's not realistic in the least. Hell, in older editions you could HIRE people who were good at the job you wanted for a decent amount of gold.
The right tool for the right job argument is definitely valid. However, the editions which 'forced' people to use random rolls are also the ones where starting stats are nice perks at best, not vital to character success. All of the editions (and I'm talking TSR/WotC/Piazo games, I can't speak for every OSR game out there) where the difference between a 10 and an 18 is the difference between competent and incompetent (AD&D 1&2, D&D 3-5, and PF) has point buy, array, point allocation, or some other method listed where a player can almost be guaranteed a fairly competent character.
As to realism, it depends on the backstory you imagine lead these characters to adventuring. If these are people forced by circumstance into a life of adventure (forced literally like in a zombie-survival scenario, or just a 'you can be a starving dirt farmer your whole life or pick up a sword and do something about it' scenario), then yes, it is reasonable that Clumsy Joe and Asthmatic Allen will become adventurers because 'stay behind and let someone more naturally adept do it' doesn't solve their situation. If instead you want to zoom in on the party at the point where they are competent, capable adventurers, then you probably won't find many Clumsy Joes. It's just different styles of play, and thankfully no one is being forced to play a game that doesn't match their preferred style.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955456So you're saying you can pound a nail with a hammer with a wobbly, rusted pig iron head, just as well with a fully functional and capable steel claw hammer?
Because it's the same thing. Why risk your hand with a substandard hammer, when you have a perfectly functional one. And that's the thing, functional, NOT superiour.
A character is a tool, a tool to play make believe, to have fun dredging through dungeons and ruins, to explore mental landscapes, whether that involves a story or narrative or not. And as long as the tool does the job it's often fun. But if you have to find excuses and reasons as to why you must make a less capable (there's that word again!) tools with you, maybe you should consider what you're doing.
Here's the rub, if your beer and pretzel's game is all about running through various deathtrap laden mazes with the sole goal of seeing how far you can go, then hell yeah, a character with substandard abilities is just as good as a demigod. Probably because both will have about the same rate of 'survival'.
But for those of us who like to stick with a character, hopefully (cuz you know, dice and all other randomizers), longer than a single session, something better than Louie The Loser might be in order.
And quite frankly, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick and tired of having the likes of Gronan and Black Vulmea throwing their e-peens around and yelling at 'those damn kids' when games have changed to reflect more modern sensibilities. We get it, you're damn proud of the fact that you had to walk up hill, in the snow, in the dead of winter, both ways. But there's a reason bus services got created.
Gronan has been pretty even handed in this thread, I think. And Vulmea's penchant for Spanish swearing here has made me feel slightly wistful about my old hometown in south-central Texas.:-)
Those guys aside, I would venture to say that, regardless of how you generate your characters, I would think your memories would be more about what they did, rather than what their numbers were, which is why I suggested the focus be on the people, rather than the the stats their characters have. I made my comment because it sounded (and still does sound) like you're insinuating you can't have any long term fun unless your character is "optimal." I believe there's a more appropriate yardstick to measure the quality of the gaming experience other than "My character was successful on X % of my die rolls." To assess that proposition, I would ask you this: when you and your mates talk about your adventures/sessions, does anyone ever say, "Remember that time I made all my lockpicking checks, because of that +10 Mechanics skill I have, coupled with the 'Super Rogue' Feat? Man...that was fun..." Or is it more about "Remember when Gromm charged up the hill, got caught in Warren's Sleep spell, and passed out before he reached the target?"
Beyond that, the way you're presenting yourself as a player (
here, anyway) is as someone who would sit at my elbow every session, peering over at my sheet, then judging whether I'm "dead weight" based on that, rather than the decisions I make. It
seems that how I plunk down the numbers might be your primary yardstick for how I play, before you've even seen me play).
I would assume that's
not how you
actually play, or actually judge the quality of your table. Otherwise, I feel like you'd be constantly disappointed. This, of course, assumes that we both agree that gaming is about whom we game with, rather than the characters they make. Of course, if how someone makes a character is a part of that measurement...
Quote from: Omega;955388One problem as it were with some point buy and especially Gurps is that while its pretty even at the start. That all breaks down when someone starts to take on disadvantages to get more points. All of a sudden the character with no flaws may end up woefully underpowered compared to the character whos taken possibly several disads to garner alot of points.
Normally this isnt a problem when you have a competent GM. But seems way too often either the GM doesnt enforce those disads, or the player tries to rules lawyer the disads into a little corner where it can rarely show, or turn it into an ongoing advantage somehow. Which is why I warn players up front that if they take a disadvantage I am going to enforce it.
I had one player who was dismayed that their PC who flips out under stress was... flipping out under stress...
Normally nobody minds if the other guy is more powerful but also dealing with disads. Some may though resent the more problematic ones that interfere too much.
With random rolling normally no one cares there overall because the system tends to push you towards average and getting a high or low roll tends to be more a badge of luck, good or ill. They may grumble if someone gets really lucky. But even then there tends to be less trouble unless its the same player rolling suspiciously high again and again. And some are ok with being joe average or even less as it tends to mean the guy with the 18s is going to be drawing alot of fire and they wont.
In the end part of the roll vs something else problem comes from players simply not understanding the system or getting it in their head the system does some unfair thing when that is not the case. And the other part coming from bad first impressions leaving them SCARRED FOR LIFE!
Hehe!
Yeah, once again, the main problem it seems like many people have with GURPS is that it's rather different from other games and so (particularly if the GM isn't very experienced with it) there can be quite a few unexpected situations and other surprises, one of which as you say being if the GM under (or over) emphasizes something. Badly managed or unmanaged character creation by newbies and/or munchkins can of course easily make ridiculous broken characters. So it's really easy to have "this is weird/sucks" experiences at first, especially with a green GURPS GM.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955454I thought that too until I played PATHFINDER. You're using your stats in everything you do, and if your prime requisite isn't at least a 16 all you're good for is absorbing hit points from bad guy attacks. Sure, you can still use your brain, but at that point you can contribute and use your brain without a PC, too. I would not dream of making people use 3d6 in order in PATHFINDER.
But if you die quickly, you get to roll new stats. ;-)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955456And quite frankly, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick and tired of having the likes of Gronan and Black Vulmea throwing their e-peens around and yelling at 'those damn kids' when games have changed to reflect more modern sensibilities.
Chris - may I call you Chris? - Chris, I have ten posts in this thread before this one, and in none of them - not a single one - did I say anything about point buy being inferior to random attribute generation.
In two posts I pointed out that Voros' claim about 3d6 in 1e
AD&D was bullshit, devoted a post to the idea that in-game social interactions usually require both talking things through and rolling for success, added two posts about what a gawdawful click-bait topic this is and three posts pointing out that you're ignorant, quoted some of nDervish's points about fairness and zero-to-hero, and I made a Monte Python joke, 'cause, y'know, gamers.
But not once did I say anything negative about point buy, because while I prefer randomly generated characters when I play, I also couldn't care less if a gamer wants a 'standard array' or straight 18s or 00s or whatever on their character sheet. Shine on, you crazy diamond, 'cause in the games I play, it's really not that big an advantage.
And by the way, I guess this is going to be another post about your ignorance, because point buy characters goes back to at least 1977 with
Melee and 1980 with
The Fantasy Trip, so fuck your gibberish about 'modern sensibilities.'
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955456We get it, you're damn proud of the fact that you had to walk up hill, in the snow, in the dead of winter, both ways. But there's a reason bus services got created.
Unlike most of the profoundly ignorant posters on this site, I don't have you on Ignore because while so much of what you say is hare-brained nonsense, you do actually have something to contribute once in while - that right there is funny.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955454I thought that too until I played PATHFINDER. You're using your stats in everything you do, and if your prime requisite isn't at least a 16 all you're good for is absorbing hit points from bad guy attacks. Sure, you can still use your brain, but at that point you can contribute and use your brain without a PC, too. I would not dream of making people use 3d6 in order in PATHFINDER.
Sounds more like a problem with the campaign not the game. If the campaign is all about combat and you don't optimize for combat then your character will feel like a fifth wheel. In addition if encounters are designed to be "level appropriate" rather than what natural for the setting again a non-optimized character will feel like a fifth wheel.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955456So you're saying you can pound a nail with a hammer with a wobbly, rusted pig iron head, just as well with a fully functional and capable steel claw hammer?
Because it's the same thing. Why risk your hand with a substandard hammer, when you have a perfectly functional one. And that's the thing, functional, NOT superiour.
Because RPGs are about experiencing a campaign where you interact with a setting as your character where your actions are adjudicated by a human referee. Not playing a wargame with a specific set of rules set in a defined scenario. RPGs are inherently freeform. As such exactly what is optimal?
I ran a campaign centered around a hedge wizard, a priest, a laborer, and a city guard living out their lives in a neighborhood of the City State of the Invincible Overlord. What as optimal was very different from a campaign where everybody played a magic-users. Which was different from the one where everybody was a member of the City Guard. Which different still from the campaigns that I run most of the time where the players make characters that interest them and they hang out and adventurer and getting into trouble by looting dungeons.
Beyond a minimum threshold any set of rules can be used to adjudicate the action of the characters for any type of campaign. Takes a lot for more work to use OD&D rules to run a Cyberpunk campaign hence is why rules like Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0 have utility. The only objective criteria is does it take more work for you to run your campaign with point buy over random generation? The same with any other set of mechanics. Otherwise it preference and what "best" is what you like.
Quote from: estar;955535Sounds more like a problem with the campaign not the game. If the campaign is all about combat and you don't optimize for combat then your character will feel like a fifth wheel.
I've seen this. But it can also be the game, like with SpaceMaster or RoleMaster. (I forget the version--late 80s I guess.)
If you have massive rules mastery, you can make characters whose tertiary abilities are orders of magnitude higher than the primary skills of someone who made a character with a character concept or without rules mastery. I feel the same way playing the computer game of D&D's Temple of Elemental Evil, where you have to plan what your character is going to take at each level, ahead of time, or you don't get the good skills at higher levels.
I don't know if you consider that a system (game) problem or what.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955474A good tradesman wouldn't work with substandard ones in the first place, as if it was a point of pride.
Come on now, I bet some in this thread would be yelling "Stone tools was good enough for us!" just to make a point. :D
Quote from: Tod13;955544If you have massive rules mastery, you can make characters whose tertiary abilities are orders of magnitude higher than the primary skills of someone who made a character with a character concept or without rules mastery. I feel the same way playing the computer game of D&D's Temple of Elemental Evil, where you have to plan what your character is going to take at each level, ahead of time, or you don't get the good skills at higher levels.
In my Majestic Wilderlands (and my other settings) being able to kill everything and anything often doesn't have anything to do with resolving the current complication. Note this is not the same as saying that it has no effect. Of course being a combat/skill/magic optimized monster does influence how events play out. However it causes it own set of complications.
The thing to remember that there are not many RPGs that are so broken that the weight of numbers in the form of organized society doesn't win in the end. I don't need to make optimized NPCs to counter the player. Even the most tricked out optimized fighter in most heroic fantasy RPGs are not capable of handling the entire 200 man city guard by themselves along with whatever forces the king/overlord/emperor contributes.
That if it even gets to that point in the first place. The way I emphasize first person roleplaying for myself and my players helps greatly in curbing maddog behavior.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;955552Come on now, I bet some in this thread would be yelling "Stone tools was good enough for us!" just to make a point. :D
And sometimes they have a point for example Surgical knives made from obsidian are still used in some types of surgeries. But in general yes stone as a material for tools is generally inferior to the alternatives. But because the focus of RPGs is on being a character within some imagined setting, what mechanics you use to handle various aspects of the campaign is not black and white.
What important is to understand the consequences of using a particular set of mechanics. And keep in mind that it not that finely tuned there are lots of equally good ways to figure out if a weapon strike hit and how much damage it along with detailing the different aspects of a specific character.
Quote from: AsenRG;955391Definitely sounds like a plan to me, with salt or without;)?
I'm very indecisive when it comes to popcorn, so I like to get a Xmas three-flavor tin and then roll on my custom random encounter table:
1-4 Go classic! (Butter)
5-8 Go dairy! (Cheese)
7-14 Get sweet! (Caramel)
15-16 Butter, and roll on Table 73: Random fridge leftovers
17-18: Cheese, and roll on Table 102: Random questionably half-eaten pantry items
19: Caramel, and roll again
20: Get your lazy ass outdoors
:D
Quote from: estar;955535Sounds more like a problem with the campaign not the game. If the campaign is all about combat and you don't optimize for combat then your character will feel like a fifth wheel. In addition if encounters are designed to be "level appropriate" rather than what natural for the setting again a non-optimized character will feel like a fifth wheel.
Oh, certainly; the game sessions are all commercial "Adventure Paths," which are designed exactly that way.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;955552Come on now, I bet some in this thread would be yelling "Stone tools was good enough for us!" just to make a point. :D
But, you see, the dichotomy is false.
Analogy is always suspect, but I'm going to use one anyway.
In the model railroad hobby, it is possible to buy a fully finished, ready to go locomotive. Put it on the track, boom, done. Against a neutral backdrop, a photograph of the model will be absolutely indistinguishable from the real thing.
There are still people out there who take their miniature machine shop, and a bunch of brass bar and sheet stock, and painstakingly build a model locomotive with their own hands. Some of them are quite good at it, and produce truly amazing models, down to turning the spokes for their steam engine wheels individually.
They do this because they WANT to.
And they don't really care what other people do, until the model railroad equivalent of ChristopherBrady comes along and tells them that they are doing it wrong, and, more importantly, that
nobody ever really enjoyed doing it that way, and that the model builder in question is only doing it to "put down" those "damn kids," instead of, you know, he actually enjoys doing it. At which point the model machinist takes one of his miniature lathe tools and carves his initials in ChristoperBrady's forehead.
Here endeth the lesson.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955573Oh, certainly; the game sessions are all commercial "Adventure Paths," which are designed exactly that way.
Ah make sense considering how they are setup. I will use adventure paths but I break them down into NPCs, plot (like what the NPCs plan to do), and locale. Then run it like I always run my campaign. Some are easier to do that with than others. Kingmaker is one I really liked as it was designed as Paizo's take on a sandbox campaign.
If a party is not optimized for combat usually what happens is something I label as "peck them to death". They won't meet the enemy head on or on the path laid out in the book. But figure out different ways to pick off the opposition and try to whittle them down to something they can handle. This could mean setting up a deception where part of the main opposition is off elsewhere doing something else. The original locale is somewhat depopulated compared to what was laid out.
Quote from: estar;955580Ah make sense considering how they are setup. I will use adventure paths but I break them down into NPCs, plot (like what the NPCs plan to do), and locale. Then run it like I always run my campaign. Some are easier to do that with than others. Kingmaker is one I really liked as it was designed as Paizo's take on a sandbox campaign.
If a party is not optimized for combat usually what happens is something I label as "peck them to death". They won't meet the enemy head on or on the path laid out in the book. But figure out different ways to pick off the opposition and try to whittle them down to something they can handle. This could mean setting up a deception where part of the main opposition is off elsewhere doing something else. The original locale is somewhat depopulated compared to what was laid out.
It's more than just combat, though. If you have to negotiate, better let the character with the 18 Charisma do that, because why would you put skill levels in "Diplomacy" with your CHA of 13 when the other player starts off so much better than you anyway?
Et cetera.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955577In the model railroad hobby, it is possible to buy a fully finished, ready to go locomotive. Put it on the track, boom, done. Against a neutral backdrop, a photograph of the model will be absolutely indistinguishable from the real thing.
There are still people out there who take their miniature machine shop, and a bunch of brass bar and sheet stock, and painstakingly build a model locomotive with their own hands. Some of them are quite good at it, and produce truly amazing models, down to turning the spokes for their steam engine wheels individually.
They do this because they WANT to.
I am in utter awe of that kind of skill at anything.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955577And they don't really care what other people do, until the model railroad equivalent of ChristopherBrady comes along and tells them that they are doing it wrong, and, more importantly, that nobody ever really enjoyed doing it that way, and that the model builder in question is only doing it to "put down" those "damn kids," instead of, you know, he actually enjoys doing it. At which point the model machinist takes one of his miniature lathe tools and carves his initials in ChristoperBrady's forehead.
Note to self: do not piss off model machinists. Ever.
*
pulls hat brim down low over eyes*
2e had some interesting variants like a random roll for the point buy total.
Assign number of dice from a pool, roll those and keep the best 3 results.
A base of 8 in all stats and then you have 7 dice to roll and can assign those results to the stats.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955454I thought that too until I played PATHFINDER. You're using your stats in everything you do, and if your prime requisite isn't at least a 16 all you're good for is absorbing hit points from bad guy attacks. Sure, you can still use your brain, but at that point you can contribute and use your brain without a PC, too. I would not dream of making people use 3d6 in order in PATHFINDER.
Nonsense. You just need to have an O/AD&D attitude while playing. You take a stack of hirelings and henchmen and you ignore all the feats for jumping over a low wall and doing 423 attacks per round and scratching your arse and all that nonsense and take a ten foot pole and iron spikes and
use your wits.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955474A good tradesman wouldn't work with substandard ones in the first place, as if it was a point of pride.
What a good tradesman considers good tools, and what an amateur considers good tools, will be very different. Master craftsmen go for simple and sturdy tools that could have been used hundreds of years ago, amateurs go for the latest flashest most expensive tool - and then barely use it.
"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."- Bruce Lee
This is the same process in any trade, science or art. Further to this: options. It is "the paradox of choice" that while we think we need lots of options to be happy, the more choices we have, the less happy we are. This does not mean that the person living in North Korea will be happy. What it does mean is that having a few reasonable choices is better than having a hundred choices. I don't know if you're old enough to remember video stores - with 10,000 to choose from, you'd wander for 45 minutes and come out with nothing; visit a friend with 6 tapes, in 30 seconds you'd choose one and it'd be alright - usually not great, but alright. In the store you were holding out for great and ended up with nothing.
In character generation, people
think they want endless options. This usually leads to endless dithering and buyer's remorse where they're constantly saying, "if I'd chosen Advantage X and Feat Y instead of A and B..." If they have just a few options, they choose quickly and tend to be happier with their choice. Random roll restricts choices. "But I wanted a movie about..." If you watch this movie you'll probably find it's not bad.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955641Nonsense. You just need to have an O/AD&D attitude while playing. You take a stack of hirelings and henchmen and you ignore all the feats for jumping over a low wall and doing 423 attacks per round and scratching your arse and all that nonsense and take a ten foot pole and iron spikes and use your wits.
Unless the referee uses the "adventure paths" as mentioned above. Will used to complain about this, and in that sense he was right. In the current "pirate" adventure path you have to "do sailor shit," and unless you have a DEX or INT at least 14 you aren't going to get your mandatory "sailor shit" done.
Yes, this is bad adventure design, but it goes hand in hand with PATHFINDER's bad game design.
Also, teach your grandmother to suck eggses. Neener.
Quote from: estar;955542Because RPGs are about experiencing a campaign where you interact with a setting as your character where your actions are adjudicated by a human referee. Not playing a wargame with a specific set of rules set in a defined scenario. RPGs are inherently freeform. As such exactly what is optimal?
Mister "D&D Touched Me In A Bad Way" is still feeling sorry for himself from 30 years ago, and still angry at those of us who dare to have fun. Logic or common sense has fuckall to do with it. The poor bastard needs therapy, he sounds like he's got Post Gygaxian Stress Disorder.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955585It's more than just combat, though. If you have to negotiate, better let the character with the 18 Charisma do that, because why would you put skill levels in "Diplomacy" with your CHA of 13 when the other player starts off so much better than you anyway?
IC, yeah I didn't care for the +1 per 2 points of attribute that D20 and 5e does. Which is why I adopted +1 per 3 for my own take on classic D&D. To get +3 you need a 18 and that with the default attribute being 3d6 straight.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955657Unless the referee uses the "adventure paths" as mentioned above.
I've had DMs try. We sort them out quickly. Like the 3.5 DM who was asking us our levels, we wouldn't tell him because (a) he should know and (2) that means he's trying to ensure we have "enough" k3w1 pw0rz to deal with encounter X. Fuck all that, if it's too easy we won't complain, if it's too hard we'll die or run away, or maybe even surprise the DM and achieve it anyway.
If I want to run along on a railway line I'll play a computer game, it's got better pictures and music and I don't have to look up any charts.
Just barrel on through and don't worry about the DM's adventure path, and then nobody has to worry that they forgot to put points in Basket Weaving.
Quote from: estar;955661IC, yeah I didn't care for the +1 per 2 points of attribute that D20 and 5e does. Which is why I adopted +1 per 3 for my own take on classic D&D. To get +3 you need a 18 and that with the default attribute being 3d6 straight.
Every 2 points works. But I think instead it could start kicking in at 14 instead of 12. But it works as is due to the way 5e handles to-hits and the de-empjhasis on magic items. Though you could just bump up the proficiency bonus by one to cover the loss.
Though BX started at 13 with +1 to 15 and then +2 16 to 17, then +3 at 18.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955642Further to this: options. It is "the paradox of choice" that while we think we need lots of options to be happy, the more choices we have, the less happy we are. This does not mean that the person living in North Korea will be happy. What it does mean is that having a few reasonable choices is better than having a hundred choices. I don't know if you're old enough to remember video stores - with 10,000 to choose from, you'd wander for 45 minutes and come out with nothing; visit a friend with 6 tapes, in 30 seconds you'd choose one and it'd be alright - usually not great, but alright. In the store you were holding out for great and ended up with nothing.
In character generation, people think they want endless options. This usually leads to endless dithering and buyer's remorse where they're constantly saying, "if I'd chosen Advantage X and Feat Y instead of A and B..." If they have just a few options, they choose quickly and tend to be happier with their choice. Random roll restricts choices. "But I wanted a movie about..." If you watch this movie you'll probably find it's not bad.
True, and well worth noting, but I don't see why the best way of going about it is to randomly restrict choices rather than just offering a comprehensible number of viable options to everyone. If you roll 3 in each attribute your choices are shitty fighter or shitty fighter, so then we're back to North Korea, and if you roll 18 in every attribute you can be anything you want, which means that your choices aren't restricted after all. I mean, both those are unlikely scenarios, but you see what I mean - random rolls restrict options randomly. If your priority is hitting the sweet spot of just enough choices for it to be fun, not too many and not too few, it seems to me that you're better off trying to design the system to hit it every time.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955658Mister "D&D Touched Me In A Bad Way" is still feeling sorry for himself from 30 years ago, and still angry at those of us who dare to have fun. Logic or common sense has fuckall to do with it. The poor bastard needs therapy, he sounds like he's got Post Gygaxian Stress Disorder.
So this is how you make yourself feel better for being out of touch? Ad hominems and vague swipes at others for daring not to like you're oh so hardcore playstyle? Really? And you're what? Nearing 60? And you're still reacting like you were in your teens and got bullied?
Meh, you're not that important, Binky, you want to make yourself feel better by trivializing other's play experience because it's not the 'right way' to play, go ahead. I've said my piece, and it clearly bothers you enough to keep after me, but I'm done. I prefer point buy because of the inherent 'fairness' of having a level playing field (as long as you don't have a disad system that can be abused, or players you cannot trust to play the way you set out. Like Gronan apparently doesn't, poor sap.)
Not claiming it's better, but I prefer it. And so do my friends.
Peace out, and happy gaming.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955530In two posts I pointed out that Voros' claim about 3d6 in 1e AD&D was bullshit...
Course as I and others already pointed out I never actually said that so you either lack basic reading comprehension or like to argue with the voices in your head.
Given how many people said "I prefer what I prefer, I'm not even saying it's better, you play what you want"...why is anyone still posting?
Oh, right, for the popcorn! Right, I'll get to this in a minute:).
Quote from: estar;955535Sounds more like a problem with the campaign not the game. If the campaign is all about combat and you don't optimize for combat then your character will feel like a fifth wheel. In addition if encounters are designed to be "level appropriate" rather than what natural for the setting again a non-optimized character will feel like a fifth wheel.
But the PF's GM advice tells you to give level-appropriate encounters, thus exacerbating the problem.
Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955567I'm very indecisive when it comes to popcorn, so I like to get a Xmas three-flavor tin and then roll on my custom random encounter table:
1-4 Go classic! (Butter)
5-8 Go dairy! (Cheese)
7-14 Get sweet! (Caramel)
15-16 Butter, and roll on Table 73: Random fridge leftovers
17-18: Cheese, and roll on Table 102: Random questionably half-eaten pantry items
19: Caramel, and roll again
20: Get your lazy ass outdoors
:D
Man, I've only prepared classic. So, re-roll until you get 1-4, then tell me whether you want extra salt...;)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955573Oh, certainly; the game sessions are all commercial "Adventure Paths," which are designed exactly that way.
I feel your pain, Glorious General!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955577But, you see, the dichotomy is false.
Analogy is always suspect, but I'm going to use one anyway.
In the model railroad hobby, it is possible to buy a fully finished, ready to go locomotive. Put it on the track, boom, done. Against a neutral backdrop, a photograph of the model will be absolutely indistinguishable from the real thing.
There are still people out there who take their miniature machine shop, and a bunch of brass bar and sheet stock, and painstakingly build a model locomotive with their own hands. Some of them are quite good at it, and produce truly amazing models, down to turning the spokes for their steam engine wheels individually.
They do this because they WANT to.
And they don't really care what other people do, until the model railroad equivalent of ChristopherBrady comes along and tells them that they are doing it wrong, and, more importantly, that nobody ever really enjoyed doing it that way, and that the model builder in question is only doing it to "put down" those "damn kids," instead of, you know, he actually enjoys doing it. At which point the model machinist takes one of his miniature lathe tools and carves his initials in ChristoperBrady's forehead.
Here endeth the lesson.
I had almost guessed the ending, including the location...but then it was a miniature tool?
For shame!
Quote from: estar;955580Ah make sense considering how they are setup. I will use adventure paths but I break them down into NPCs, plot (like what the NPCs plan to do), and locale. Then run it like I always run my campaign. Some are easier to do that with than others. Kingmaker is one I really liked as it was designed as Paizo's take on a sandbox campaign.
If a party is not optimized for combat usually what happens is something I label as "peck them to death". They won't meet the enemy head on or on the path laid out in the book. But figure out different ways to pick off the opposition and try to whittle them down to something they can handle. This could mean setting up a deception where part of the main opposition is off elsewhere doing something else. The original locale is somewhat depopulated compared to what was laid out.
Funny coincidence, Kingmaker is among the most sought-after PF campaigns on various PbP sites.
And I approve of this approach:D.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955585It's more than just combat, though. If you have to negotiate, better let the character with the 18 Charisma do that, because why would you put skill levels in "Diplomacy" with your CHA of 13 when the other player starts off so much better than you anyway?
Et cetera.
Yeah, I don't like it either when a PC with 13 Cha thinks of a good argument, but then goes, "no, let the 18 Cha PC present it instead of me".
But this is true even with no point-buy, as long as the modifiers matter. The modifier we're talking about is +1 vs +3 in this case, BTW.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955641Nonsense. You just need to have an O/AD&D attitude while playing. You take a stack of hirelings and henchmen and you ignore all the feats for jumping over a low wall and doing 423 attacks per round and scratching your arse and all that nonsense and take a ten foot pole and iron spikes and use your wits.
Only if those hirelings stand a chance at hitting the opposition, though. The average hireling in PF might well have a +3 to +5 to attack, when you start facing things with AC in the 25-28 range, that's not really useful contribution.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955642What a good tradesman considers good tools, and what an amateur considers good tools, will be very different. Master craftsmen go for simple and sturdy tools that could have been used hundreds of years ago, amateurs go for the latest flashest most expensive tool - and then barely use it.
"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."- Bruce Lee
Now, those aren't the same thing. A few simple tools, applied universally is not the same as returning to the basics and seeing them on a whole new level.
QuoteThis is the same process in any trade, science or art. Further to this: options. It is "the paradox of choice" that while we think we need lots of options to be happy, the more choices we have, the less happy we are. This does not mean that the person living in North Korea will be happy. What it does mean is that having a few reasonable choices is better than having a hundred choices. I don't know if you're old enough to remember video stores - with 10,000 to choose from, you'd wander for 45 minutes and come out with nothing; visit a friend with 6 tapes, in 30 seconds you'd choose one and it'd be alright - usually not great, but alright. In the store you were holding out for great and ended up with nothing.
I remember video stores. My local store had upwards of 20 000 titles.
I've never gone there and returned without a movie;).
QuoteIn character generation, people think they want endless options. This usually leads to endless dithering and buyer's remorse where they're constantly saying, "if I'd chosen Advantage X and Feat Y instead of A and B..." If they have just a few options, they choose quickly and tend to be happier with their choice. Random roll restricts choices. "But I wanted a movie about..." If you watch this movie you'll probably find it's not bad.
I don't think, I know I want endless options.
And I never have buyer's remorse, except when I see someone has devised a way to get the same results with less character resources:D!
I sacrifice endless options on the altar of tying the PCs to the setting and discovering them in chargen, but it's not because I won't be able to construct them as fast. If anything, I find point-buy to be faster than my preferred lifepaths;)!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955664I've had DMs try. We sort them out quickly. Like the 3.5 DM who was asking us our levels, we wouldn't tell him because (a) he should know and (2) that means he's trying to ensure we have "enough" k3w1 pw0rz to deal with encounter X. Fuck all that, if it's too easy we won't complain, if it's too hard we'll die or run away, or maybe even surprise the DM and achieve it anyway.
If I want to run along on a railway line I'll play a computer game, it's got better pictures and music and I don't have to look up any charts.
Just barrel on through and don't worry about the DM's adventure path, and then nobody has to worry that they forgot to put points in Basket Weaving.
While that's an attitude I approve, I'd also like to note that you'd be better served by a system that's not 3.5/Pathfinder:D!
Yeah I don't recall leaving a video store with nothing to watch. I may have taken a long time but I usually left with 3-4 movies for the weekend.
Quote from: cranebump;955486Beyond that, the way you're presenting yourself as a player (here, anyway) is as someone who would sit at my elbow every session, peering over at my sheet, then judging whether I'm "dead weight" based on that, rather than the decisions I make. It seems that how I plunk down the numbers might be your primary yardstick for how I play, before you've even seen me play).
Sadly, I've seen more-or-less exactly this happen in MMORPGs on a pretty regular basis, back when I used to play them. Join a group, someone checks how your specialization points are distributed, get kicked from the group instantly. Maybe without a word, or maybe they'll complain about your gimped build first. If you're supremely lucky, they might tell you what website you can find the "correct" build for your class on, so that you can respec into the correct cookie cutter build for that particular group to find you acceptable.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that, at least at some tables, this attitude has leaked into TTRPGs.
Quote from: nDervish;955692Sadly, I've seen more-or-less exactly this happen in MMORPGs on a pretty regular basis, back when I used to play them. Join a group, someone checks how your specialization points are distributed, get kicked from the group instantly. Maybe without a word, or maybe they'll complain about your gimped build first. If you're supremely lucky, they might tell you what website you can find the "correct" build for your class on, so that you can respec into the correct cookie cutter build for that particular group to find you acceptable.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that, at least at some tables, this attitude has leaked into TTRPGs.
Had this happen early on when I was playing City of Heroes. Think it was the second character I'd ever played (the first was a "wtf is going on?" character). Waiting to enter a mission, and some yahoo decided to go on about what I "should" have done with the character. Now, we're talking about a low-level character, maybe lvl 8? Wasn't like we were doing a Hami raid, or some other Task Force. I just up and left the team, ran mishes with other folks who didn't give a shit. Thankfully, a vast majority of the people in that game were more inclined to wait until you asked for help before "offering up" their expertise. In real life, that's the guy who reaches over and points at your sheet while babbling away about what's gonna happen at level 20 when you haven't even ran the first session.
Anyhoo, that experience taught me to never wax eloquent on "builds" unless someone asks (and then I refer them to the folks who
actually know their stuff on that subject).:-) People should play what they want to play. It doesn't affect my fun.
*Real* ROLE-players play one legged, blind, amnesiacs.
Quote from: Tetsubo;955703*Real* ROLE-players play one legged, blind, amnesiacs.
Only in GURPS.
Quote from: cranebump;955698Had this happen early on when I was playing City of Heroes. Think it was the second character I'd ever played (the first was a "wtf is going on?" character). Waiting to enter a mission, and some yahoo decided to go on about what I "should" have done with the character. Now, we're talking about a low-level character, maybe lvl 8? Wasn't like we were doing a Hami raid, or some other Task Force. I just up and left the team, ran mishes with other folks who didn't give a shit. Thankfully, a vast majority of the people in that game were more inclined to wait until you asked for help before "offering up" their expertise. In real life, that's the guy who reaches over and points at your sheet while babbling away about what's gonna happen at level 20 when you haven't even ran the first session.
Anyhoo, that experience taught me to never wax eloquent on "builds" unless someone asks (and then I refer them to the folks who actually know their stuff on that subject).:-) People should play what they want to play. It doesn't affect my fun.
Yeah, and I'm the guy who managed to create the "Strike 199" build in Legends of the Wulin:D.
The number is the actual "maximum reasonable expectation" of my attack roll at the endgame, and values close to it are reachable sooner. BTW, that's without the GM allowing Transcendent techniques, in which case, I can get up to +15 better, should I decide I need them.
Thing is, the expected maximum value of an attack or defence in LotW is...more like 120, I think:p.
But the fun thing is that I know how to destroy that same build, too, and it's not by getting better strike;).
I never used it in actual play, FWIW.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955704Only in GURPS.
No it can happen in Harnmaster as well (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2008/11/911-call-from-attic.html).
Oh oh, cam we have the Disadvantage systems are of the Devil "discussion" now?
Or Social Mechanics vs Real Role playing?
:D
Quote from: AsenRG;955685But the PF's GM advice tells you to give level-appropriate encounters, thus exacerbating the problem.
Advice not a rule.
Basically
Quoteguidance or recommendations concerning prudent future action, typically given by someone regarded as knowledgeable or authoritative.
versus
Quoteone of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
I find the various pieces of advice informative but in the end it is me who decides how to run my campaign not Paizo, Wizards, Judges Guild, TSR, Columbia Games, Steve Jackson Games, etc, etc.
If people have trouble with this then they should re-evaluate their critical thinking skills.
However if it was me writing a set of RPG core books, I would make it fucking crystal clear that this game is nothing more than a set of tools to help you adjudicate the actions of the characters of a campaign and to help you save time in managing a campaign. That anything I say about campaigns or how to use the rules is advice from one referee to another and in the end it you who decide what is what in your campaign.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955676I prefer point buy because of the inherent 'fairness' of having a level playing field
Point buy doesn't make the playing field level or more fair irregardless if disadvantages are involved or not. If you and your friend think that then you are all deluding yourselves. What point buy does is allow for precise customization. It also can serve as a method for customized advancement.
Again this is because of the freeform nature of RPGs.
Quote from: estar;955712Point buy doesn't make the playing field level or more fair irregardless if disadvantages are involved or not. If you and your friend think that then you are all deluding yourselves. What point buy does is allow for precise customization. It also can serve as a method for customized advancement.
Again this is because of the freeform nature of RPGs.
Beat me to it. It's no more "fair" than anything else, though it does shift accountability to the player, while shifting excuses away from dice rolls.
It's a control issue. Some folks want more control. Point Buy is just a tool to allow it.
Quote from: estar;955711Advice not a rule.
Basically
versus
I find the various pieces of advice informative but in the end it is me who decides how to run my campaign not Paizo, Wizards, Judges Guild, TSR, Columbia Games, Steve Jackson Games, etc, etc.
If people have trouble with this then they should re-evaluate their critical thinking skills.
However if it was me writing a set of RPG core books, I would make it fucking crystal clear that this game is nothing more than a set of tools to help you adjudicate the actions of the characters of a campaign and to help you save time in managing a campaign. That anything I say about campaigns or how to use the rules is advice from one referee to another and in the end it you who decide what is what in your campaign.
The advice says that, the rules for monsters have chapters how to determine the power level of more monsters in order to get a more balanced fight,
and they're running an adventure path.I treat rules as advice, or rather, as what the designer wishes me to use. But us two agreeing simply isn't relevant to what Gronan is talking about.
Quote from: AsenRG;955715The advice says that, the rules for monsters have chapters how to determine the power level of more monsters in order to get a more balanced fight, and they're running an adventure path.
Quote from: AsenRG;955715I treat rules as advice, or rather, as what the designer wishes me to use. But us two agreeing simply isn't relevant to what Gronan is talking about.
I am not totally clear on the circumstance of the campaign where Gronan experienced an Adventure Path. I could assume that the referee was running it 'as-is' and the whole thing was an experiment to see what it was about. Or it could be the referee was really enthusiastic about that adventure path and convinced everybody to participate in that campaign and basically repeated the mistake I did with Dragonlance back in the day.
Regardless, the deal with adventure path that is share traits with going to a movie or watching a TV show. For one person the work may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, for another it sucks monkey balls. There been a lot of words about how successful films and tv shows are made and how they fail. My view is that there is a element of chance that even if you dot all your i's and cross your t's the work can still suck. And if you don't dot your i's and cross your t's, it still may wind up good but likely it will suck for the technical reasons alone.
Paizo's Adventure Path's have that hit or miss quality. if the players totally buy into the premise and make character in the spirit of the adventure path then it can be a fun ride for all. If they think it sucks then the campaign won't work. More likely is a meh reaction of "Yeah it was OK but lets get back to a regular campaign."
My point about taking the AP and tearing it down into it components is so I can use the advantages of a sandbox campaign to overcome the meh reactions. I find players tend to be more interested in a situation when they feel that they choose to get involved even when it something they consider meh.
And just let you know where I am coming from, while I am know for running sandbox campaign and writing about them.
I also ran boffer LARPS events for a decade. The problem with managing adventrues in LARP campaigns is the live action imposes hard limits on flexibility. People got to eat, and sleep. You can't magically teleport from one end of the site to the other. Your staff is limited compared to the number of players, etc, etc.
This means if you want to run a good LARP events you better learn to run decent railroaded adventures. I don't view railroads as automatically evil. They can work but it is hit or miss. And in the end I prefer to referee sandbox campaigns because I find the uncertainty factors far more interesting than playing out some pre-determined story.
Incidentally the one area where LARP equal tabletop in flexibility is social interactions. And in some ways better when it comes to multiple NPCs interacting with multiple players. This is why I was so involved because it was fascinating to see what people actually did when thrust into typical fantasy adventures.
Quote from: estar;955712Point buy doesn't make the playing field level or more fair irregardless if disadvantages are involved or not. If you and your friend think that then you are all deluding yourselves. What point buy does is allow for precise customization. It also can serve as a method for customized advancement.
Again this is because of the freeform nature of RPGs.
Probably going to regret this but: Freeform nature?
Quote from: Nexus;955710Oh oh, cam we have the Disadvantage systems are of the Devil "discussion" now?
Actually... You know what the only problem I've ever had with Disadvantage systems is?
Getting the players to actually sully their pristine characters with any ugly Disadvantages. :p
Likewise, I've found it an eternal struggle to get players to actually specialise in something, as opposed to spreading their points thin in a frantic effort to not be bad at anything ever. After all, what if they didn't put any points into Dance, and then there was a dance competition? Why, they'd be
mortified! Better shave some points off of the fighting skills to put there, just in case! :p
And then there was that one time when a player struck me mute on the spot by asking: "do I really
have to spend
all my points?" Screw the sound of one hand clapping,
that is a question to induce a zen state! :p
What I'm saying is, these discussions where min-maxing twinkery is assumed to be the norm and something a system is broken if it doesn't guard against always catch me wrong-footed. I can recall, hmm... all of twice over the course of the last fifteen years that someone has actually shown up with a character built for maximum utility at the expense of prettiness. The rest of the time, I keep having to try to convince players that a few actual strengths and weaknesses will bring more prettiness, not less, by making the character less bland and generic. To me, twinks are some kind of weird edge case that's unfortunate but can be safely ignored most of the time.
So how come everyone but me apparently runs into them everywhere? Do I just hang out in extremely strange places? :confused:
Quote from: Baeraad;955737Actually... You know what the only problem I've ever had with Disadvantage systems is? Getting the players to actually sully their pristine characters with any ugly Disadvantages. :p
Interesting. I wonder how much is mechanical (the system) and how much is the players. In the system I designed and run, disadvantages are optional and are not associated with a matching bonus. The disadvantage is just there for flavor, like if you want wizards that can't wear armor or something to add flavor to your character. My players love picking disadvantages. I have players with a mantis (bug) that gets a -1 to everything while underground and a calico feline who thinks she's stealthy while getting a -1 to all stealth rolls.
Quote from: Nexus;955727Probably going to regret this but: Freeform nature?
Yeah RPG are inherently freeform. They are about experiencing a campaign where you play a character interacting with a setting where the action is adjudicated by a human referee. The rules are tool for helping the referee adjudicate the action. They are not why you play a campaign in the first place.
Because you are a character within a setting, you can do ANYTHING that character can do as if he really existed within the setting. No set of rules can encompass the possibilities hence the need for human judgment to make the whole thing work.
Because the character can be doing whatever in the setting there is rarely a optimal "build". The only way optimal builds work is for narrow situations. If having a optimal build is a essential for a campaign then that means the referee has a narrow focus in what he details for the players.
D&D 4e is a good example of this. The vast majority of the published adventures amounted to a linked set of wargame scenarios where the focus was defeating the enemy through the clever use of tactics. They were not devoid of roleplaying but it was definitely filler material much in the same way the whole Inner Sphere setting works for BattleTech or the setting of Warhammer 40k works for that game.
In the published D&D 4e adventures I ran if the players doesn't optimize his build that means he is not fighting at his levels which makes him underpowered compared to his teammate. On the flip side when I used the D&D 4e rules for my Majestic Wilderlands how I used AD&D, GURPS, Fantasy Hero, etc then under-powered character ceased to be an issue. The variety of situation the player encountered increased and what became important was understanding the circumstances and planning accordingly.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955657Unless the referee uses the "adventure paths" as mentioned above. Will used to complain about this, and in that sense he was right. In the current "pirate" adventure path you have to "do sailor shit," and unless you have a DEX or INT at least 14 you aren't going to get your mandatory "sailor shit" done.
Yes, this is bad adventure design, but it goes hand in hand with PATHFINDER's bad game design.
Also, teach your grandmother to suck eggses. Neener.
WOw this thread has actually reduced my interest in Pathfinder even further below zero. Impressive.
However, I do find myself strangely drawn to a (non-Pathfinder) game where the players employ a battalion of mooks with 10-foot poles, rope, spikes, etc.
Oh, and as for disadvantages, I too find most of the common anti-disad arguments not a big problem in actual practice, but again it's a learned thing and a skilled GM (or player) makes all the difference. Experienced players tend to design their point-buy characters to be interesting people that they want to play. Of course it is possible to choose weird and/or annoying characters, or to munchkin out, but if you've tried (or just thought about) such designs in play, you tend to not choose that sort of thing again. And once a GM knows the system well enough, he'll also nix problematic characters, and help players make interesting appropriate ones.
Quote from: Skarg;955745WOw this thread has actually reduced my interest in Pathfinder even further below zero. Impressive.
People first, snacks second, place third, system fourth.
But yeah, I'd never ever EVER actually RUN Pathfinder; the local guys I've hooked up with, the one ref does Pathfinder adventure paths. I'll play almost anything, and the ref is willing to do the old "Just tell me what you want to do."
Quote from: Baeraad;955737Actually... You know what the only problem I've ever had with Disadvantage systems is? Getting the players to actually sully their pristine characters with any ugly Disadvantages. :p
Likewise, I've found it an eternal struggle to get players to actually specialise in something, as opposed to spreading their points thin in a frantic effort to not be bad at anything ever. After all, what if they didn't put any points into Dance, and then there was a dance competition? Why, they'd be mortified! Better shave some points off of the fighting skills to put there, just in case! :p
And then there was that one time when a player struck me mute on the spot by asking: "do I really have to spend all my points?" Screw the sound of one hand clapping, that is a question to induce a zen state! :p
What I'm saying is, these discussions where min-maxing twinkery is assumed to be the norm and something a system is broken if it doesn't guard against always catch me wrong-footed. I can recall, hmm... all of twice over the course of the last fifteen years that someone has actually shown up with a character built for maximum utility at the expense of prettiness. The rest of the time, I keep having to try to convince players that a few actual strengths and weaknesses will bring more prettiness, not less, by making the character less bland and generic. To me, twinks are some kind of weird edge case that's unfortunate but can be safely ignored most of the time.
So how come everyone but me apparently runs into them everywhere? Do I just hang out in extremely strange places? :confused:
The only thing that surprises me is that these people are the majority. Yes, I've seen them, too, including the ones that didn't want such a powerful character:).
They just haven't been the majority, ever.
Do you hang out a lot with freeform players, or something:p?
Quote from: estar;955744Yeah RPG are inherently freeform. They are about experiencing a campaign where you play a character interacting with a setting where the action is adjudicated by a human referee. The rules are tool for helping the referee adjudicate the action. They are not why you play a campaign in the first place.
If only all players believed that...:D
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955756People first, snacks second, place third, system fourth.
But yeah, I'd never ever EVER actually RUN Pathfinder; the local guys I've hooked up with, the one ref does Pathfinder adventure paths. I'll play almost anything, and the ref is willing to do the old "Just tell me what you want to do."
Out of curiosity, what is your class, Gronan;)?
Quote from: Tetsubo;955703*Real* ROLE-players play one legged, blind, amnesiacs.
Gamma World!
Quote from: Nexus;955710Oh oh, cam we have the Disadvantage systems are of the Devil "discussion" now?
Or Social Mechanics vs Real Role playing?
:D
Heck with this Im hiding in the LARP bunker till the radiation levels clear.
Quote from: estar;955711Advice not a rule.
I've vociferously argued (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design) that 3rd Edition encounter design was blighted by people (a) taking advice and interpreting it as rules and (b) misreading the advice on top of that. But among the people who did the misreading were, in fact, the Pathfinder designers, and that's reflected in the design of their game. Their rules for building encounters in the core rulebook tell you to pick a difficulty off a table which consists entirely of APL-adjusted encounters in a tight cluster around the party's current level.
Obviously, yes, you can just ignore that. But Pathfinder's design is heavily influenced by Adventure Path railroads that make the GM solely responsible for everyone's enjoyment (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36914/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto-part-3-penumbra-of-problems).
With that being said, Gronan's experience with Pathfinder (where apparently a 5% or 10% shift in successful skill checks renders the adventure unplayable) matches neither my experience nor mathematical commonsense.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955756People first, snacks second, place third, system fourth.
But yeah, I'd never ever EVER actually RUN Pathfinder; the local guys I've hooked up with, the one ref does Pathfinder adventure paths. I'll play almost anything, and the ref is willing to do the old "Just tell me what you want to do."
Pathfinder is 3/3.5e D&D so many of the problems inherent in it are WOTCs fault. The adventure paths? Dont know... probably Pazio's fault? But its ok to blame WOTC for that too.
The impression I got though from 3e was that stats werent as important as squeezing every ounce of BAB out of a build?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955620I am in utter awe of that kind of skill at anything.
Me too. Now, I do want to scratchbuild an HO scale model of a Chicago, Minneapolis and Omaha class "D" Atlantic, but I'd use commercial drive wheels. Since the piston rods connect to the drivers, the drive wheel hubs are not circular but rather cams to give the necessary "crank" throw. To be able to craft four, or six, or even eight driver hubs by hand when they are less than half an inch long, and to do it PRECISELY, is astonishing. Because all the hubs have to be identical to within a ten thousandth or so, or the whole mechanism locks up tight.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955620Note to self: do not piss off model machinists. Ever.
*pulls hat brim down low over eyes*
I cannot tell a lie, I stole that from Pratchett's "Hogfather."
And when I say "I cannot tell a lie," I mean, "I really suck at it," not "I have some special moral virtue."
Quote from: estar;955720Quote from: AsenRG;955715I am not totally clear on the circumstance of the campaign where Gronan experienced an Adventure Path. I could assume that the referee was running it 'as-is' and the whole thing was an experiment to see what it was about.
It's a group of about five folks in rural South Dakota. The only guy who is even willing to try to ref besides me is, like the rest of us, married with a career and kids. He says plainly "I can either run an Adventure Path straight out of the can, or not run at all."
It's okay fun, and I like hanging around with them and drinking. While it's true that "not gaming is better than bad gaming," it is also true that "slightly suboptimal gaming is not bad gaming."
The first one was some dragon thing with the Dragon Swamp and the Dragon Hills and the Dragon Woods and the Dragon River and the Dragon This and the Dragon That, and I took one look at the map and said "Gee, I wonder what the final villian is?" I played a Hobbit Paladin and it was okay fun.
This one is about being pirates, just for a change of pace. So I rolled me a straight fighter and put my one 8 in Charisma, just to make sure I wasn't duplicating my last character. But at a Cha 8 I can hardly buy a flask of ale without getting guff.
The character sure does hit things good, though. His name is Hassan.
Quote from: Omega;955770Pathfinder is 3/3.5e D&D so many of the problems inherent in it are WOTCs fault. The adventure paths? Dont know... probably Pazio's fault? But its ok to blame WOTC for that too.
Once you get into trying to divvy up faulty, any of this is going to get very murky. Obviously Paizo needed to stay close to 'like 3.5' to capture the market segment they were looking for. However they redesigned the monsters, assigned their own challenge ratings, and wrote their own treatises on how to build an encounter
QuoteThe impression I got though from 3e was that stats werent as important as squeezing every ounce of BAB out of a build?
It depends on what level of optimization you are talking about (and whether PF eliminated some of those levels, I confess I looked at their book when it first came out, but never played. We'd already house-ruled 3e into a different beast by then, and the changes that Piazo made looked analogous, but not complementary to ours). However, from what I gather from 3e forums, characters that care about BAB (martials) end up being interchangeable mop-up crew and the real goal is to get spellcasters who can change the course of the battle with well placed spells, access to and resistance to (through saves) which are dependent on the spellcaster's main stat (Int for wizard, etc.).
Of course, those are 1) 3e, not PF, and 2) what people discuss on forums, not necessarily what people actually play. High-level optimizing 3e sounds incredibly tiring. I can't imagine there aren't large swaths of people playing interesting characters and ideas regardless of whether it is 'best.'
Quote from: gronan of simmerya;955783the character sure does hit things good, though. His name is hassan.
Hassan Chop!
Weird, won't let me do all caps.
Quote from: CRKrueger;955789Hassan Chop!
Weird, won't let me do all caps.
Ah, you are educated!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kico0_ENOXo
Quote from: Tetsubo;955703*Real* ROLE-players play one legged, blind, amnesiacs.
Mom?!
...and sometimes the shark jumps the thread...
Quote from: Baeraad;955670True, and well worth noting, but I don't see why the best way of going about it is to randomly restrict choices rather than just offering a comprehensible number of viable options to everyone. If you roll 3 in each attribute your choices are shitty fighter or shitty fighter, so then we're back to North Korea, and if you roll 18 in every attribute you can be anything you want, which means that your choices aren't restricted after all. I mean, both those are unlikely scenarios, but you see what I mean - random rolls restrict options randomly.
In AD&D, if you roll 3 in everything you can't be any character and you reroll. You'll find on the stat tables it says, things like "Intelligence 5 - here or lower the character can only be a fighter." But if they don't have Str 9 they can't be a fighter, either. So you reroll.
The chance of a single 3 is 1 in 216. The chance of an 18, also 1 in 216. So the chance of straights 3s is 1 in 216 multiplied by itself 6 times, as is straight 18s. I've never seen it happen, have you?
In practice, 3d6 down the line will usually lead to a choice of at least two character classes, and often 3. You'll almost never see paladins and the like. But note that excepting the illusionist, the character classes most hard to qualify for are also known as the most disruptive to play - paladin, assassin - or just plain weird - bard - or overpowered at the start - ranger. So while the players may be disappointed at the time of rolling, most DMs are not sad if the players are restricted, and the play will run smoother.
Quote from: AsenRG;955685Only if those hirelings stand a chance at hitting the opposition, though. The average hireling in PF might well have a +3 to +5 to attack, when you start facing things with AC in the 25-28 range, that's not really useful contribution.
I'll introduce you to a concept forgotten from 2e onwards: "tactics." Cave men did not manager to make mammoths extinct by going one-on-one toe-to-toe with them - they drove them into narrow gullies and poured dozens of spears into the bastards.
Yes, a bunch of 0-level men-at-arms will do badly in most stand-up fights. The aim of the players should thus be to
avoid stand-up fights. Make them ambushes. In this you will find parallels with real-world militaries. The competent professionals don't go Leroy Jenkins: they scout and plan for days and ambush and bring the maximum possible force to bear on the weakest point in the shortest possible time.
A sensible DM will offer bonuses for this, if nothing else using surprise rules. If your DM thinks you're playing Command & Conquer where everyone reacts instantly without fear or confusion and fights to the last hit point of the last man, well what can you do. We have to assume you're not playing with morons.
QuoteNow, those aren't the same thing. A few simple tools, applied universally is not the same as returning to the basics and seeing them on a whole new level.
In practice it is. You realise that a few simple tools are all that's needed. Again, there are reasons AD&D1e and other old games are still played while a thousand universal ones are forgotten. No version of D&D has alone exceeded AD&D1e's sales. No universal point-buy game in all its editions have exceeded the sales and reach of that one edition of D&D. Retroclones of that are popular, retroclones of point-buy games are not. There are reasons for that.
People have been quietly playing, using those few simple tools for almost 40 years now.
Quote from: estar;955744Yeah RPG are inherently freeform. They are about experiencing a campaign where you play a character interacting with a setting where the action is adjudicated by a human referee. The rules are tool for helping the referee adjudicate the action. They are not why you play a campaign in the first place.
Because you are a character within a setting, you can do ANYTHING that character can do as if he really existed within the setting. No set of rules can encompass the possibilities hence the need for human judgment to make the whole thing work.
Because the character can be doing whatever in the setting there is rarely a optimal "build". The only way optimal builds work is for narrow situations. If having a optimal build is a essential for a campaign then that means the referee has a narrow focus in what he details for the players.
D&D 4e is a good example of this. The vast majority of the published adventures amounted to a linked set of wargame scenarios where the focus was defeating the enemy through the clever use of tactics. They were not devoid of roleplaying but it was definitely filler material much in the same way the whole Inner Sphere setting works for BattleTech or the setting of Warhammer 40k works for that game.
In the published D&D 4e adventures I ran if the players doesn't optimize his build that means he is not fighting at his levels which makes him underpowered compared to his teammate. On the flip side when I used the D&D 4e rules for my Majestic Wilderlands how I used AD&D, GURPS, Fantasy Hero, etc then under-powered character ceased to be an issue. The variety of situation the player encountered increased and what became important was understanding the circumstances and planning accordingly.
Thanks for the clarification.
40 pages, 40 pages...
Quote from: AsenRG;955761Do you hang out a lot with freeform players, or something:p?
Good lord, no. Those I
have found to be a bunch of massive power-gamers. :p
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955844The chance of a single 3 is 1 in 216. The chance of an 18, also 1 in 216. So the chance of straights 3s is 1 in 216 multiplied by itself 6 times, as is straight 18s. I've never seen it happen, have you?
Like I said, they are unlikely scenarios. I also said, "but you see what I mean." Apparently I was mistaken on that second one. :p
Let me try again, then. What I
mean is that random rolls give different numbers of options for different results. No, you won't get a lot of 6 x 3 or 6 x 18, but you will definitely get a non-negligable amount of disgustingly good results that mean the world's your oyster, and depressingly bad results that reduce you to a single possible role which you won't even be very good at.
That I have seen plenty of times.
Now, if you really want people to choose among a truncated number of options - and sure, making them do that is a large part of roleplaying - and you also want those options to be randomly generated for each players, here's a better way to do it: write down a list of every
viable option that exists. Then make each player make a fixed number of rolls on that list, and choose among his results. So basically, the way you do it in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2E, which happens to be a game that really makes the randomised chargen work for it.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955844In practice, 3d6 down the line will usually lead to a choice of at least two character classes, and often 3. You'll almost never see paladins and the like. But note that excepting the illusionist, the character classes most hard to qualify for are also known as the most disruptive to play - paladin, assassin - or just plain weird - bard - or overpowered at the start - ranger. So while the players may be disappointed at the time of rolling, most DMs are not sad if the players are restricted, and the play will run smoother.
So what you're saying is, there are possible characters explicitly given in the rules as written that are non-desirable in play, but that's okay because the randomised chargen ensures that they'll almost never actally get used? And
that is why randomised chargen is superior to point-buy?
... you know, I'm starting to think that I should regard old-school enthusiasts in the same way I regard people who go bungee jumping for fun. Which is to say, I'm glad that they're enjoying themselves, but I'm personally never going to understand the appeal of an activity where the remote chance of catastrophic failure is a
selling point.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955844In practice it is. You realise that a few simple tools are all that's needed. Again, there are reasons AD&D1e and other old games are still played while a thousand universal ones are forgotten. No version of D&D has alone exceeded AD&D1e's sales. No universal point-buy game in all its editions have exceeded the sales and reach of that one edition of D&D. Retroclones of that are popular, retroclones of point-buy games are not. There are reasons for that.
Yes there is, but I don't think they're the ones you imply. In my experience, something that's the right kind of messy will gain mass appeal in a way that something neat and elegant can only dream of. It just seems to be human nature. It's like how cities designed in symmetrical squares are objectively superior over cities that just grew up chaotically over the centuries, but people who try to live in the former get depressed and will get out at the first opportunity.
D&D has certainly enjoyed enduring success, but hardly because it's perfect. If anything, it's enjoyed enduring success because it's such a weirdly charming and idiosyncratic kind of bizarre, malfunctioning mess that people will spend a ton of energy learning how to make its quirks work for them rather than against them. And any improved versions are met with a half-hearted response of, "sure, that's better, I guess" - and then people go back to playing the original, because the improved versions just don't feel like they have any
soul.
Hell, even I like idiosyncratic messiness better than sterile perfection, for all my pro-point-buy heresy. :p That's the reason why instead of just playing
Godbound (which is like
Exalted but objectively better in every way) I'm spending endless hours converting
Exalted Charmsets into the
Godbound rules, because all the dumb fiddly bits were part of the fun. Objective quality is not the only thing people look for, especially not in a leisure activity.
"improved versions are met with a half-hearted response"...
You assume mistakenly that later versions are objectively improved. This is not so. They are different, yes, and thus they appeal to different people; but to say that the later versions are necessarily improved is simply fatuous.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955844No version of D&D has alone exceeded AD&D1e's sales.
Pretty sure that the Red Box was the biggest seller for TSR, far exceeding the sales of any 1e book. According to Jim Ward, Mentzer himself and Kask it sold over a million copies just in North America, sometimes in just a year, and similar numbers in Europe and Japan. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=51839) Kask being a Gygax partisan would have little reason to exaggerate about the Red Box sales or disparage 1e sales. From the sounds of it the 1e books sold anywhere from 120,000 to 200,000 each. (https://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html) Combined they would be lucky to match half the sales of the Red Box just in North America. I think the same is true of the Holmes box far outselling the OD&D original. And from the looks of it 2e and 3e also outsold 1e, not surprising considering how established the brand was by that point and the greater capacity of the companies.
Makes one wonder why TSR didn't push B/X/BECMI harder as they was their biggest seller and instead seemed to put way more effort into AD&D. Perhaps the Red Box didn't 'have legs'? Or they didn't want the game to be associated too clearly 'with kids'? I remember an insider at WoTC during the early years writing about how the marketers didn't want MtG to be thought of as 'for kids.'
He might have been talking about the whole line, not the main books.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955882"improved versions are met with a half-hearted response"...
You assume mistakenly that later versions are objectively improved. This is not so. They are different, yes, and thus they appeal to different people; but to say that the later versions are necessarily improved is simply fatuous.
And the reverse is also true.
Quote from: Baeraad;955879Yes there is, but I don't think they're the ones you imply. In my experience, something that's the right kind of messy will gain mass appeal in a way that something neat and elegant can only dream of. It just seems to be human nature. It's like how cities designed in symmetrical squares are objectively superior over cities that just grew up chaotically over the centuries, but people who try to live in the former get depressed and will get out at the first opportunity.
D&D has certainly enjoyed enduring success, but hardly because it's perfect. If anything, it's enjoyed enduring success because it's such a weirdly charming and idiosyncratic kind of bizarre, malfunctioning mess that people will spend a ton of energy learning how to make its quirks work for them rather than against them. And any improved versions are met with a half-hearted response of, "sure, that's better, I guess" - and then people go back to playing the original, because the improved versions just don't feel like they have any soul.
Hell, even I like idiosyncratic messiness better than sterile perfection, for all my pro-point-buy heresy. :p That's the reason why instead of just playing Godbound (which is like Exalted but objectively better in every way) I'm spending endless hours converting Exalted Charmsets into the Godbound rules, because all the dumb fiddly bits were part of the fun. Objective quality is not the only thing people look for, especially not in a leisure activity.
Your observations certainly reflect the 3e -> 4e -> 5e flamewars.
*Opens can of worms, dons firefighter gear*
Quote from: cranebump;955714Beat me to it. It's no more "fair" than anything else, though it does shift accountability to the player, while shifting excuses away from dice rolls.
It's a control issue. Some folks want more control. Point Buy is just a tool to allow it.
It allows a player to play exactly what they want. Which *is* inherently more fair than being handed what the whims of fate will dispense. Some folks will play anything. Some folks only want a certain character type. Let everyone get what they want.
Quote from: Tetsubo;955972It allows a player to play exactly what they want. Which *is* inherently more fair than being handed what the whims of fate will dispense. Some folks will play anything. Some folks only want a certain character type. Let everyone get what they want.
That's more accommodating, not more fair. In the random roll situation, each player has the same chance as each other of not being able to play the character type they want to play, which is of equal fairness to the situation of each player having a 100% chance of being able to play the character type they want to play.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955973That's more accommodating, not more fair. In the random roll situation, each player has the same chance as each other of not being able to play the character type they want to play, which is of equal fairness to the situation of each player having a 100% chance of being able to play the character type they want to play.
Which is great if that is what the players want. Some of us don't. Neither model is any 'better' than the other. Again, let players play what they want.
I agree that people should play what they want. I was just pointing out that 1) everybody gets what they want, 2)nobody gets what they want, 3) everybody has the same chance as getting what they want, and 4)lots of other possibilities are all equal in terms of fairness, and thus the term isn't relevant to the discussion.
Quote from: Baeraad;955879Good lord, no. Those I have found to be a bunch of massive power-gamers. :p
Therefore, it's not that you don't know power gamers, it's just that you avoid playing with them;)?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955844Yes, a bunch of 0-level men-at-arms will do badly in most stand-up fights. The aim of the players should thus be to avoid stand-up fights. Make them ambushes. In this you will find parallels with real-world militaries. The competent professionals don't go Leroy Jenkins: they scout and plan for days and ambush and bring the maximum possible force to bear on the weakest point in the shortest possible time.
In 3.x, once the AC gets high enough, your chance to hit becomes 5%, and you can't score a crit, so it takes essentially 20 hirelings to do one hit of damage per round. And if the AC is that high, the HPs are in the hundreds, so unless you have an army with you, the creature is going to find a way to ruin your shit. I mean, I appreciate what you're saying. I hate overreliance on dice as much as the next guy. But the last few editions have been designed such that if you don't meet the stats, you're fucked.
As I have pointed out a couple times now, you can't really compare a game where your THAC0 and damage are
guaranteed to scale nicely with one where it's heavily dependent on your ability scores. In AD&D, you are not
allowed to be a Fighter who takes a penalty on attack rolls. Don't have STR 9? Play something else. In WotC editions, the rules will let you hang yourself much more easily, so it's dumb to make comparisons.
QuoteNo version of D&D has alone exceeded AD&D1e's sales.
Pretty sure Mentzer Basic and 3.0 both did, and if 3.0 did, it probably means 5e has as well.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;956014In 3.x, once the AC gets high enough, your chance to hit becomes 5%,
Tactics.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;956030Tactics.
Tactics might give your mooks a +2 to hit. Maybe +4. When you get to upper-tier monsters 3.5 math means the monsters literally don't give a shit about your mooks or anything they could do. A mid-tier dragon like the Mature Adult Black Dragon (CR 14) has an AC of 29, so there is basically nothing your mooks can do to raise their to-hit above 5%, and they have DR 10, so your crappy straight-10-stat mooks' attacks will do ZERO damage unless they're all wielding d12/2d6 weapons. Which they can't do anything with because they auto-fail their saves vs Frightful Presence. So forget an ambush followed by a mass attack.
You're probably thinking, "So we use the mooks to lure the dragon into a ravine and drop big rocks on it! Surely he can't resist 500 canned snacks!" Big rocks can do as much as ~60 damage to the dragon, so this is totally plausible...right? So we'll hide trebuchets in the forest set to go off when the dragon flies into the ravine. Now we've got two ways to go about this...
Under RAW, catapults will do, on average, 0.5 damage per hit against a dragon, it takes 4 mooks to service one, and they have to roll a 15 or better to hit. You will need around 2,000 catapults to bring it down in a round, which cost 1.6 million gp.
So you beg your DM to let you roll it up as a trap. Hey, 3.x has RAW for setting up traps! Okay, dragon's got, uh, shit, Spot +24, REF +14, and 253 HP. I think. Double-check me if you like. To have a 50% chance of this trap working, you need a 70% chance that he doesn't see the trap and a 70% chance that he fails the save...so you need to construct a trap with DC 38 to Spot and DC 28 to dodge...shit, there's math for this...it's like a DC 40 Craft (trapmaking) to do this, I think. You've maybe got all day, so Take 20. Unless you put 20 skill points in Craft (trapmaking), which you absolutely couldn't have unless you're level 17 and spent
months of real game time preparing to drop rocks on a fucking dragon, you can't pull this off.
At level 17, it's easier to just kill the goddamn thing the regular way anyway. It's only a CR 14 monster.
This was not a contrived example. I merely tried to think of what I might do with a bunch of crappy mooks in AD&D, then started hunting down the 3.x rules that applied. Because that's what 3.5 DMs do, they find the rules that apply to whatever the heck it is you wanted to do, calculate the DC, and make you roll. And that's the problem half the shit you would just talk your way through and maybe do a roll-under in AD&D has directly applicable rules that start shooting DCs and modifiers up into Powertrip Retard Land so that whatever you wanted to do is formally impossible unless your DM decides to just waive the rules because he likes your idea, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
TL; DR AD&D = You: "I do a clever thing. " DM: "Meh ok 35% chance this works...*roll*...ok you succeed."
3.5 = You: "I do a clever thing." DM: "Hold on there's actually a rule for this...can you roll a 29 on this 20-sided die? No? You fail."
Quote from: Willie the Duck;955973That's more accommodating, not more fair. In the random roll situation, each player has the same chance as each other of not being able to play the character type they want to play, which is of equal fairness to the situation of each player having a 100% chance of being able to play the character type they want to play.
Chance =/= fair
Quote from: fearsomepirate;9560373.5 math means...
...play a different game.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;956037. . . 3.5 math . . .
(http://rs1133.pbsrc.com/albums/m595/dontwanttogooutsidetonight/Doctor/tumblr_lfnhsyEcKf1qctj37.gif~c200)
Quote from: fearsomepirate;956037AD&D = You: "I do a clever thing. " DM: "Meh ok 35% chance this works...*roll*...ok you succeed."
3.5 = You: "I do a clever thing." DM: "Hold on there's actually a rule for this...can you roll a 29 on this 20-sided die? No? You fail."
AD&D wins.
I kind of think that's his point.
Once again, I quote my friend Brian who converted from 3.5 to OD&D after playing in my OD&D game: "I like it because I say I want to sneak up behind him and knock him out, you roll some dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955844In AD&D, if you roll 3 in everything you can't be any character and you reroll. You'll find on the stat tables it says, things like "Intelligence 5 - here or lower the character can only be a fighter." But if they don't have Str 9 they can't be a fighter, either. So you reroll.
The chance of a single 3 is 1 in 216. The chance of an 18, also 1 in 216. So the chance of straights 3s is 1 in 216 multiplied by itself 6 times, as is straight 18s. I've never seen it happen, have you?
In practice, 3d6 down the line will usually lead to a choice of at least two character classes, and often 3. You'll almost never see paladins and the like. But note that excepting the illusionist, the character classes most hard to qualify for are also known as the most disruptive to play - paladin, assassin - or just plain weird - bard - or overpowered at the start - ranger. So while the players may be disappointed at the time of rolling, most DMs are not sad if the players are restricted, and the play will run smoother.
I'll introduce you to a concept forgotten from 2e onwards: "tactics." Cave men did not manager to make mammoths extinct by going one-on-one toe-to-toe with them - they drove them into narrow gullies and poured dozens of spears into the bastards.
Yes, a bunch of 0-level men-at-arms will do badly in most stand-up fights. The aim of the players should thus be to avoid stand-up fights. Make them ambushes. In this you will find parallels with real-world militaries. The competent professionals don't go Leroy Jenkins: they scout and plan for days and ambush and bring the maximum possible force to bear on the weakest point in the shortest possible time.
A sensible DM will offer bonuses for this, if nothing else using surprise rules. If your DM thinks you're playing Command & Conquer where everyone reacts instantly without fear or confusion and fights to the last hit point of the last man, well what can you do. We have to assume you're not playing with morons.
In practice it is. You realise that a few simple tools are all that's needed. Again, there are reasons AD&D1e and other old games are still played while a thousand universal ones are forgotten. No version of D&D has alone exceeded AD&D1e's sales. No universal point-buy game in all its editions have exceeded the sales and reach of that one edition of D&D. Retroclones of that are popular, retroclones of point-buy games are not. There are reasons for that.
People have been quietly playing, using those few simple tools for almost 40 years now.
OK. Thanks for the condescending explanation of tactics which I didn't actually need.
Now realise this: I tried doing this in 3.5, and it worked like a charm...the first few levels. Getting the ogre in a pit trap with a single spear inside and shooting him with crossbows? Win. Aerial attack with flying ships against morlocks village? Win.
And then we get to the mid-levels. I'll give the word to fearsome pirate for that.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;956014In 3.x, once the AC gets high enough, your chance to hit becomes 5%, and you can't score a crit, so it takes essentially 20 hirelings to do one hit of damage per round. And if the AC is that high, the HPs are in the hundreds, so unless you have an army with you, the creature is going to find a way to ruin your shit. I mean, I appreciate what you're saying. I hate overreliance on dice as much as the next guy. But the last few editions have been designed such that if you don't meet the stats, you're fucked.
As I have pointed out a couple times now, you can't really compare a game where your THAC0 and damage are guaranteed to scale nicely with one where it's heavily dependent on your ability scores. In AD&D, you are not allowed to be a Fighter who takes a penalty on attack rolls. Don't have STR 9? Play something else. In WotC editions, the rules will let you hang yourself much more easily, so it's dumb to make comparisons.
Pretty sure Mentzer Basic and 3.0 both did, and if 3.0 did, it probably means 5e has as well.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;956037Tactics might give your mooks a +2 to hit. Maybe +4. When you get to upper-tier monsters 3.5 math means the monsters literally don't give a shit about your mooks or anything they could do. A mid-tier dragon like the Mature Adult Black Dragon (CR 14) has an AC of 29, so there is basically nothing your mooks can do to raise their to-hit above 5%, and they have DR 10, so your crappy straight-10-stat mooks' attacks will do ZERO damage unless they're all wielding d12/2d6 weapons. Which they can't do anything with because they auto-fail their saves vs Frightful Presence. So forget an ambush followed by a mass attack.
You're probably thinking, "So we use the mooks to lure the dragon into a ravine and drop big rocks on it! Surely he can't resist 500 canned snacks!" Big rocks can do as much as ~60 damage to the dragon, so this is totally plausible...right? So we'll hide trebuchets in the forest set to go off when the dragon flies into the ravine. Now we've got two ways to go about this...
Under RAW, catapults will do, on average, 0.5 damage per hit against a dragon, it takes 4 mooks to service one, and they have to roll a 15 or better to hit. You will need around 2,000 catapults to bring it down in a round, which cost 1.6 million gp.
So you beg your DM to let you roll it up as a trap. Hey, 3.x has RAW for setting up traps! Okay, dragon's got, uh, shit, Spot +24, REF +14, and 253 HP. I think. Double-check me if you like. To have a 50% chance of this trap working, you need a 70% chance that he doesn't see the trap and a 70% chance that he fails the save...so you need to construct a trap with DC 38 to Spot and DC 28 to dodge...shit, there's math for this...it's like a DC 40 Craft (trapmaking) to do this, I think. You've maybe got all day, so Take 20. Unless you put 20 skill points in Craft (trapmaking), which you absolutely couldn't have unless you're level 17 and spent months of real game time preparing to drop rocks on a fucking dragon, you can't pull this off.
At level 17, it's easier to just kill the goddamn thing the regular way anyway. It's only a CR 14 monster.
This was not a contrived example. I merely tried to think of what I might do with a bunch of crappy mooks in AD&D, then started hunting down the 3.x rules that applied. Because that's what 3.5 DMs do, they find the rules that apply to whatever the heck it is you wanted to do, calculate the DC, and make you roll. And that's the problem half the shit you would just talk your way through and maybe do a roll-under in AD&D has directly applicable rules that start shooting DCs and modifiers up into Powertrip Retard Land so that whatever you wanted to do is formally impossible unless your DM decides to just waive the rules because he likes your idea, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
TL; DR AD&D = You: "I do a clever thing. " DM: "Meh ok 35% chance this works...*roll*...ok you succeed."
3.5 = You: "I do a clever thing." DM: "Hold on there's actually a rule for this...can you roll a 29 on this 20-sided die? No? You fail."
Yeah, sad to say, but that's exactly how it works in a by-the-book game.
And in 3.5, most games are by-the-book:). It's a different gaming culture.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;956041...play a different game.
Which I do;).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;956043(http://rs1133.pbsrc.com/albums/m595/dontwanttogooutsidetonight/Doctor/tumblr_lfnhsyEcKf1qctj37.gif~c200)
AD&D wins.
My favourite retroclone wins, actually:p!
But your overall point is right.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;956044I kind of think that's his point.
Once again, I quote my friend Brian who converted from 3.5 to OD&D after playing in my OD&D game: "I like it because I say I want to sneak up behind him and knock him out, you roll some dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."
Your friend's point is also half the reason why I got into OSR games:).
The other half, that I spotted first, was the support for consistent-sandbox games in weird settings;).
Quote from: fearsomepirate;956037TL; DR AD&D = You: "I do a clever thing. " DM: "Meh ok 35% chance this works...*roll*...ok you succeed."
3.5 = You: "I do a clever thing." DM: "Hold on there's actually a rule for this...can you roll a 29 on this 20-sided die? No? You fail."
DMs can be retarded whatever the system. If your DM is retarded, suggest they become a player for a while to learn from your better example.
Quote from: AsenRG;956047OK. Thanks for the condescending explanation of tactics which I didn't actually need.
Your subsequent comments suggest you did.
Quotein 3.5, most games are by-the-book:). It's a different gaming culture.
Which is why I spoke of bringing AD&D1e into other games. 3.5, like virtually every game ever written, has somewhere written that in the end the DM can just handwave all that shit and do what they reckon. Whether they do or don't is, as you say, culture. And cultures change. That's hard when it's a whole country, it's not a big deal when it's one game group.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;956072Your subsequent comments suggest you did.
Fine:).
Your examples still don't work in 3.5, though.
QuoteWhich is why I spoke of bringing AD&D1e into other games.
Which means "it wouldn't work in pure 3.5 as written, unless you add AD&D1e to it".
And this is exactly what I, and others, told you;).
Quote3.5, like virtually every game ever written, has somewhere written that in the end the DM can just handwave all that shit and do what they reckon.
But there's no obligation for the GM to do so.
And there are rules in the DMG that cover your examples, too. So most GMs would just use those. When you buy a set of books that thick, the logic is that you don't need to handwave stuff when the rules are already there.
Otherwise, why are you paying for those over 1000 pages of the 3 corebooks, not to mention the extra supplements, if you're using less than half of them:D? Just use a slimmer and cheaper system, like any retro-clone and most earlier editions provide!
QuoteWhether they do or don't is, as you say, culture. And cultures change. That's hard when it's a whole country, it's not a big deal when it's one game group.
You're talking about the culture of the game group. I'm talking about the culture of 3.5 fans. The two need not be the same, but often the larger edition-wide culture influences the smaller group-culture.
And the influence is going to be "use the damn rules, or you also have to change X, Y, and Z in order to maintain the balance* of the system".
*Yes, I do realize how funny it is to talk about "balance" in 3.5, given that half the classes make the other half look like NPC classes, but 3.5 fans seem loathe to admit it;).
Quote from: Voros;95587840 pages, 40 pages...
What's the current chest thumping over; it appears to have moved past point buy to gming style.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;956044I kind of think that's his point.
Once again, I quote my friend Brian who converted from 3.5 to OD&D after playing in my OD&D game: "I like it because I say I want to sneak up behind him and knock him out, you roll some dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."
Yes. I think there's a good reason that 5e ended up not drinking too deeply from the 3.5 well. The 3.5 rules actively prevent you from doing the kinds of things you expect to get away with using your wits and imagination in the older games. That's my point.
Quote from: Kyle AaronDMs can be retarded whatever the system. If your DM is retarded, suggest they become a player for a while to learn from your better example.
The 3.5 DM is not being retarded when he makes you roll your Craft skill according to the explicit rules given in the manual any more than the AD&D DM is being retarded when he tells you that the goblin hit your wizard in mid-cast, making him lose his Sleep spell. That's the game. Those are the rules. Playing the game the way you're imagining doesn't mean "bringing 1e to 3.5," it means starting with the 3.5 SRD, gutting it, and building a retroclone on the skeleton.
Quote from: Nexus;956086What's the current chest thumping over; it appears to have moved past point buy to gming style.
This thread has always been about edition warring.
Quote from: Sommerjon;956100This thread has always been about edition warring.
And the blind squirrel staves off starvation for another day.
2000 catapults versus a dragon, and the test for plausibility is how many gp it "costs"?
A 2000-catapult "trap" ?
The game system's power curve clearly broke the universe's logic a LONG time before this point.
Nuh-uh. It's a realistic simulation of how a fantasy world with magic would actually work! According to the immutable laws of imagination, it just doesn't make logical sense for a trebuchet to meaningfully damage a dragon!
Could enough trebuchet's hit a mobile dragon to do much damage? I wouldn't imagine they'd that effective against a reasonably mobile target but I'm no expert.
Edit: and wouldn't the fire breathing creature by able to make fairly short work of them once the gig was up?
Quote from: Skarg;9561142000 catapults versus a dragon, and the test for plausibility is how many gp it "costs"?
A 2000-catapult "trap" ?
The game system's power curve clearly broke the universe's logic a LONG time before this point.
Especially if the system allows catapults to hit a fast, high flying target like a dragon. It's like trying to hit a jet plane with mortars.
There are no penalties to hit moving targets with ranged attacks in 3.5; this is assumed to be bundled into AC and any pertinent Reflex save. And we're trying to lure the dragon into a canyon to make it easier to hit, i.e. we've already targeted the catapults at a given square. To hit a given square with a catapult, you roll your BAB+INT, minus 1 for every 200 ft of distance, vs DC 15. It then does 6d6 (21) area damage to everything in the square. Anything in the square makes a DC 15 reflex save to take half damage.
Our Level Bumblefuck mooks have +0 BAB and +0 INT. As the dragon automatically frightens any mook within 210 feet of it, gotta put those catapults more than 200 feet away from our target, so the mooks must roll a 16 or better. So that's a 25% chance to hit. The dragon has +13 REF save and will therefore take has a 95% chance of saving (I actually messed up earlier and thought he had +14 REF; this changes the result by about a factor of two) . Since he has DR 10, on failed save he takes average 11, and on a success just 0.5 damage.
So the expected value of a trebuchet shot by our mooks is 0.25 * (0.05 * 11 + 0.95 * 0.5) = .26 hp.
253 hp / ( .26 hp per trebuchet ) = 973 trebuchets.
Note that's mean on a normal distribution, so you need 973 trebuchets to have a 50/50 chance of this working on the first shot. If you fail, your crew of Level Fucko sad sacks of crap must succeed on three DC 15 checks to be able to re-arm the catapult, then take a full round to re-aim it as the dragon is no doubt tearing through the catapults you have placed all around the ravine. The chance of even re-arming it is 0.027, so the next shot, you've only got 26 catapults, and that's just assuming the ones that made their checks aren't the ones the dragon is ripping to shreds.
And this is why 3.5 should not be played by reasonable people.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;956173Especially if the system allows catapults to hit a fast, high flying target like a dragon. It's like trying to hit a jet plane with mortars.
Probably been done too somewhere. All it takes is either timing. or enough rocks in the air that the chance of one hitting goes up. Assuming said target isnt out of range. In which case its a moot point.
There could be a whole adventure about trying to organize the construction of 900-2000 siege engines. Even if everything went smoothly, I wonder how many engineers and carpenters and woodcutters and stone gatherers and smiths and weapon crew and rope and tools and food and other supplies and felled trees and time that would end up taking.
If someone hatches a working scheme that gets you to arrange for a dragon to show up at the right place from the right direction at the right time not having heard anything about the world's largest and silliest engineering project, ... one might hope that clever effort could result in an actually effective outcome, as well.
I hear there's this Stone To Mud spell...
Seems to me the likely outcome of the silly trebuchet barrage encounter would tend to be: Ancient dragon rolls to see if it is smart enough to look before it leaps. Oh look, it is. Dragon looks, peeks, mooks fire 973 rocks, dragon ducks back. Rocks all fly at no available target. Dragon advances to inside minimum trebuchet range before they can reload. Mooks fail morale check. Dragon enslaves mooks he doesn't have stomach room to eat, and has them bring the loot (in industrial-capitalist D&D economy, someone paid for that catapult construction in gold, no?) to add to dragon hoard.
Off topic: More likely the dragon would at this point know the ranges on siege weapons and his or her own breath weapon range and probably do strafing runs, feints, and other tricks. Or even fly over and drop cows on them. Or prep the dragon equivalent of Shield or Protection from missiles and laugh at point blank range. fwoosh.
Back on topic: About the only thing I have a contention with really in point buy is that for some reason the lowest your stats can be tends to be fairly good. Its been 8 in D&D since Rev and 2nd ed.
When I play solo 5th Edition D&D I need a big edge for my loner character, so I also being the DM start with a base line of 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 , sure it's cheating ,but is it really ? Look inside the monster manual, my hero has a lot to defend against, but when I do game with actual groups, I like random rolling best, because figuring out how to play what you roll is also a lot of fun, not saying I would refuse to play if it was point buy characteristics or static characteristics. Hell, it's all in good fun.
Quote from: lacercorvex;960457When I play solo 5th Edition D&D I need a big edge for my loner character, so I also being the DM start with a base line of 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 , sure it's cheating ,but is it really ? Look inside the monster manual, my hero has a lot to defend against, but when I do game with actual groups, I like random rolling best, because figuring out how to play what you roll is also a lot of fun, not saying I would refuse to play if it was point buy characteristics or static characteristics. Hell, it's all in good fun.
Except that 5e is geared around increasing your stats. So starting with such high stats is a bit of a cheat especially when up against relatively balanced foes. Based on your stats the average class youd end up with final stats of 20,20,20,16,14,13. And a fighter will end with a 4th 20.
The more I play 5e the more I think that going point buy or array may be the best route as it forces the player to make some choices and sacrifices.
Though of course the trade off is possibly some cookie-cutter type characters. YMMV of course.
Actually, if you want 5e to be survivable solo, just up the healing. That's the biggest thing you really need to worry about. Anything else can be figured out as you go.
Personally, I use Black Streams Solo Heroes by Sine Nomine Publishing (which is free and a decent preview of their other games), and with a few mods is easy to port to 5e.
Stat wise, 5e is designed to be survivable for 14 in your main stat (including any modifiers to said stat) to start. Higher is nice, but not necessary. Just to clarify, a Wizard with a 14 Int is able to handle any level appropriate challenge, a Rogue with a 14 Dex, as well. So on and so forth.