PDA

View Full Version : [Chargen] There should be no involuntary randomness, nor variability in resources



Kiero
2011-07-30, 06:13 AM
I hate randomness in chargen. As far as I'm concerned, that's the system handing a character to you, not you choosing what you want to play. Most of all I hate those which give you no choice whatsoever (eg WRFP2e played by the book, where everything about your character is random). And especially those which give wide variability in character resources because it's down to luck.

So for me, there are two principles which must apply to a game's chargen mechanics if I am expected to play or run it.

1) There is no involuntary randomness anywhere in chargen.
2) Randomness is not used to vary starting resources.

What 1) means is that at no point in making a character are you forced to make a die roll to determine something. Having the option to make a roll if you like that sort of thing is fine, but it should be an option only.

What 2) means is that taking a die roll in place of a fixed allocation should not be a gamble where you might get better than the fixed amount. You should not be able to get a better (or worse) character than someone who went with the fixed amount by opting to roll. A good example of this is REIGN (the only random chargen I've ever seen that I liked) where the randomness only controls allocation, not the amount of resources you have.

I know full well that won't jibe with everyone. I'm guessing for some people random chargen isn't simply about the pleasure of not knowing what you're going to play, but taking a risk to get a better character than you might otherwise have.

Thoughts?

Xiander
2011-07-30, 06:22 AM
That's up to you.

Personally i must admit that while i do prefer to be completely in charge of my character build most of the time, sometimes it can be fun to just roll a random character an go with it.

Further I find that the most powerful character is not necessarily the most fun character. So even if we roll stats and i roll way lower than every one else i might still be able to build a character who brings something to the game.

Altair_the_Vexed
2011-07-30, 06:58 AM
I guess there are two schools of thought on this (at least) - either character generation is non-random, allowing everyone playing to have equal characters; or the random factor is a direct feed to your character in a role-playing sense, forcing you to play the random weaknesses and strengths that you get from the dice.

Both are valid, so long as everyone who is playing agrees on one way to play.

Me, these days, I prefer non-random generation - points buy you stuff, and not the luck of the rolls.
Still, sometimes it is fun to play a randomly made character, just for the challenge of playing someone you didn't think up for yourself, with all the flaws and foibles that brings.

TheCountAlucard
2011-07-30, 07:58 AM
I disagree. :smallsigh:

Ravens_cry
2011-07-30, 09:32 AM
While there is something to be said for random generation and building your character around it, we don't after all choose our 'stats' when we are born, I don't think it would work well in 3.X and derivatives and successors. In AD&D, the way ability scores affected a character was not exactly linear in most cases. Because it was meant to use a random statistic generation, it was a bit more forgiving in some ways. In 3.X, you practically have to have an 18, or better, in your prime statistic, something that is going to be pretty rare in 3d6 or even 4d6 drop the lowest or other weighted methods. Personally, I prefer point buy, it allows me to spend significant time developing back story and character motivations before I put a single number to character sheet, but I would use either method if the opportunity arose.

Morghen
2011-07-30, 09:42 AM
I disagree. :smallsigh:Same here. I like (metaphorically) rolling with unexpected results. The system I play most lets you buy re-rolls for a lot of things, but you still have to roll.

I don't want it any other way. I like it messy.

some guy
2011-07-30, 10:16 AM
I like the excitement of random rolls. I can see the merits of point-buy, especially when creating characters if the dm is not present.

What I really like is the randomness of Gamma World 7th edition. Almost everything is random, except you get 2 high scores in your main attributes. No matter what you roll, you can always contribute to the party and you still have that abyssal low dex that you can incorporate into your character.


In 3.X, you practically have to have an 18, or better, in your prime statistic, something that is going to be pretty rare in 3d6 or even 4d6 drop the lowest or other weighted methods.

I would say that depends on the group you're in. I've never played anything with starting stats higher than 15.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-30, 10:25 AM
Like everything, of course it does.

Kiero
2011-07-30, 11:17 AM
Same here. I like (metaphorically) rolling with unexpected results. The system I play most lets you buy re-rolls for a lot of things, but you still have to roll.

I don't want it any other way. I like it messy.

And you can have that; as long as I still have the option to choose, and you are neither rewarded nor punished for taking a risk by rolling.

Tengu_temp
2011-07-30, 11:18 AM
I agree with the OP. Random elements during chargen (and character advancement) are a relic that just means you will either feel underpowered due to your very low stats or make everyone else feel underpowered when you roll very high ones, and it's no coincidence that pretty much all mainstream RPGs decided to get rid of them by this point. The only exceptions are indie titles where randomization is the whole point, like Maid RPG.

TheCountAlucard
2011-07-30, 11:24 AM
And you can have that; as long as I still have the option to choose, and you are neither rewarded nor punished for taking a risk by rolling.But you need to make that more clear in the OP, then - heck, just look at the title of this thread, which makes it sound like you're gung-ho for abolishing it forever. :smalltongue:

Kiero
2011-07-30, 12:14 PM
{{Scrubbed}}

druid91
2011-07-30, 12:20 PM
It's in the title:



And I say exactly that in the OP. Do people not bother to actually read what was there?

Well you also said people should not be rewarded for opting into the riskier option.

To me? Point buy should always be a few points lower than what you might get with rolling if you are really lucky.

But I do agree that both systems should be there.

As for completely removing randomness? No, there should always be an option to take a gamble.

Yora
2011-07-30, 12:23 PM
In my campaigns, all characters are made using point buy ability scores and average starting gold.

Kiero
2011-07-30, 12:39 PM
Well you also said people should not be rewarded for opting into the riskier option.

To me? Point buy should always be a few points lower than what you might get with rolling if you are really lucky.

But I do agree that both systems should be there.

As for completely removing randomness? No, there should always be an option to take a gamble.

Which I completely disagree with, as per principle 2).

absolmorph
2011-07-30, 12:58 PM
Well you also said people should not be rewarded for opting into the riskier option.

To me? Point buy should always be a few points lower than what you might get with rolling if you are really lucky.

But I do agree that both systems should be there.

As for completely removing randomness? No, there should always be an option to take a gamble.
Actually, Kiero said there should be no riskier option. Let's say you're making a character with the SKITTLES system. Normally, you get a certain amount of Twix to buy abilities and then roll to see how much extra Twix you have. Kiero doesn't want that roll for the extra Twix. If he's running the game, he might increase the base Twix by a certain amount and give you the option to roll to determine what the extra Twix is spent on.
The roll is still there, it's just not used to determine how much you have to create your character; it determines a part of your character.

Urpriest
2011-07-30, 12:59 PM
Some systems are about creating characters to overcome challenges. I agree with the OP on those.

Some other systems are about creating a seed for a story. And seeds, as any decent CS student knows, need to be random to function properly. Games like Paranoia (or frankly, WHFRPG), have random character gen because the imbalances it creates are amusing, and because the core of humor is in the interactions of the unexpected.

Morghen
2011-07-30, 01:21 PM
{scrub the post, scrub the quote}Yep.
You should not be able to get a better (or worse) character than someone who went with the fixed amount by opting to roll.So if you're rolling randomly for stats, you're okay with whatever you get for your main stat as long as it's exactly equal to the next guy's main stat.

Kiero
2011-07-30, 01:36 PM
So if you're rolling randomly for stats, you're okay with whatever you get for your main stat as long as it's exactly equal to the next guy's main stat.

No, I refuse to roll randomly for my stats. But if the other guy wants to roll something, he can have a random allocation of the same resources, not a random allocation of randomly-determined resources.

Saph
2011-07-30, 01:39 PM
Yeah, the OP doesn't strike me as very well thought-out. First you say that you're willing to allow players to choose luck-based character generation, then you say that they shouldn't have any advantage by getting lucky.

I generally give players starting my 3.5 campaigns a choice between 4d6 rolled stats and 28 point buy. Statistically they're roughly equivalent, but if you choose 4d6 rolled then you might get much more than 28 point buy or you might get substantially less. That's the gamble you take.

And quite frankly, if someone prefers rolled stats to point buy, I don't see how it's anyone else's business. I'm fine with players who say "I don't like taking a chance on my starting stats, so I'll stick with point buy". And I'm fine with players who say "I want the chance of having super-high stats, so I'll go with rolled". But I don't have any time for players who say "I don't like random stats, therefore no-one else should be allowed to use random stats either".

druid91
2011-07-30, 01:42 PM
Which I completely disagree with, as per principle 2).

Which I disagree with, principle two is silly.


Actually, Kiero said there should be no riskier option. Let's say you're making a character with the SKITTLES system. Normally, you get a certain amount of Twix to buy abilities and then roll to see how much extra Twix you have. Kiero doesn't want that roll for the extra Twix. If he's running the game, he might increase the base Twix by a certain amount and give you the option to roll to determine what the extra Twix is spent on.
The roll is still there, it's just not used to determine how much you have to create your character; it determines a part of your character.

Which is ridiculous and the exact opposite of what he seems to be going for. You would rather someone randomly determine inherent character traits then to randomly determine how many points they have to allocate to what they want?


No, I refuse to roll randomly for my stats. But if the other guy wants to roll something, he can have a random allocation of the same resources, not a random allocation of randomly-determined resources.

Or you could have self-chosen allocation of randomly determined resources. Which is the much better than your option two. As it stands your option two takes free will away from the player in order to make things "even".

Xefas
2011-07-30, 02:18 PM
It really depends on the game. I think ICONS does a really good job with random character creation. It's a deliberate design choice to instill some of the weirdness of the comic book characters that we all (by which I mean very few) know and love, and it really is a fun part of the game to take the bits it gives you and make a coherent hero out of it. It also has some good balancing mechanics to make sure that the guy who rolls a Batman next to the guy that rolls a Superman still has a good amount of control over the game in the form of Determination.

It functions a little bit like the Dresden Files RPG, where you have a certain amount of Refresh, and putting on extra powers, like being a wizard, or being a vampire, or what have you, removes some Refresh. Refresh determines how many Fate Points you get, which are huge and allow you to do important stuff. So, a hugely powerful wizard is going to have 1 Refresh, and a bog standard mortal is going to have 10 Refresh. The mortal is weaker, but the player of the mortal isn't weak - he can influence the story hugely with his Fate. The wizard is stronger, and can influence the story with his power, but the player has less Fate to influence the story without using his character's powers.

But, in ICONS, instead of choosing your templates, its baked into the random character generation. So, Batman's player can give him plot armor, bring him back from the dead, retcon details about the past, and so on, to influence the story, while Superman influences the story with punching and flying and invincibility and all that jazz.

It's a very well done system that I have yet to see spawn a less than completely awesome character.

Now, I'm not saying that all games should have random generation. But a few do it well, and I think it's a perfectly legitimate design choice that can be done well or can be done poorly, just like anything else. MAID and Kobolds Ate My Baby wouldn't be the same without random character generation. At the same time, it would just feel wrong to me to put randomness into the character burning of Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard.

Dogs in the Vineyard does a weird thing that I can't recall seeing any other RPG do, that has a mostly structured non-random character generation process, and then at the end, you play a conflict from your character's past, and depending upon how it goes, it will add a new trait that you didn't expect your character to have before you start the main game itself. I'm not sure how you'd classify that.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-30, 02:47 PM
Some systems are about creating characters to overcome challenges. I agree with the OP on those.

Some other systems are about creating a seed for a story. And seeds, as any decent CS student knows, need to be random to function properly. Games like Paranoia (or frankly, WHFRPG), have random character gen because the imbalances it creates are amusing, and because the core of humor is in the interactions of the unexpected.
Or FATAL?
That had everything in character generation as random chance.
Everything.:smalleek:
We're not making fractal landscapes here, Urpriest, we are making characters we desire to play. If you know you are not good at resource management and quick decision making from a wide variety of options, or simply don't like playing arcane casters, you a may not going to want to play a D&D wizard, so if 3d6 in order gives you an 17 or 18 intelligence but 6 or 5 strength, you are not going to be the worlds happiest player.
Paranoia is a pretty bad example as you are not supposed to get too attached to your character, at least from how I hear most people play it.
Come on ,the game gives you clones for when, not if, your character dies.
What you find amusing, others may find aggravating, particularly if they desire to play a character long term, with desires and goals planned out.
I am not saying how you play is wrong, I am saying I think it is not how I particular want to play in a serious campaign and those are my reasons why.
Thank you.

Trundlebug
2011-07-30, 03:11 PM
Depends on the game. Either way I've found the longer you play the less you are concerned with those things.

I've made all kinds of characters. After a while you want more of a challenge and less to build a build. Unless the adventure requires something.

Besides. Smarter ppl than I have made better builds than I and I can look them up. No fun. Gimme bad stats and a quirky past. Fun.

Besides, when randomness is involved, after playing games for almost 2 decades you can look back at certain characters and say

"This guy was baddass!"

Because he was. It all fell into place. Like it was meant to be.

TheAbstruseOne
2011-07-30, 03:42 PM
It really depends on the type of game you're running. If I were doing a one-shot or short campaign using a retro-clone, I might want to use random generation for the players so that it would be faster to create replacements should they die (since PCs were far squishier pre-3rd Ed).

I do think, though, that if you're going to play a game with any sort of longevity, you should go non-random. The plus of players having full control over the type of character they want to play far outweighs the inescapable minmaxing/munchkining that inevitably happens.

Knaight
2011-07-30, 03:53 PM
I'm going to go with an it depends answer. If you have a single character, expected to last a while, I usually favor a zero randomness creation system. However, say that the players are playing maybe twelve groups of people, at odds with each other, who themselves have underlings and such. In a situation like that, randomness becomes a more viable option, though it is still an option. Assume a situation where there are temporary side characters in addition to main characters, these side characters could well be randomized. So on and so forth.

Totally Guy
2011-07-30, 04:06 PM
I like making choices in RPGs. I pick my games to assist this preference.

Having stats randomly assigned is not a choice, so I don't like it so much.
But choosing whether to roll the dice or not for a potential benefit or drawback is a choice so that's fine with me.

Urpriest
2011-07-30, 04:30 PM
Or FATAL?
That had everything in character generation as random chance.
Everything.:smalleek:
We're not making fractal landscapes here, Urpriest, we are making characters we desire to play. If you know you are not good at resource management and quick decision making from a wide variety of options, or simply don't like playing arcane casters, you a may not going to want to play a D&D wizard, so if 3d6 in order gives you an 17 or 18 intelligence but 6 or 5 strength, you are not going to be the worlds happiest player.
Paranoia is a pretty bad example as you are not supposed to get too attached to your character, at least from how I hear most people play it.
Come on ,the game gives you clones for when, not if, your character dies.
What you find amusing, others may find aggravating, particularly if they desire to play a character long term, with desires and goals planned out.
I am not saying how you play is wrong, I am saying I think it is not how I particular want to play in a serious campaign and those are my reasons why.
Thank you.

If you wanted to play a character long-term then you probably wouldn't be playing Paranoia or MAID or Kobolds Ate My Baby or the like to begin with. Some games are designed around creating amusing scenarios, not being effective at combat, and people go in to those games knowing that that is what they're for. I see no reason why a game like Paranoia should have nonrandom character gen.

Knaight
2011-07-30, 04:40 PM
If you wanted to play a character long-term then you probably wouldn't be playing Paranoia or MAID or Kobolds Ate My Baby or the like to begin with. Some games are designed around creating amusing scenarios, not being effective at combat, and people go in to those games knowing that that is what they're for. I see no reason why a game like Paranoia should have nonrandom character gen.

Plenty of games are about storytelling over a longer time scale, and those don't need to be random. If anything, I'd say a game that was just about fighting, tactical challenges and such should use randomized characters, as they can be easily replaced if there is nothing more to the game. Something designed to enable stories in the long term -Unknown Armies, or Burning Wheel, or Reign, or FATE- has much less cause to be random. Writers of all sorts carefully craft their characters, and while many more minor decisions may be made on intuition and what feels right as the writing continues, it is still within the context of a crafted character. There is no reason an RPG character shouldn't be crafted if it is to fulfill a similar goal.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-30, 05:00 PM
If you wanted to play a character long-term then you probably wouldn't be playing Paranoia or MAID or Kobolds Ate My Baby or the like to begin with. Some games are designed around creating amusing scenarios, not being effective at combat, and people go in to those games knowing that that is what they're for. I see no reason why a game like Paranoia should have nonrandom character gen.
Never said they should all the time. Maybe I was unclear.
I in fact agree that for one shots and short campaigns and games designed around that kind of game, the variety offered by random character generation can be part of the spontaneity.
But while I want to play Paranoia some day, for campaigns lasting longer than a handful of sessions I prefer the ability to design my character explicitly.
We are more in agreement then you might think.

Crow
2011-07-30, 06:08 PM
I refuse to roll a die to determine if my attack hits. I also refuse to roll dice to determine how much damage I do or if I succeed in trying to convince an npc vendor for a discount. Saving throws? I refuse to roll those too, as it creates a situation where the result of my roll may leave me significantly worse off than someone who doesn't have to roll one.

On a more serious note, though...I disagree with the OP. I think the option to roll should be there for those who want it. Sometimes the best way to step out of your own comfort zone in a game is to introduce a little randomness.

I also disagree with the statement about having to have an 18 in your primary stat in 3.x. It's not true in 3e, and it's not true in 4e. I think some people "need" to have that 18, but I'm not one of them.

Kiero
2011-07-30, 06:10 PM
Yeah, the OP doesn't strike me as very well thought-out. First you say that you're willing to allow players to choose luck-based character generation, then you say that they shouldn't have any advantage by getting lucky.

Try reading it again. Better yet, look at REIGN, where you can have random allocation without random resources. No matter whether you choose to assign or roll, you are working with the same resources. There is no advantage in random, you merely get an unknown allocation if you'd like the surprise value.

I'm not allowing them to choose luck-based generation, but luck-based allocation. Same resources, but a choice of whether they assign or roll where they go. Makes perfect sense. You have the option of choosing or randomly rolling your allocation. But everyone still gets the same amount.


I generally give players starting my 3.5 campaigns a choice between 4d6 rolled stats and 28 point buy. Statistically they're roughly equivalent, but if you choose 4d6 rolled then you might get much more than 28 point buy or you might get substantially less. That's the gamble you take.

And I don't want there to be a gamble. I don't give a crap if it's "statistically equivalent", it isn't the same. You'll get some people who did rather well out of rolling, and others who did poorly.

I don't think it's a coincidence that D&D4e basically did away with random rolling of stats in favour of point buy.

Furthermore, I'm not just talking about D&D here. The worst offender for randomness is WFRP2e which I'm playing. Fortunately, the GM at least didn't make people roll careers, because it wasn't that kind of game.


And quite frankly, if someone prefers rolled stats to point buy, I don't see how it's anyone else's business. I'm fine with players who say "I don't like taking a chance on my starting stats, so I'll stick with point buy". And I'm fine with players who say "I want the chance of having super-high stats, so I'll go with rolled". But I don't have any time for players who say "I don't like random stats, therefore no-one else should be allowed to use random stats either".

It's my business as a GM that everyone should have the same resources. It's my business as a fellow player that no one should feel like they've been stiffed because they rolled badly compared to someone else.

I don't want "the chance of having super-high stats", I want everyone to have the same stuff to work with.


Which I disagree with, principle two is silly.

Says you.


Which is ridiculous and the exact opposite of what he seems to be going for. You would rather someone randomly determine inherent character traits then to randomly determine how many points they have to allocate to what they want?

No, read principle 2) again, or look at REIGN. It is entirely possible to have random allocation based on the same resources as assign/point buy. It isn't the opposite of what I'm going for, it's exactly what I'm going for.


Or you could have self-chosen allocation of randomly determined resources. Which is the much better than your option two. As it stands your option two takes free will away from the player in order to make things "even".

No, because that breaches the principle that we should all have the same resources to work with. It doesn't take away free will, it removes the chance to gamble and do better (or worse) than someone who didn't gamble. You are still free to roll or not as you choose, but you will neither benefit nor be penalised by doing so.

Kiero
2011-07-30, 06:13 PM
I refuse to roll a die to determine if my attack hits. I also refuse to roll dice to determine how much damage I do or if I succeed in trying to convince an npc vendor for a discount. Saving throws? I refuse to roll those too, as it creates a situation where the result of my roll may leave me significantly worse off than someone who doesn't have to roll one.

Not even remotely analogous. Chargen rolls remain with you for the entire duration of that character. An attack roll only matters for the moment until you get another opportunity to roll again.


On a more serious note, though...I disagree with the OP. I think the option to roll should be there for those who want it.

And as I said, fixed resources, but choice of allocation method allows people who want to randomly determine things to do that. I'm not opposed to other people being able to randomly determine things, as long as they are neither able to profit or lose out by choosing to do so.


Sometimes the best way to step out of your own comfort zone in a game is to introduce a little randomness.

I've been playing more than long enough to be able to decide for myself whether or not I need to "step out of my comfort zone".

Xefas
2011-07-30, 06:14 PM
I refuse to roll a die to determine if my attack hits. I also refuse to roll dice to determine how much damage I do or if I succeed in trying to convince an npc vendor for a discount. Saving throws? I refuse to roll those too, as it creates a situation where the result of my roll may leave me significantly worse off than someone who doesn't have to roll one.

That's perfectly legitimate, and there are plenty of diceless games that would cater to that preference, even though I know you were being sarcastic.

druid91
2011-07-30, 06:28 PM
Says you.



No, read principle 2) again, or look at REIGN. It is entirely possible to have random allocation based on the same resources as assign/point buy. It isn't the opposite of what I'm going for, it's exactly what I'm going for.



No, because that breaches the principle that we should all have the same resources to work with. It doesn't take away free will, it removes the chance to gamble and do better (or worse) than someone who didn't gamble. You are still free to roll or not as you choose, but you will neither benefit nor be penalised by doing so.

First of all that first bit amuses me to no end. Says you... really? Is that the best you could come up with for a rebuttal? Of course says me! Otherwise you wouldn't have a proper quote that links to my post and everything.

And what I'm saying is it makes no sense. let me give you an example. You and another person go to stay at a hotel for a night before a gaming event. You don't like to gamble so you simply take the pizza, pillow, and tube of toothpaste they give you. You put hem to their obvious function and have a decent nights sleep before going to the event. Now I go and choose to gamble, and oh look I managed to wrangle an extra slice of pizza but lost my pillow. I have a decent nights sleep.

That's the normal way. Now your way would make it so that anyone who chooses random has to use pizza to brush their teeth, a pillow to eat and a tube of toothpaste to sleep on. Do you see now how ridiculous that is compared to the other way? All in the name of balance, which you aren't getting. If they are lucky they have a decent nights sleep like everyone else, but mostly they are going to get the short end of the stick some way or another.

Actually, you will be penalized every time. Try building an effective character if you randomly assign feats. Randomization of materials is a challenge. Ranndomization of how you assign those materials is bound to lead to inferiority. You pick your feats, you pick your talents. The dice just decide how much you can have.

Kiero
2011-07-30, 06:49 PM
First of all that first bit amuses me to no end. Says you... really? Is that the best you could come up with for a rebuttal? Of course says me! Otherwise you wouldn't have a proper quote that links to my post and everything.

That was all that one-liner was worthy of.


And what I'm saying is it makes no sense. let me give you an example. You and another person go to stay at a hotel for a night before a gaming event. You don't like to gamble so you simply take the pizza, pillow, and tube of toothpaste they give you. You put hem to their obvious function and have a decent nights sleep before going to the event. Now I go and choose to gamble, and oh look I managed to wrangle an extra slice of pizza but lost my pillow. I have a decent nights sleep.

That's the normal way. Now your way would make it so that anyone who chooses random has to use pizza to brush their teeth, a pillow to eat and a tube of toothpaste to sleep on. Do you see now how ridiculous that is compared to the other way? All in the name of balance, which you aren't getting. If they are lucky they have a decent nights sleep like everyone else, but mostly they are going to get the short end of the stick some way or another.

What did this non-sequitur have to do with...well anything? Why did we need this pointless and rather irrelevant analogy when there are plenty of actual gaming examples of chargen that would be relevant?

Once again, look at REIGN, it's even free.


Actually, you will be penalized every time. Try building an effective character if you randomly assign feats. Randomization of materials is a challenge. Ranndomization of how you assign those materials is bound to lead to inferiority. You pick your feats, you pick your talents. The dice just decide how much you can have.

There are games beyond D&D. But if you wanted a D&D example of what I'm talking about, you'd have an array. People could choose where they put those scores, or they could assign them to the six ability scores randomly. Same resources, choice of allocation method.

I've never heard of random Feats and the like in D&D, so I've no idea why you're banging on about them. In the context of D&D, the only meaningful discussion of randomness is about ability scores.

Crow
2011-07-30, 06:58 PM
So if I understand this right, you would be fine with a preset ability score array that is assigned randomly, but don't like random ability scores that you can choose where to place?

druid91
2011-07-30, 07:14 PM
That was all that one-liner was worthy of.



What did this non-sequitur have to do with...well anything? Why did we need this pointless and rather irrelevant analogy when there are plenty of actual gaming examples of chargen that would be relevant?

Once again, look at REIGN, it's even free.



There are games beyond D&D. But if you wanted a D&D example of what I'm talking about, you'd have an array. People could choose where they put those scores, or they could assign them to the six ability scores randomly. Same resources, choice of allocation method.

I've never heard of random Feats and the like in D&D, so I've no idea why you're banging on about them. In the context of D&D, the only meaningful discussion of randomness is about ability scores.

If you think so. Personally I probably would have responded with something like, "No it isn't and here is why." And then gone on to explain why below. You instead chose to say "Says you" Which makes you sound like my hormonally imbalanced teen sister in a bad mood.

It's not irrelevant it displays the faulty logic behind what you are suggesting which you insist on ignoring. What I'm saying is that you are intentionally giving those who want a greater-risk=greater possible reward in their Chargen smoke and mirrors and then kicking them in the face while they are confused. You are doing this on purpose out of a misguided sense of balance. Not everyone should be equal, that is part of the fun.

Kiero
2011-07-30, 07:29 PM
So if I understand this right, you would be fine with a preset ability score array that is assigned randomly, but don't like random ability scores that you can choose where to place?

I'd be fine with other people having that choice, and not with random scores that you assign, yes.


It's not irrelevant it displays the faulty logic behind what you are suggesting which you insist on ignoring. What I'm saying is that you are intentionally giving those who want a greater-risk=greater possible reward in their Chargen smoke and mirrors and then kicking them in the face while they are confused. You are doing this on purpose out of a misguided sense of balance. Not everyone should be equal, that is part of the fun.

It's totally irrelevant when it's trivially easy to come up with actual examples of actual RPG chargen mechanics, like I did with arrays. Rather than some meaningless drivel about pizza and sleeping.

There's no smoke and mirrors, it's pretty plain that you have a system where you only have randomness of allocation, not resources.

Everyone should be equal, that is a part of my fun. There's nothing misguided about it, people get to have their fun with either assigning or randomly allocating their resources, but everyone still has the same amount to work with.

Saph
2011-07-30, 07:38 PM
It's my business as a GM that everyone should have the same resources. It's my business as a fellow player that no one should feel like they've been stiffed because they rolled badly compared to someone else.

It doesn't really sound to me as if you're doing this for the sake of your fellow players. It sounds more as though your attitude is "I don't like random stat generation, therefore it shouldn't exist".

druid91
2011-07-30, 07:45 PM
I'd be fine with other people having that choice, and not with random scores that you assign, yes.



It's totally irrelevant when it's trivially easy to come up with actual examples of actual RPG chargen mechanics, like I did with arrays. Rather than some meaningless drivel about pizza and sleeping.

There's no smoke and mirrors, it's pretty plain that you have a system where you only have randomness of allocation, not resources.

Everyone should be equal, that is a part of my fun. There's nothing misguided about it, people get to have their fun with either assigning or randomly allocating their resources, but everyone still has the same amount to work with.

And that is where you go wrong. You are here, arguing that there should be no option for Randomly determined resources, because you want everything to be fair.In case you didn't want to look long and hard and think.
Personally I like D&D, I tend to stay away from "storyteller" Games that have any degree of seriousness to them. And part of why I like that is gambling for higher scores. Yet if you had your way they would remove it, fortunately for me I play 3.5, and it can't be touched.I was saying that if someone play a wizard they should be able to. Your way they can't if they want to roll.
And if you think it's meaningless drivel go ahead, if you look at it long enough and think about it you'll realize what I was getting at.
I didn't like it in old D&D and I don't like it now.
But no you will probably keep saying "My way or I kick you till you hit the highway." That is pretty much how I understand what you are saying.

Xiander
2011-07-31, 08:17 AM
I have a question Keiro.

How would you feel about a system where players had two options:
1) Take a standard array of resources and distribute them freely.
2) Roll for random distribution, with the risk of getting a little less than the standard resources.

In this system there is variability in resources, but players are free to choose to have the maximum possible. I guess my question is: Is it okay to choose to get less?

Partysan
2011-07-31, 08:54 AM
In serious games, very much yes. Especially since mechanics and fluff do intertwine on some levels and thus the randomness does actually keep one from playing the character they envision.
In not-so-serious games I like randomness. Balance is mostly unimportant there and having a character that is handed to you is a nice challenge from time to time and makes for funny stories.

Eldan
2011-07-31, 09:11 AM
I don't see why players all have to start with the same resources. Why can't some characters be weaker than others? I don't mean overshadowingly 20 level wizard vs. level 10 fighter weak. I mean fighter with 18 strength vs. fighter with 16 strength weak.What does it matter? It's 5 percent on a few rolls. So what?

Fhaolan
2011-07-31, 12:18 PM
While I agree with the title of the thread, I do not agree with the OP.

The title says 'no involuntary randomness', which I agree with. It should, however, allow for 'voluntary randomness'.

For example, when I create a character for a long-term game, I usually have a concept in mind. I build the character to fit that concept. However, there are invariably parts of chargen that have nothing to do with the concept. For those parts they might as well be random, because if I really cared what the results were they would be part of the concept.

For example: I create a character from a nomadic tribe that is famous for it's animal taming. the character is religious, a survivalist, and I've got this mental picture of the character riding a giant bat (for some reason weilding a flaming guitar like off a 80's rock album cover). I need to be careful to balance the character's starting stats, class, etc. to reach as close to this concept goal as I can get. Once the game starts, this character may veer off somewhere else depending on how the adventures progress, of course. My concept is the starting point of the game, not the ending point.

However, I honestly don't care how many siblings the character has, or how much money the character starts with. After the first couple of sessions, D&D characters are usually swimming in cash and equipment if they're played smart. [If it's not nailed down, it can be sold. If it can be pried up, it's not nailed down well enough.] And how often does the fact the character has three sisters half a continent away really matter? For stuff like that, random is fine.

Also, notice that character race wasn't part of the concept. The GM might have some suggestions based on the campaign world (there may already be a tribe like the one described), but if not I'd put together a reduced list of possible races and pull from that. My mental picture is leaning human or elf, or a mixed blood half-elf or an old-style tiefling/aasimar (back when they were just humans with a few inhuman features rather than full-on races of their own with radically non-human appearances). I might even be able to deal with a half-orc, but it feels a bit massive relative to the mental picture, so I'd assign a lower chance for it. Random selection from that custom-built list is fine with me, because I don't have any firm opinion and I'm willing to let the dice of fate determine for me.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-31, 02:10 PM
I don't see why players all have to start with the same resources. Why can't some characters be weaker than others? I don't mean overshadowingly 20 level wizard vs. level 10 fighter weak. I mean fighter with 18 strength vs. fighter with 16 strength weak.What does it matter? It's 5 percent on a few rolls. So what?
More like 15, and that's your highest roll, with racial modifiers. I have a little jar I keep 4 dice for 4d6 drop the lowest. 16 would be an amazingly good roll. I never saw an 18.

artstsym
2011-07-31, 02:31 PM
More like 15, and that's your highest roll, with racial modifiers. I have a little jar I keep 4 dice for 4d6 drop the lowest. 16 would be an amazingly good roll. I never saw an 18. Never? I mean, they're not common, but that's pretty unlucky. How many characters have you rolled for? I've seen my share of 18's, and even a 3 once (which is astoundingly hard with "drop the lowest"). Granted, not all of those 18's were mine, but they're not too uncommon.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-31, 02:51 PM
Never? I mean, they're not common, but that's pretty unlucky. How many characters have you rolled for? I've seen my share of 18's, and even a 3 once (which is astoundingly hard with "drop the lowest"). Granted, not all of those 18's were mine, but they're not too uncommon.

Not many, but I like to shake the dice just to see what comes up. Yeah, I am easily amused. But while 3 may be hard to come up, its harder than 18, 4-9 came up with depressing frequency. After all, 10 is average. In AD&D, a below average role did not immediately penalize you in most cases, but 3.X iterations, it did. Such a system, in my opinion, does not work as well with random stat generation.

Eldan
2011-07-31, 02:56 PM
So? Where does this expectation that you need 16+ scores to function come from anyway? Can't you build a perfectly functional character with low scores? Ability scores just don't matter all tat muc on the rules side. A slightly higher save DC or AC or skill here or there, but in the end, those are minute changes of a few percent up or down. How of then do these really matter?

Ravens_cry
2011-07-31, 03:00 PM
If your a wizard or other mage, things are going to save against your attacks more often, if you are a fighter type, you will hit less and with less ability, a rogue or other scout will miss traps and hurt themselves or the party. 5% 10%, it adds up over long term. If you want to play this way, fine.
I also like the ability to play something I want to play with point buy, rather than what the dice handed me. Again, this is a personal preference.

Eric Tolle
2011-07-31, 03:29 PM
So? Where does this expectation that you need 16+ scores to function come from anyway?

From the same people who used to complain about wizards only having one spell per day in AD&D, and that people kept saving against their spells. In other words, it was the crowd who's advice lead to 3rd Edition being such a botched job.

Speaking of which, I've heard a lot to the effect that characters should be equal. That's highly problematic in 3.X, given the highly unequal power different classes have. If one wants to have true equality at the beginning, then one probably wants to start characters off with <u>different</u> point totals. Starting wizards off with 15 points and fighters with 30 points would go a bit toward compensating for the power imbalance.

Analytica
2011-07-31, 04:51 PM
For whatever it's worth, I would personally prefer playing in a game where the OPs suggestion held rather than one where your resource total was generated randomly.

The idea of chargen where you have a point buy total and can choose to either 1) allocate them as you like according to a concept or 2) randomly allocate that number of points to get a character that you didn't expect, seems like an interesting idea to me.

Others prefer differently, but for a number of reasons, I am quite convinced that, all other things being equal, it is more likely I'll enjoy a game where there is no randomness in original resources.

I might, however, enjoy games with unequal resources because the players choose to do it that way. For instance, one of the most interesting character interactions I had was playing a fledgling teen mage kept as a submissive pet by another player's ancient vampire elder character. If that kind of thing is by choice, I enjoy it. If it came about through random chance, I tend to resent it. Again, others no doubt function differently.

SqueakMaan
2011-07-31, 05:03 PM
Personally I've always disliked point-buy for character gen. I've always felt your stats should ALWAYS be rolled. I like not knowing what the dice will deliver.

Eldan
2011-07-31, 06:20 PM
One problem I have with point buy and other such methods is jsut that predictability. Characters end up the same, or at least similar. If you play with 28 point buy, how many fighters with charisma 8, strength 18 and constitution 16 do you see? I like a bit of randomness if only for shaking things up a little.

navar100
2011-07-31, 09:13 PM
One problem I have with point buy and other such methods is jsut that predictability. Characters end up the same, or at least similar. If you play with 28 point buy, how many fighters with charisma 8, strength 18 and constitution 16 do you see? I like a bit of randomness if only for shaking things up a little.

I agree. Without randomness, everyone ends up the same. Yes, different characters will be different, but the numbers they use are the same, just rearranged. Also, given two separate campaigns of two characters of the same class, they'll be the same. If not carbon copy, significantly close enough. Non-randomness also leads to characters being in a specifically designed template the author and/or DM imagines. The player cannot have a variant that differs far from their perceived ideal.

Non-random is also a zero sum framework that punishes being good at something. By their design, the more you excel at one thing, the more you must suck at something else. There's nothing inherently wrong with having the suckage, and I'm not advocating a character should be excellent at everything. What I am saying is that there's nothing inherently wrong with a character not having any suckage. He can have his excellence where as his worst abilities are simply average.

In a D&D ability score analogy, it is not a crime against all of gamedom for a 1st level character to have an 18 without any score below 10. A 1st level character does not need to have an 18 to function, but neither is having a score lower than 10 a requirement should he happen to have one.

Randomness has its own faults. Randomness can lead to disparity among player characters within a party. A solution is not to be a slave to that randomness. Use that randomness as a base then arbitrarily work with it. Again with ability scores, if a player rolls 14, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, get over yourself and just let him reroll. However, if one player rolls 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8 while another player rolls 18, 17, 14, 13, 11, 10, for the first player just arbitrarily make that 14 an 18 and be done. The two characters are now equivalent enough. The second player is not screwed over because he still has his awesome array.

Crow
2011-07-31, 09:18 PM
Screw it, just let all your players roll randomly until they get something they like.

Requires some maturity from your players, but it can work.

Though, I must admit, in my own games I offer a random rolling method, with a fallback to 25 point buy if the player desires.

Kiero
2011-08-01, 05:37 AM
Dear gods, there are games besides D&D. Besides D&D 3.x even, I sometimes wonder why I even bother posting on this board, it seems no one ever talks about anything else, even in the supposedly "general" forum.

Totally Guy
2011-08-01, 05:44 AM
Dear gods, there are games besides D&D. Besides D&D 3.x even, I sometimes wonder why I even bother posting on this board, it seems no one ever talks about anything else, even in the supposedly "general" forum.

I've felt like this before.

But I think there's definitely been an improvement more recently.

Xiander
2011-08-01, 05:57 AM
Dear gods, there are games besides D&D. Besides D&D 3.x even, I sometimes wonder why I even bother posting on this board, it seems no one ever talks about anything else, even in the supposedly "general" forum.

Some of us are talking in very general terms.

Eldan
2011-08-01, 06:16 AM
While I have read a dozen systems or more (Dark Heresy, Warhammer Fantasy, Fate, Fatescape, Risus, M&M, Gamma World (the new one and a few old ones), a ton of free systems), D&D is (almost, I had a Gamma World session once) the only one I actually ever played at a table. It's the one I know. And few others offer much randomness in character creation, really.

But okay, let me mention old-timey gamma world, then. Races are brutally imbalanced in the system I played. Play a turtle-man for a +8 to AC, or a mouse-man with a -6 to strength? Your choice! You can even be a human with slightly better base stats and no mutations. You'll just be a boring character. There's a few hundred mutations, some of which penalize you, some of which are great, and they are all randomly rolled. Your stats are randomly chosen. As is, for some classes, your starting equipment.

So? We still had fun.

I had assumed that my points up there would even make sense if generalized to other games. But apparently not. Well then:


a) Small differences in character strength rarely ever matter.

b) Randomness is a deterrent against endless strings of characters with the same ("meaningless") weaknesses and the same strengths.

dsmiles
2011-08-01, 11:22 AM
I guess there are two schools of thought on this (at least) - either character generation is non-random, allowing everyone playing to have equal characters; or the random factor is a direct feed to your character in a role-playing sense, forcing you to play the random weaknesses and strengths that you get from the dice.

Both are valid, so long as everyone who is playing agrees on one way to play.

Me, these days, I prefer non-random generation - points buy you stuff, and not the luck of the rolls.
Still, sometimes it is fun to play a randomly made character, just for the challenge of playing someone you didn't think up for yourself, with all the flaws and foibles that brings.
Agreed. It's a personal choice.

So what if I like rolling 3d6 in order for my stats (a la AD&D)? Or maybe I prefer 5d6b3? Maybe I even like point buy (which I personally despise, and won't use if at all possible).

Why should I have to use point buy if I prefer random stats? Why should I have to use random stats if I prefer point buy? Either way, it's bad for business. RPGs should cater to both tastes.

Neither should be forced on a person that doesn't enjoy playing that way.

Fhaolan
2011-08-01, 12:02 PM
Some of us are talking in very general terms.

And some of us are using D&D as the common experience for examples of our points.

If you want me to go elsewhere for examples, fine:

Traveller. Not the current version, but the original. The character could in fact *die* during chargen if you roll badly on the backhistory tables. Traveller was one of the first, if not *the* first, to have what became known as a 'lifepath' system where chargen involved random generation of your character's life prior to becoming an adventurer. Other systems that used lifepath systems were the original Cyberpunk game, and the various Central Casting third-party suppliments.

Did I like using lifepath systems? Sort of. It's pretty much pure gambling, often becoming a trainwreck, but it's got this odd fascination to it. You're curious to where it can go, and what random nonsense it might come up with. Especially when you don't have a strong character concept in mind when you start. If something horrible happens to the character during a lifepath build, or seems out-of-place in the growing character concept, I ignore it or scrap and start again. It's not like there's a limit to the number of characters I'm allowed to build.

I don't always approach every game with a firm 'must have' character concept. Many times I just want to play a game. I don't care what piece I've got control of, just that I'm playing the game. I'm not trying to win as an individual, I'm just there to play and help the group win. What's everyone else playing? Okay, sci-fi near-future apocolyptic game and we've got a nomad, a motorcycle cop, and a missionary doctor. Fine, I'll take a crazy inventor/mechanic. What's his stats/background fluff? *shrug* Hold on, let me get my dice...

Not everyone cares to have a perfectly crafted character every single time. Most of the games I get involved in are one-shot scenarios where I might get a dozen sessions in before the scenario 'ends' and we decided to start up some other scenario in a different setting with different characters. I've got a folder in my office with several hundred different PCs in it from the thirty years I've been gaming. Many of which never made it beyond entry-level. I usually average about ten different games a year, including all the online PbP games.

Xiander
2011-08-01, 12:04 PM
Agreed. It's a personal choice.

So what if I like rolling 3d6 in order for my stats (a la AD&D)? Or maybe I prefer 5d6b3? Maybe I even like point buy (which I personally despise, and won't use if at all possible).

Why should I have to use point buy if I prefer random stats? Why should I have to use random stats if I prefer point buy? Either way, it's bad for business. RPGs should cater to both tastes.

Neither should be forced on a person that doesn't enjoy playing that way.

While I generally agree, I can see an argument for making all players use the same method. I am also completely okay with players deciding to use different methods, as long as no player feels he gets the short end of the stick.



And some of us are using D&D as the common experience for examples of our points.


I hope you took no offence from my post, i was just pointing out that the OP completely failed to comment on my comments, made from a non specific vantage point.

Fhaolan
2011-08-01, 12:09 PM
I hope you took no offence from my post, i was just pointing out that the OP completely failed to comment on my comments, made from a non specific vantage point.

Oh sorry, that didn't come off the way I meant it. The intent was to expand upon your point in a tangental way, not to refute it. The 'you' was supposed to refer back to the person *you* were replying to. My quoting however, was faulty.

Xiander
2011-08-01, 02:02 PM
Oh sorry, that didn't come off the way I meant it. The intent was to expand upon your point in a tangental way, not to refute it. The 'you' was supposed to refer back to the person *you* were replying to. My quoting however, was faulty.

No harm done, I just wanted to make sure I had not somehow insulted you.

By the way, you have put me in the mood for rolling random characters...:smallsmile:

Fhaolan
2011-08-01, 02:49 PM
No harm done, I just wanted to make sure I had not somehow insulted you.

By the way, you have put me in the mood for rolling random characters...:smallsmile:

No problem. :smallbiggrin:

I find a lot of chargen 'drama' revolves a lot around approach. In a lot of systems the game doesn't start until the characters start the adventure. But in many older systems the game itself starts when the players sit down and begin rolling die to create characters.

There's been a couple of Let's Play threads recently around generating dungeons and campaign worlds with mini-games specifically designed for that purpose. How to Host a Dungeon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207903) and Dawn of Worlds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208996)

A lot of older game systems approached chargen the same way; as a mini-game within the overall system. If you're not interested in that part of the game, as a game, then fine. Just like everything else, not all games cater to all people. And they definately don't apply all the time. Sometimes people don't want to play Monopoly, they want to play City of Heroes. They shouldn't be forced to play one to be allowed to play the other.

But they they shouldn't be forced to *not* play a game when they want to do so. It's just a game, afterall.

Severus
2011-08-01, 04:15 PM
If it is a throw away game, I don't care.

But if it is a campaign, I want to be able to control the character generation process.

We mostly use Hero these days for our campaigns. We like it.

Jay R
2011-08-01, 04:46 PM
I'm guessing for some people random chargen isn't simply about the pleasure of not knowing what you're going to play, but taking a risk to get a better character than you might otherwise have.

I think you've shown more about your approach than that of others when you made this guess into their pleasure.

The purpose of randomness isn't just trying to get a better character, because the purpose of character generation isn't just trying to optimize the character. The purpose of randomization is to let things be somewhat out of your control.

I'm currently playing a 2E character I'd never have done on my own, because that's how the stats came out. I'm enjoying doing something different. He's technically the least powerful member of the party, but has consistently been the second most effective.


Random elements during chargen (and character advancement) are a relic that just means you will either feel underpowered due to your very low stats or make everyone else feel underpowered when you roll very high ones ....

I reject the idea that envy is an automatic part of role-playing, and would avoid playing with people who felt this way. (I think that this is an unintended result of CRs and WBLs, both of which feed the implicit notion that there is a certain level of power and ability that your character has a "right" to.)

But I also don't agree with the notion that stats, independent of tactics, will determine who's the most effective character. In my current game, the player with the "best" stats is the least overall effective player, because he's not that clever. He's a great asset in combat, but for the remaining 90% of the game, he's just following and doing what we suggest.

In the game of poker, the best players are using the same 52 cards as everyone else. They just play better. In the same way, a superior D&D player is quite comfortable with an average or below average build.

Partysan
2011-08-01, 05:52 PM
The problem is this:
When a game begins, some people envision a character concept, based on the setting and gameworld and some own ideas. They put work into that character and his story and then they will try to "build" the character to gain a mechanical representation. If the mechanical process is partly random, they may be denied the possibility to play the character they envisioned.

Other people (or the same people in a different situation, as I enjoy both approaches) will instead use the outcome of a partly randomized character creation process as inspiration for the character they have yet to fully invent. This can be just as nice, because they give up control over their character of their own free will.
But forcing all characters to accept randomized creation processes will rob some players of their character concepts and that's not nice. Not deadly either, but unnecessary and completely avoidable.

The premise of the game plays an important part here. Some games lend themselves well to a randomized character you end up with and try to play out. Others do not.

Mr. Hat
2011-08-01, 10:11 PM
I, personally, am a huge supporter of rolling stats. Specifically I am speaking of D&D and more specifically 3.5/Pathfinder. Even keeping in mind Kiero's outrage about sticking to D&D 3.5 I can't honestly think of a RPG in which this is as a large issue. Most other games I've played either don't let you roll for stats (a la World of Darkness) or are entirely dependent on random and usually hilarious character generation (Kobolds ate my Babies and the like). So, if you'll allow me to stick with D&D3.5 I'd like to run a little experiment.

There is a character concept that has been running through my head for a while now that I would like to generate. In brief, he is a Half-Orc Druid who was abandoned to the woods as a baby but managed to survive and grow on his own. Now as far as stats go there are quite a few particulars I need for this character. First off, he is as dumb as a rock and an especially dumb rock at that. A lack of any kind of organized education in his formative years has left him developmentally challenged. On the flip side of this, his self taught survival has left his very wise and he will often surprise others with unique insights that they do not expect from someone so easily confused by simple arithmetic. Additionally he commands a certain childlike charisma that won't win him any elections but will inspire affection from those around him. Physically, he is a bit of a giant. He is slow and lumbering, but difficult to take down in combat. And while he is not the worst person to receive a punch to the face from, it's generally in your best interest to get back when he starts swinging.

Now, it's pretty easy to see how that breaks down. Impressive wisdom and constitution, good charisma and strength, bad dexterity, and abysmal intelligence. Sol lets see what we can do. Using 22 point buy this is what I put together (racially modified stats appear in brackets):

STR: 8 (10)
DEX: 8
CON: 14
INT: 8 (6)
WIS: 16
CHA: 12 (14)

Now that doesn't look too bad. I would have liked to see a bit more strength there, but that's a power issue and if I had allowed myself more points to spend some of these numbers would be higher. Ultimately though, I don't need an ultra-powerful character to have fun so these will do swimmingly. There is one problem I have though, and that's that they are really boring stats. Every single stat is an even number, and they make a nice even boring slope: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16. What am I going to do at level four with my ability score increase? I'll probably just start cranking up his wisdom or constitution and ultimately get a bonus at level 8 in one of his stats that, from an optimization stand, point are the most important. Again, boring. So lets see what I can do with rolling out stats with the old 4d6b3 method (again, racially modified stats appear in brackets):

STR: 12 (14)
DEX: 11
CON: 13
INT: 9 (7)
WIS: 18
CHA: 13 (11)

Now with the exception that single 18 there, you'll notice that these are not particularly powerful stats. But lets see how they match up with my vision. Intelligence is still nice and low, exactly where I want it. That 18 for wisdom, while unexpected and unnecessary, is certainly welcome. It ends up adding more weight to the whole idiot savant aspect of the character (which is kind of the core concept). His physical stats surprised me a bit, but I was not as attached to those as much as the mental ones. He went from a tough but gentle giant to an all-around competent fighter with a haymaker that could ruin your day.

Now the one thing I was a little disappointed by was the lack of a charisma bonus. Ultimately though, there is only so much you can do when fighting a racial penalty and in the point buy example I had to blow a hefty number of points to get the score I wanted. However, this does give me something to do at level four, which actually appeals to me greatly. As he adventures a bit and learns a little bit more about the world others begin to find his rampant idiocy less infuriating and begin to see the charm in his childish ways. And for those more optimizationally inclined you can also choose to pump constitution to get some cheap hit points and reclaim the "tough to take down" aspect of his character concept.

Really, I am much more excited by the randomly generated stats because they A: challenged the clear image of what I wanted in my head and I learned that in some ways I was more flexible than I thought and B: gave me opportunities for both mechanical and roleplay based growth.

I'll freely admit that many choose differently, and may even hold up this experiment as evidence that point buy is better. I respect that, but disagree for reasons I imagine I have made fairly clear by now. Another point I'd like to make, which deserves far more than just a footnote (but for fear of extending what has already become a behemoth of a post it'll have to suffice) is that point buy unduly punishes those already suffering from MAD while giving Wizards and the like more to be smug about. "What do you mean you can't afford to put an 18 in your primary stat? I've still got stat point rolling out my ears! Now humour me and try to make this save."

Jay R
2011-08-02, 09:36 AM
The problem is this:
When a game begins, some people envision a character concept, based on the setting and gameworld and some own ideas. They put work into that character and his story and then they will try to "build" the character to gain a mechanical representation. If the mechanical process is partly random, they may be denied the possibility to play the character they envisioned.

Other people (or the same people in a different situation, as I enjoy both approaches) will instead use the outcome of a partly randomized character creation process as inspiration for the character they have yet to fully invent. This can be just as nice, because they give up control over their character of their own free will.
But forcing all characters to accept randomized creation processes will rob some players of their character concepts and that's not nice. Not deadly either, but unnecessary and completely avoidable.

The premise of the game plays an important part here. Some games lend themselves well to a randomized character you end up with and try to play out. Others do not.

You've left off a third category, and it's the one that is driving this discussion. Some people are just trying to create the highest level of power they can, and character is secondary (or non-existent). Nobody on this thread has complained that randomizing might prevent a particular character conception, but we have seen references to:
"You should not be able to get a better (or worse) character"
"taking a risk to get a better character "
"you will either feel underpowered due to your very low stats or make everyone else feel underpowered when you roll very high ones"
"You'll get some people who did rather well out of rolling, and others who did poorly."
"no one should feel like they've been stiffed because they rolled badly"
"Everyone should be equal"

These are not about the difference between envisioning a character vs. being inspired by the rolls to invent a character. They are all about creating a sheet full of abilities and being more concerned with whether it's as powerful as the other guy's sheet full of abilities.

Part of this attitude comes from the presence of CR in the rules. If the level of danger you'll face is based on your level and nothing else, then being underpowered for your level feels "unfair". But if the party acts like a party, and the DM is competent, then the underpowered character of the moment is used tactically in the safest position, and the party, as a party, uses that character's abilities to great effect. I've been playing a 2E elven wizard/thief -- OF COURSE he's been the lowest powered character. And I have no problem with the fact that the others were more powerful. Frankly, I want my meat-shields to be powerful. (The character just hit fifth level wizard and blossomed. That fireball makes him extremely powerful (for one round), and the party tactics changed.)

Playing the lone squishy character can be fun, but only if I consider the other party members to be my allies, not my rivals.

warmachine
2011-08-02, 12:14 PM
Wanna know why I hate randomness in chargen? Lifepath generation in Traveller. Gameplay typically involves PCs in a starship where specific ship roles are required. So the players divide the roles between them, such as pilot, steward, navigator, engineer etc. Players also divide up other roles, such as faceman, businessman, investigator, combat, tech-head etc. Some players prefer certain roles. Then random lifepaths often create characters unsuitable for the roles chosen. The random lifepath can kick the PC out of the careers that teaches the signature skill for the role. You can want to be a pilot and end up with no piloting skills.

This leaves a group often badly suited to run a starship or the campaign in mind. Hence, depending on the campaign genre, PCs pick skills free from a skill pool to cover the gaps. The character's lifepath explains how he acquired his skills then he acquires more out of nowhere for no plausible, in-game reason. That's an ugly patch to fix the random chargen process. Even the designers of Traveller realised random lifepath damages gameplay.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-02, 12:37 PM
I'm ok with a certain level of randomness. Consider Paranoia, in which you randomly determine things such as what role you have in the party. None of the roles is clearly better than all the rest...and the really critical things, like number of clones, are equal for all. This works out well enough.

But random stats are sometimes problematic. Last time we rolled up, one guy got two 18s and a 17. The others were solid as well. Others didn't do nearly so well. Yeah, sometimes you get lucky, and the inexperienced people get the good stats...but that's a crap shoot. I tend to prefer point buy, or at minimum, a hybrid solution. A bit of randomness can be fun, but you don't want to wreck the game.

As a dramatic example, I give you the deck of many things. It's fun as hell, but it wrecks campaigns horribly.

Knaight
2011-08-03, 02:11 AM
You've left off a third category, and it's the one that is driving this discussion. Some people are just trying to create the highest level of power they can, and character is secondary (or non-existent). Nobody on this thread has complained that randomizing might prevent a particular character conception, but we have seen references to:

We've seen plenty of people complaining that random character generation prevents a particular character concept. If you don't see that, I'll go ahead and list of a few of my current characters, and phrase random destruction of these characters via dice rolls through the lense of D&D stats (none actually use D&D stats, but one could conceivably convert them to any edition of D&D).

Mynra: A spy and con artist who is a specialized liar before anything else, working to restore a crumpled kingdom through work as an informant. Rolling a low charisma would utterly prevent this concept. Rolling a low intelligence would utterly destroy this concept. Rolling an incredibly, incredibly low constitution, strength, or dexterity would require major changes (lots of travel, hiding, so on and so forth requires some level of physical fitness).

Andui: A desert nomad who fled from her homeland under an assumed male identity, and has taken up mercenary work. A low constitution roll pretty much prevents this concept, as fleeing through a desert alone and subsequent mercenary lifestyles require endurance. Anything that prevents decent combat skills also prevents this character, and sufficiently low charisma or wisdom -low enough to prevent taking the part- also destroy it. And this is just at the basic concept, specifics of the character require also that the charisma isn't too high (8-12 is probably the reasonable range in d20), and requires enough intelligence to be able to have riding skills, limited hiding skills, some knowledge skills regarding travel, ideally through the desert, and a tiny bit of herbalism.

Keso: A tribal sniper who deserted from his military after assassinating his commanding officer. A low dexterity score utterly invalidates that background, as assassinating his commanding officer and escaping are key to it. So is being a sniper, though in later editions of D&D one could probably manage that with feats and BAB alone.

The reason that third group has been left out of the discussion is that they are, as a rule, a subset of the problem player. One does not design their games around problem players, because if all they want to do is be disruptive in some form, they are a detriment to the game anyways, and won't have the assumed buy in you absolutely need.

Eldan
2011-08-03, 06:51 AM
Okay, I admit, that sometimes stat variation with 4d6b3, nevermind 3d6, is too high. Perhaps a narrower bell curve should be used, like 5d4-2, or something. Or you'd rather have a given set of stats with a little variance, like you start with 14, 12, 11, 10, 8, 6, then 1d4 to each. That is statistically just a bit better than the elite array, but has one guaranteed stat of 15-18.

Would something like that be more acceptable?

Or in other, less D&D focused words: would very limited variability be more acceptable than higher variability, just to introduce a bit of variety into the set of characters?

Partysan
2011-08-03, 07:27 AM
Okay, I admit, that sometimes stat variation with 4d6b3, nevermind 3d6, is too high. Perhaps a narrower bell curve should be used, like 5d4-2, or something. Or you'd rather have a given set of stats with a little variance, like you start with 14, 12, 11, 10, 8, 6, then 1d4 to each. That is statistically just a bit better than the elite array, but has one guaranteed stat of 15-18.

Would something like that be more acceptable?

Or in other, less D&D focused words: would very limited variability be more acceptable than higher variability, just to introduce a bit of variety into the set of characters?

My question has to be: why is this necessary to introduce variety into the set of characters? Stat values are hardly the mechanical only thing to be varied, nevermind roleplaying differences. If your only variety comes from stat distributions, then you have bigger problems.
A randomized distribution of something to introduce variability can be nice, but it should be a nice extra, not something potentially central to a character.


The reason that third group has been left out of the discussion is that they are, as a rule, a subset of the problem player. One does not design their games around problem players, because if all they want to do is be disruptive in some form, they are a detriment to the game anyways, and won't have the assumed buy in you absolutely need.

Also, this. Even though I contest that no nonproblematic player won't feel a bit frustrated if he has two stats under 10 and another is a paragon of humanity (possible even with the array you suggested).

Eldan
2011-08-03, 08:05 AM
What's so bad about two stats under ten? I've played characters with a 5 before, you can get along well enough.

As for why varying stats... they are easy to vary. What else would you introduce variety for, in D&D? I do rolled HP, true, but I don't think there's much else you could vary. Skill points per level? Base attack bonus? Saves? That all seems wonky to me. Stats have small effects across the board and are easily randomized.

Telok
2011-08-03, 04:09 PM
After watching this thread for a couple of days I've noticed something. The older and more mature game systems have an assumption of GM involvement during character creation. The newer game systems have a number fetish.

Games like Traveller, AD&D, and Hero explicitly expect the GM to be involved during character creation, helping the players, vetting the characters, making sure all the necessary skills are present in the party, and ensuring that everyone will have fun with their characters. The point buy systems like Hero, Shadowrun, and Storyteller all have enough variety and options that even characters of similar archetypes will be different enough to be interesting. The random character generation systems of AD&D, Paranoia, and Traveller are fast and simple. The ability to create a character in five or ten minutes allows you to generate characters until you get the numbers that can support your concept, or just go back to the first point and talk to your GM.

Newer games, especially D&D 4th, are very focused on numbers and don't expect the GM to have any influence on the characters that the players make. This leads to things like having druids who can turn into swarms of bees, but can't fly or crawl through a barred window, and warforged clerics of Bahamut in the Darksun setting. With this supremacy of the numbers over the characters all of your fighters are strong and dumb and the biggest difference between them is if they use a shield or a two handed weapon. You don't see any intelligent, charismatic, knife fighters because the numbers don't allow then to work.

I do feel that something has been lost in the last decade.

Severus
2011-08-03, 06:07 PM
After watching this thread for a couple of days I've noticed something. The older and more mature game systems have an assumption of GM involvement during character creation. The newer game systems have a number fetish.

Games like Traveller, AD&D, and Hero explicitly expect the GM to be involved during character creation, helping the players, vetting the characters, making sure all the necessary skills are present in the party, and ensuring that everyone will have fun with their characters. The point buy systems like Hero, Shadowrun, and Storyteller all have enough variety and options that even characters of similar archetypes will be different enough to be interesting. The random character generation systems of AD&D, Paranoia, and Traveller are fast and simple. The ability to create a character in five or ten minutes allows you to generate characters until you get the numbers that can support your concept, or just go back to the first point and talk to your GM.

Newer games, especially D&D 4th, are very focused on numbers and don't expect the GM to have any influence on the characters that the players make. This leads to things like having druids who can turn into swarms of bees, but can't fly or crawl through a barred window, and warforged clerics of Bahamut in the Darksun setting. With this supremacy of the numbers over the characters all of your fighters are strong and dumb and the biggest difference between them is if they use a shield or a two handed weapon. You don't see any intelligent, charismatic, knife fighters because the numbers don't allow then to work.

I do feel that something has been lost in the last decade.

I tend to agree with these general sentiments. As an older gamer, I expect to discuss my character concept and role with my GM and fellow players so that we end up with a group that can work together and fit within the world the GM has imagined.

I don't want random systems because I create a character concept first, then I go try to build. If the dice don't line up with what I want, I have to throw out the concept and come up with a different one.

Of course, we have a solid group of gamers and our campaigns typically run years. It might be different if it was just for a couple of months.

Knaight
2011-08-03, 11:31 PM
After watching this thread for a couple of days I've noticed something. The older and more mature game systems have an assumption of GM involvement during character creation. The newer game systems have a number fetish.

...

Newer games, especially D&D 4th, are very focused on numbers and don't expect the GM to have any influence on the characters that the players make. This leads to things like having druids who can turn into swarms of bees, but can't fly or crawl through a barred window, and warforged clerics of Bahamut in the Darksun setting. With this supremacy of the numbers over the characters all of your fighters are strong and dumb and the biggest difference between them is if they use a shield or a two handed weapon. You don't see any intelligent, charismatic, knife fighters because the numbers don't allow then to work.
If you look beyond D&D, you'll see that isn't the case. FATE, for instance has been getting fairly big recently, and it assumes both GM involvement with a character -the creation of aspects absolutely requires it- and the involvement of other players. There is absolutely no "number fetish". Moreover, the newest editions of things like HERO and GURPS, as well as Mutants and Masterminds, all of which can be described as having a "number fetish" still require heavy GM involvement.

On a side note, assuming that older games are inherently more mature is somewhat absurd. They aren't wines, or cheeses, they don't simply improve by getting older, they have to be actively changed. Technically, that also applies to the wines and cheeses, but what they need to improve doesn't require any conscious work, so it is entirely different.

Gralamin
2011-08-04, 12:05 AM
Newer games, especially D&D 4th, are very focused on numbers and don't expect the GM to have any influence on the characters that the players make. This leads to things like having druids who can turn into swarms of bees, but can't fly or crawl through a barred window, and warforged clerics of Bahamut in the Darksun setting. With this supremacy of the numbers over the characters all of your fighters are strong and dumb and the biggest difference between them is if they use a shield or a two handed weapon. You don't see any intelligent, charismatic, knife fighters because the numbers don't allow then to work.

I don't... what? You know what, not worth it, beyond a "Please don't say thing X about System Y without any evidence."

I generally see groups talking figuring out their characters goals, how they fit into a party, etc, together during character creation regardless of system. Sometimes it starts with a mechanical concept, sometimes it doesn't. I've also seen random rolls lead to a party utterly unable to work together.

Ultimately, in my opinion, Random is taking a risk to try to make your game experience better, but it rarely provides a large reward (Whether mechanical or role-playing), and sometimes can give quite a penalty. Thus it makes sense to instead work on Point buy where you get a constant reward.

Dimers
2011-08-04, 12:40 AM
I do feel that something has been lost in the last decade.

Thank you, Doctor Grognard. That was quite moving. :smallsigh: I have yet to play in any group in any game system in any decade that didn't discuss character creation with each other and the GM. (Probably because I've never tried KAMB.) Eighty to ninety percent of the gamebooks I own specifically mention the idea that the GM will modify the gameworld and limit available options. And I've encountered no less mechanical variety in 4e than in oWoD, nWoD, 3.5, GURPS, Ars Magica or 4th-ed Shadowrun. The system I've seen with the least differentiation is 2e -- not that I'm knocking that, either, because roleplaying is always more key to making characters come alive than stats and abilities are.

And yes, you can make several different types of intelligent, charismatic, combat-viable warriors using 4e. Sheesh.

Fhaolan
2011-08-04, 02:49 AM
Yeah, character creation should always be done with GM involvement, or at least GM vetting. There are several game systems old and new don't mention that, mainly because I think it's one of those unspoken assumptions that the authors/editors just took for granted.

Or they're systems without a GM, which is rare, but they do exist.

Totally Guy
2011-08-04, 04:33 AM
We try to do character generation as a group so that we can all riff off of each other. It's a good thing.

Somebloke
2011-08-04, 07:02 AM
As player and GM I am strongly opposed to random character creation.

My views were not altered by a number of players who had a strange habit of rolling up characters at home with at least one 18.

dsmiles
2011-08-04, 07:07 AM
I just don't get it. Trying to figure out how I'm going to play a character's personality, motivations, and goals based on his/her stats is half the fun for me. I love random character generation.

SITB
2011-08-04, 08:07 AM
I just don't get it. Trying to figure out how I'm going to play a character's personality, motivations, and goals based on his/her stats is half the fun for me. I love random character generation.

See the title; 'involuntary'. Some people don't like their choices dictated by the dice when they already have a concept they wish to play.

Somebloke
2011-08-04, 08:56 AM
Same. I'm definitely one for concept-driven rather than organic character development.

druid91
2011-08-06, 10:01 PM
I can agree with the first part.

You shouldn't be forced to randomize. It should be an option but not a forced thing.

As for his second bit I disagree.

Eric Tolle
2011-08-08, 11:45 PM
It just occurred to me that there's one major advantage of removing randomness; of the character dies, the player can just cross the name out, write in a new name, and voila! A new character exactly the same as the old one, completely legally!

Of course you could always do that in point-buy systems like Champions and GURPS, but ever since Third Edition's "wealth by level" system, it's easy to do the same in D&D. It would certainly make 3.X's character generation more bearable if the pain could be amortized over a dozen or so identical characters.

Knaight
2011-08-09, 12:22 AM
It just occurred to me that there's one major advantage of removing randomness; of the character dies, the player can just cross the name out, write in a new name, and voila! A new character exactly the same as the old one, completely legally!

Sure, you could, but this is hardly an advantage.

Eric Tolle
2011-08-09, 08:06 AM
Sure, you could, but this is hardly an advantage.

Reducing character creation time from an hour to five seconds (especially if you just put a Roman numeral after the name)? Not having to come up with a new concept? That doesn't sound like an advantage?

SITB
2011-08-09, 08:25 AM
Reducing character creation time from an hour to five seconds (especially if you just put a Roman numeral after the name)? Not having to come up with a new concept? That doesn't sound like an advantage?

Also devaluing the actual characters, because there is always a ready 'long lost twin' or something just around the corner to replace your character if that character died.

I mean, for a game like Paranoia or other 'meatgrinder' type style of gameplay it could work. But otherwise...

Fhaolan
2011-08-09, 09:10 AM
Also devaluing the actual characters, because there is always a ready 'long lost twin' or something just around the corner to replace your character if that character died.

I mean, for a game like Paranoia or other 'meatgrinder' type style of gameplay it could work. But otherwise...

I find the concept of 'devaluing' the character amusing. It assumes that characters have innate value, and that this value can be debased by the actions of the player.

Many people look at it the other direction; the character only has the value the player invests in it. If they choose to not invest value, that is their choice. It's not up to the system, or the other players, to *force* the player to invest value into a fictional character.

Which is why I view people who insist on systems that enforce fully random or fully built characters are equally suspect. They're extremists that attempt to force players to play the game a specific way. They work from the premise that the opposite method is 'badwrong' and those that prefer that other method should be punished for daring to think differently.

SITB
2011-08-09, 10:04 AM
I find the concept of 'devaluing' the character amusing. It assumes that characters have innate value, and that this value can be debased by the actions of the player.

Many people look at it the other direction; the character only has the value the player invests in it. If they choose to not invest value, that is their choice. It's not up to the system, or the other players, to *force* the player to invest value into a fictional character.

That's my point, though. If you just switch character to "X son of X" when X dies, that means that either you are not putting a lot of value in his non mechanical qualties (Because usually only the mechanics are preserved in the character sheet) or you devalue those qualties because suprise! there is another person who is just like the previous dead character that wants to join in.

If you do not want to invest in this specific chracter then yeah, it's a advantage. But I presumed that those games which those characters were played had actual character and thus couldn't be easily replaced by adding another long lost twin who is similiar in any aspect to the lost character.

Frozen_Feet
2011-08-09, 10:10 AM
It just occurred to me that there's one major advantage of removing randomness; of the character dies, the player can just cross the name out, write in a new name, and voila! A new character exactly the same as the old one, completely legally!

I've tried using just that, and always returned to having my players make new characters from scratch when their old one kicks the bucket. That's because any form of "new character, just like the old one!" is both an oxymoron and undermines incentive for actual character development.

"Completely legally" isn't much of a boon either; it isn't much of a houserule to do the same with characters that were originally created randomly.

My own thoughts on the original topic: I like randomness. I have nothing against someone or something handing me a role or character to be played; I'm not married to the idea that a character has to be my creation, from broad strokes to finest minutiae.

Randomness also enforces a certain level of differentiation between characters, which I've found out to be a boon in many rules-light systems (Including basic D&D and many retroclones). Even if mechanical differences end up being slight, they still serve to give each character a color of their own.

I dislike the growing importance of high stats in newer editions of D&D, and would very much like that they returned to a model where base abilities, in general, are more influential, but high base abilities are less so.

SITB
2011-08-09, 10:28 AM
I've tried using just that, and always returned to having my players make new characters from scratch when their old one kicks the bucket. That's because any form of "new character, just like the old one!" is both an oxymoron and undermines incentive for actual character development.

"Completely legally" isn't much of a boon either; it isn't much of a houserule to do the same with characters that were originally created randomly.

My own thoughts on the original topic: I like randomness. I have nothing against someone or something handing me a role or character to be played; I'm not married to the idea that a character has to be my creation, from broad strokes to finest minutiae.

Randomness also enforces a certain level of differentiation between characters, which I've found out to be a boon in many rules-light systems (Including basic D&D and many retroclones). Even if mechanical differences end up being slight, they still serve to give each character a color of their own.

I dislike the growing importance of high stats in newer editions of D&D, and would very much like that they returned to a model where base abilities, in general, are more influential, but high base abilities are less so.

What edition would that be? I though 2ed had a heavy dependance on your starting ability scores.

EDIT: Exceptional strength and all that, or the Bard requirments.

Fhaolan
2011-08-09, 10:33 AM
But I presumed that those games which those characters were played had actual character and thus couldn't be easily replaced by adding another long lost twin who is similiar in any aspect to the lost character.

And that's *my* point; that there was an assumption that the goal of the game was to have characters with value. RPGs attracts all kinds of people, and not all of them are interested in creating invested characters. Many just use the character as an 'avatar' to solve puzzles/resolve situations. As those characters are just empty shells that the player moves around to perform actions why fill them with characterization that, to that specific player, has no effective value. If they have no characterization value, then there is nothing preventing filing off the serial numbers, and presenting it as a different character later.

To be fair, most of the people I know who invest in characterization have a great deal of difficulty understanding those who don't, or why those who don't bother to play RPGs at all when to them the 'RP' part is the majority of the experience. And those I know who don't invest in characterization have a great deal of difficult understanding those who do, or why those who do bother to play RPGs at all when to them the 'G' part is the majority of the experience.

This is very similar to the Stormwind Fallacy, but some ways I don't believe this fallacy is as clear-cut as many would present it. Modern western culture has a tendency to train people to think in exclusive terms. While there is nothing in RPG rulesets that prevent people from being *both*, years of cultural conditioning makes it very difficult for people to not think in terms of 'us' and 'them', with 'them' being those who are fundamentally 'wrong' in some way. People who claim to be both 'us' and 'them' (in this case being both a roleplayer and a gamer), are then viewed as irritating, arrogant, wrongheaded, and even worse than 'them'.

SITB
2011-08-09, 10:43 AM
See my quote again:


I mean, for a game like Paranoia or other 'meatgrinder' type style of gameplay it could work. But otherwise...

I meant to talk only about the RP, not excluded the other way, or imply it's badwrongfun, I guess I could have added Hack 'n Slash, or Beer and pretzals, but my point was that games which place import on RP I don't think it would work

Frozen_Feet
2011-08-09, 10:56 AM
What edition would that be? I though 2ed had a heavy dependance on your starting ability scores.

True, but at the same time, very high ability scores weren't necessary to compete with a lot of classes. Starting scores were very important, but pumping the scores up wasn't.

In d20 iterations of D&D and 4th ed, the six basic abilities are so buried under layers of additional mechanics that they don't really serve to define your character anymore - they are just numbers that you need to pump to increasingly high levels to stay in the game. This is best witnessed in how point-buy has become more prominent, and of the original 3 to 18 range, only numbers of 8 and above really see use.

I could say that in earlier editions, you played a Paladin because your scores were high; in newer eds, you have high scores because you're playing a Paladin. Priorly, you got to play something special if you were lucky; now, it's taken for granted you're going to be special, and you have to hoard mechanical points to stay in that position.

Knaight
2011-08-09, 02:13 PM
That's my point, though. If you just switch character to "X son of X" when X dies, that means that either you are not putting a lot of value in his non mechanical qualties (Because usually only the mechanics are preserved in the character sheet) or you devalue those qualties because suprise! there is another person who is just like the previous dead character that wants to join in.

If you do not want to invest in this specific chracter then yeah, it's a advantage. But I presumed that those games which those characters were played had actual character and thus couldn't be easily replaced by adding another long lost twin who is similiar in any aspect to the lost character.
This basically covers everything I was going to say.


And that's *my* point; that there was an assumption that the goal of the game was to have characters with value. RPGs attracts all kinds of people, and not all of them are interested in creating invested characters. Many just use the character as an 'avatar' to solve puzzles/resolve situations. As those characters are just empty shells that the player moves around to perform actions why fill them with characterization that, to that specific player, has no effective value. If they have no characterization value, then there is nothing preventing filing off the serial numbers, and presenting it as a different character later.
Sure, but the way the original argument was presented, it was as if the advantage of being able to just play a duplicate character was near universal, where it is actually a niche advantage that only works for people who use the character as an avatar, and don't feel like trying out a different style after the character dies. Its a tiny niche advantage that is largely irrelevant for many games.

Fhaolan
2011-08-09, 03:26 PM
Sure, but the way the original argument was presented, it was as if the advantage of being able to just play a duplicate character was near universal, where it is actually a niche advantage that only works for people who use the character as an avatar, and don't feel like trying out a different style after the character dies. Its a tiny niche advantage that is largely irrelevant for many games.

True, this is not near universal, but I believe the niche is larger than 'tiny', and in fact may turn out to be a larger market than the hard-core RPG market. In the same way that video game publishers are realizing that casual gamers in general are a much larger and more lucrative market than so-called 'hard-core' gamers.

Knaight
2011-08-09, 04:25 PM
True, this is not near universal, but I believe the niche is larger than 'tiny', and in fact may turn out to be a larger market than the hard-core RPG market. In the same way that video game publishers are realizing that casual gamers in general are a much larger and more lucrative market than so-called 'hard-core' gamers.

Honestly, the only reason it is tiny is clause 2, regarding wanting to try something else out. I suspect that "This time, I want my avatar to be a mage instead of a swordsman" shrinks the group more than "Introduction of a duplicate character would destroy the coherence of the setting and devalue the story of the character in use prior".

On a side note, I find the label of hard-core gamers for those who are interested in the role play side amusing. It seems entirely off.

Fhaolan
2011-08-09, 05:09 PM
On a side note, I find the label of hard-core gamers for those who are interested in the role play side amusing. It seems entirely off.

It does, doesn't it? But in some weird way it does fit. These are the people who are 'serious' about RPGs, who have built a lifestyle around RPGs, who can get upset about rule balance *and* about characterization. Who memorizes dozens of rulebooks, studies theoritical builds, and deliberately does visualization exercises in order to be a 'better roleplayer'.

Which is a complete contrast with the casual gamers who show up at a session with the intent of hanging with friends and goofing off while talking about who's wizard zaps which orc. And can my character do that cool thing whatsisname did in that movie I saw last night?

Knaight
2011-08-09, 05:11 PM
It does, doesn't it? But in some weird way it does fit. These are the people who are 'serious' about RPGs, who have built a lifestyle around RPGs, who can get upset about rule balance *and* about characterization. Who memorizes dozens of rulebooks, studies theoritical builds, and deliberately does visualization exercises in order to be a 'better roleplayer'.

I'd call "built a lifestyle" an exaggeration, but there are certainly dedicated hobbyists with relatively few other hobbies. The Hard-Core label does fit, even if it does seem completely off.

navar100
2011-08-09, 08:30 PM
I could say that in earlier editions, you played a Paladin because your scores were high; in newer eds, you have high scores because you're playing a Paladin. Priorly, you got to play something special if you were lucky; now, it's taken for granted you're going to be special, and you have to hoard mechanical points to stay in that position.

You say that like it's a bad thing. If I want to play a ranger, then I want to play a ranger. I do not want to play a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees as part of so called inspired roleplaying.

Kiero
2011-08-10, 04:05 AM
It does, doesn't it? But in some weird way it does fit. These are the people who are 'serious' about RPGs, who have built a lifestyle around RPGs, who can get upset about rule balance *and* about characterization. Who memorizes dozens of rulebooks, studies theoritical builds, and deliberately does visualization exercises in order to be a 'better roleplayer'.

Which is a complete contrast with the casual gamers who show up at a session with the intent of hanging with friends and goofing off while talking about who's wizard zaps which orc. And can my character do that cool thing whatsisname did in that movie I saw last night?

Or alternatively, people for whom their RPGing is part of a scarce amount of free entertainment time, and too valuable to piss away doing things they don't enjoy. I have one weeknight slot available for roleplaying, and plenty of other things (work, relationship, child, other hobbies) to fill my free time.

That is precious time, it is dedicated to roleplaying, not showing up and doing whatever. Same way I don't turn up to Muay Thai and have an evening where I slack off and talk instead of pushing myself as hard as I can. Or turn up to football and don't bother chasing the ball or trying to get involved in the game.

big teej
2011-08-10, 05:33 PM
hey man, your game, whatever produces the greatest fun factor for you.

though I am curious, how far out does this hatred of dice rolling extend?

for instance, having read your initial post, I believe you'd find yourself in quite a pickle if you came to my table, where we roll 4d6 drop lowest.

or Savage worlds where dice rolls deterimine how much XP you get.

or -runs out of good examples-

so I guess my question boils down to:

"is this enough of an issue for you that you would not play in a group that DOES roll dice/randomly generate characters?"

not antagonizing at all, genuinelly curious.