When do you guys build your characters [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Red Fel

2015-07-13, 08:44 PM

In terms of concept, I discuss it with the other players before the first gaming session begins. That's because I make an effort to have concepts that mesh well with the rest of the party.

In terms of mechanics, in my early days of gaming, I lacked system mastery or resources to generate characters on my own. Fortunately, many of my DMs either ran a "pre-session" for character generation and Q&A, or were available prior to the session to help generate characters. My position is that either of these is desirable.

I feel that a DM should take an active hand and be involved in character generation. It helps spot cheaters (yes, they do exist); it helps guide newbies through the process; and it allows the DM to observe and prevent minor problems before they become major.

Perfect example, you're starting a campaign, and your Dragonborn Paladin decides to take the ACF that swaps Detect Evil for Detect Dragonblood. You had no intention of including Dragons in your campaign, but totally planned to include Evil Outsiders. By catching him during chargen, and gently suggesting that Detect Evil might be more valuable in this campaign, you can help make him feel more useful and avoid frustration later when he realizes just how few Dragons there are to detect.

But back on topic, I prefer to build my characters at a pre-session for this precise reason. I come to the session with a general build concept (and a backup if it gets rejected), but the specifics I do there, in front of everyone, in the interests of openness and social interaction. (And maybe, just maybe, my doing so will help people consider more optimal ways to build their characters. Looking at you, Guy Who Plays Monks.)

I will note, however, that even with retraining rules - if your DM allows them - build mistakes can be fairly unforgiving. It's why, while I leave flexibility, I do design a general framework in advance that extends to level 20. If I have something I specifically want in this character's future, I need to make sure I've satisfied the requirements, and D&D can be quite brutal if your design isn't tight. So while I come with a general concept, and I build it at starting level at the pre-session, I have build options percolating in the back of my head.

OldTrees1

2015-07-13, 08:45 PM

I set aside time during the first session for character generation. While they create characters I start filling in the Players on what their Characters would know as a way to introduce the campaign.

On the other hand, as a Player I generally already know what I want to play 1-2 campaigns in advance. But I am also relatively fast at character gen(maybe as a result?) so I am generally ready to go "immediately" but willing to spend time tweaking the character/asking Character knowledge questions.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2015-07-13, 08:54 PM

First session. I'm very leery of people showing up with pre-made characters.

Crake

2015-07-13, 09:25 PM

First session. I'm very leery of people showing up with pre-made characters.

Out of curiosity, why is that?

daremetoidareyo

2015-07-13, 09:50 PM

Two Three answers:

1.) First session (As a DM): Put all the PCs in the same room, have them go around explaining their character concept. Good system mastery folks help out the weak ones. I usually tell the PCs to figure out how they know each other, or I put a provision on the PC choices for the campaign: "Must be considered a samurai noble" (comes with free skill points!)..."you're all going to be starting in a prison cell how did you get there?" Plus, I get to dissuade people from campaign features I don't tend to use or enjoy (I hate dungeons) so they can focus on features that will make themselves usefull.

2.) I get a concept that I can't put down, usually inspired by some mechanical quirk in the numerous splat books. Stuff like killoren's racial smite ability can work on ranged attacks or the maiden of pain can transfer oozemasters oozy touch through her whip. Sometimes I build to see how two weird concepts would work together. I save the build and choose one when we get together for a game, tailoring it for the projected campaign.

3.)Right after the new iron chef comes out.

Hiro Quester

2015-07-13, 09:52 PM

Our DM gives parameters for the game (books allowed, setting, etc.). Then players email build concepts with him. Some of us let others claim party roles (tank, arcane caster, cleric,/buffer, etc.)

After a few people have committed to concepts and/or roles then I usually will fill in whatever the party needs and start building (or select a character I have already sketched out).

All player design is handled over email with DM (and informing other players, getting advice, coordinating bits and pieces of backstory), in the week or two before our first session.

When we get together for our first game. We have character design pretty well nailed down, and we're ready to officially introduce our finalized characters, and start adventuring.

nyjastul69

2015-07-13, 09:57 PM

I skimmed the replies. Our group usually has a think tank session on character creation. It's kinda like a proto-session. We discuss what roles should be filled and roll dice for abilities. We then go home and build the characters. This process may take as many as two sessions. I've never built a character and brought it to the first session. That concept is outside of my gaming experience.

Ferronach

2015-07-13, 10:35 PM

I think I had better pop by the potion shop and stock up on "Protection from Evil" potions because it would appear that for the most part I am in the same boat as Red Fel when I am a player.

As a DM i give a quick overview of what the "lay of the land" will be at the beginning of the campaign. I then arrange a pre-game workshop where those who want to can come and get advice/help. It is not mandatory but those who do not show up will have to (usually via e-mail) give me a quick breakdown of their build, their stats and overall concept. I then mention to them that I would tweak a thing or two (if needed) and leave the final decision up to them.
I am pretty easy going if we find a character is having issues with the group/campaign, I let the group take a break and work with the player to modify or completely re-build their character.

Hrugner

2015-07-13, 11:13 PM

I'll have about five characters at the point where I need stats and gear rules to finish them up and email short versions of them to the DM and see what he thinks would fit best with the game. At that point I get the rules needed to finish up the concept and do the DM's favorite and mine and work in any lore stuff the DM thought I should know about. I'll also explain character tricks at this point so the DM won't be caught off guard by weird combinations of abilities, awkward story elements or outlier stats; this gives me a chance to see if he thinks a gimick is cool or tedious rather than throwing a wrench into the game mid story arc. By the start of the first game I'll have the whole thing made up, as well as my second close to done so I can swap to that one if there's too much overlap with another characters abilities.

I like the idea of everyone making up characters together, but my regular group is all in their mid to late 30s with barely enough overlapping free time to play once a week, so we tend not to have that opportunity.

Gwaednerth

2015-07-13, 11:19 PM

It really depends on how in-depth the world is. If the heroes are going to be essentially nomadic, then backstory is just for fun and they can be left to their own devices. If the heroes are going to be in the same place the entire time, then they should probably be a bit more integrated into that place. However as a general rule when I DM the gameplan is:
1) I explain the broad strokes of the setting e.g. "it's a seafaring campaign" or "lots of trekking through the wilderness" or "mostly diplomacy and intrigue". Then I lay out which books I allow and to what extent.
2) I let the players discuss amongst themselves what general role they'll play and make sure we don't have the chaotic stupid barbarian constantly fighting with the lawful stupid paladin. Although I sometimes skip this with, shall we say, interesting results.
3) I talk with the players individually so they can work out a backstory and I can integrate it into the setting. This lets me craft appropriate plot hooks and so forth.
4) I get everyone together and we sort of talk over and casually roleplay how everyone knows eachother (well, we met in a tavern when this guy spontaneously walked in with a plot hook because obviously the tavern is where you go when orcs burn the village to the ground).
5) I let players do whatever they want about actually stating things. Most of the problems come from RP rather than mechanics (at least in my, albeit pretty rules-optional, group). I'm very lenient on retraining because I know how often things don't quite work out as expected, and none of us is really worried about "power" because as much as a monk lacks power, it can still be a lot of fun to play.

Flickerdart

2015-07-13, 11:30 PM

That's my secret, captain - I'm always building.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2015-07-13, 11:36 PM

Out of curiosity, why is that?

Lots of reasons.

The first is bad experiences with people simply cheating. And, on a related note, people making major errors that require significant revision. I don't like having to hold things up while someone has to erase half their sheet and start over, y'know? It's not fair to the rest of the players.

I also like to roll for stats. I'm a 4d6 drop low guy (though I recognize the advantages of point buy systems). With my current group, yeah, I trust them to roll stats honestly, but that's not always the case. Pretty minor, really; I'm willing to tolerate a little bit of cheating on that sort of thing, but I prefer people do it with some restraint, and I feel like there's too much temptation when people aren't with the rest of the group.

As a DM, I also don't really prepare campaigns, as such. I'm not interested in telling a story to the players. What I want to do is create an environment that allows them to tell and create their own stories, both in and out of character. I want the players to create the characters that they want to play, and then I'll make what they want to do work. So I'll let them use a portion of that first session to figure out how they're going to fit together, and I'll use that time to figure out how to fit the world around them. It's easier for me to do that when I'm around the process of the characters being created, and I think it helps the players get a better handle on the capacities of the other characters. It also lets the other players act as a sort of common-sense check on what jedipotter might have called 'problem players' (a category which unfortunately included everyone). I'm willing to veto things; that's part of the job of the DM, but I find it comes better from the other players, who're wondering how someone's going to fit their Llolth-Touched Gravetouched Ghoul Water Orc into a game focused on playing court politics with the Silvanesti Speaker of the Stars. Obviously that's not always a problem, but sometimes I feel that maybe there's too much of a focus on making one's character a special snowflake, and slightly less on the fact that Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative, communal game about creating a shared experience. Having all the players sit down and create their dudes and dudettes together reinforces that point.

And sometimes when you're lucky, your players do the work of putting the party together for you. And that's always a bonus.

Totema

2015-07-14, 12:06 AM

I take the courtesy to ask my DM ahead of time about any house rules and/or personal restrictions he/she has in place, and build the character before the first session. Then I ask the DM to review it (or if they even want to) before starting, to make sure they're happy with it. I know the first session is generally supposed to be used for generating and refining our first characters, but I prefer keeping that to a minimum to help speed things along.

Geddy2112

2015-07-14, 12:20 AM

On a conceptual level, I am always building character. For some, I have looked into the build and fleshed out potential ideas, but on paper it is nothing more than "Catfolk paladin, uses a bow, bad at math, worships nature deity" or "Ifirit sorcerer, destined bloodline, playboy". I am currently running on about 26 concepts.

As far as the actual build goes, I never build until I know the campaign I am playing in and any house rules/background information. This way I can tailor my backstory and mechanics to fit (like Fel's example of having detect dragon in a dragonless setting). If I can know the party beforehand the better, but I usually like to have stats on paper for the first session. My game group is pretty tight, so we normally discuss concepts as we build them, though.

Telok

2015-07-14, 03:32 AM

1: I propose a game setting/style and see if everyone buys in.
2: Email and hardcopy of the setting basics, variant rules, books allowed, starting maps, world history, gods.
3: Email and phone/text over any questions anyone has.
4: First session! I always start the party in a situation where they already know each other and can work togather. There's one final check on characters, mostly for math or derp mistakes. They make introductions and it's a go.

On a personal level I have a series of saved builds, most of them are viable from level one, including odd thoughts and personal challenges (how many time can I get Int to apply to melee damage? 4). Alternately, through DMing I've built several series of NPCs at odd levels up through 9th to use in games and I can grab one of those, add or subtract a level, switch to PC gear, and be playing in fifteen minutes.

Rhyltran

2015-07-14, 04:03 AM

So I just had an interesting discussion with a friend about when character creation should happen. I was personally of the opinion that it should be done before the first session, so the game can start right away when everyone arrives, but he was of the opinion that it should happen at the start of the first session as a means of player bonding of sorts, and also as a means of allowing more organic character creation, where you build your character to level 1 in the first session rather than planning it all the way to 20 beforehand.

So I thought I'd pose the question to the playground: When and how do you guys do your character creation?

As a DM I want to echo what a few posters have stated. I don't want people showing up with pre-generated characters. I usually require my players to do it at the first session. Mostly to make sure their concepts work with the group and the campaign but also to ensure that their characters are done correctly. I also use the 4d6 drop the lowest so it makes sense because I know some people have a tendency to fudge rolls.

As a player I prefer doing it on the first session for the reasons above but also for the reasons your friend has stated. I think it creates a bit more of a camaraderie to do it with everyone else. My experience has taught me that it usually means the players will be more excited seeing their characters interact with one another.

Lerondiel

2015-07-14, 05:55 AM

Our player group (20 people) has a mix of experience, over half have played D&D for 20 years and the rest less than 2 years.

The experienced players predictably have a hard drive full of builds they'd like to play, while the others decide on a character concept/style and look for help with the mechanics.

When a new campaign is looming the experienced players launch emails at the prospective DM with their 20 level build for approval.
If the DM doesnt see it as drowning out the other PCs or bending the rules, it's in. If it's out that's okay, each email probably had about 6 different character builds all in order of preference.

When I'm DMing I generally write up an intro and outline of the campaign to promote interest and give them an idea whether its an urban/seefaring/underdark/etc setting.

On first game night the dice come out and the room gets about the noisiest it does all campaign as the 4d6s come out...quickly to be cursed or praised. (More than a few superstitious players breathing on their dice or immediately banishing them to the bottom of the bag if they roll under 10.....they honestly think theyre in Vegas :)

I have a house rule that if 50% or more of the players roll an 18, every other player's best roll gets a free bump to an 18 as well. It's a great way to get people looking at each others rolls but not for the primary reason of cheating suspicion. (The 18s seem to happen amazingly often so there may be a little colluding but I encourage anyone to try it for the way it adds to an already eager atmosphere)

The newer players are busy calling for books, advice and help....they know how to build a basic character, they just know enough now to know it can be a lot stronger.

The experienced players that arent helping generally start swapping stories amongst each other of how many months/years ago they first wrote the character, what they're looking forward to doing with it, what builds the DM turned down, and what builds they 'almost' went with etc.

Keltest

2015-07-14, 06:11 AM

Regardless of whether or not there is a session that immediately follows it or not, I feel that character creation should be done as a group, at least initially. It gives the DM a chance to lay out expectations for how the campaign will play out and allows the party to make sure you don't end up with three fighters, two rogues and a monk.

NichG

2015-07-14, 06:35 AM

As a DM, my preference is that characters be made some time between me giving out the campaign information and the first game. I also don't mind if people play with an incomplete character and just make stuff up on the fly for the first game because they weren't done, or to do a total rebuild some point during the first few games.

What I really dislike is people deciding on a character before seeing the campaign information (or even worse, before the campaign pitch). I don't care if people have modular mechanical building blocks at hand or whatever - they're still selecting among those building blocks in response to what the campaign is going to be about and ideally what the other players want to play. I guess what I'd say is, I don't want players to come to my game thinking 'this game is just a stage to try out some mechanical idea I've been working on' (in part, because they're likely to be completely disappointed when e.g. the game has combat once every 4 sessions, or is houseruled in ways that break their build, or make it irrelevant, or whatever), and making too many of the important choices about a character in a vacuum gives off some of that feeling to me.

prufock

2015-07-14, 06:47 AM

Generally we use a Facebook chat group to discuss character building, pre-game notes, and so on. This lets us be interactive while doing it on our own time. The DM (either me or one other member) sometimes previews characters before games start to assess mistakes or broken factors. The campaign starts with session 1.

Closet_Skeleton

2015-07-14, 06:52 AM

Before the first session to save time. I used to either have a separate short session for building characters or meet with everyone individually before the first session.

Shadowscale

2015-07-14, 06:54 AM

It's fun to build during the first session and without caring what others build, parties of 4 clerics are fun.

Gracht Grabmaw

2015-07-14, 07:14 AM

Oko and Qailee

2015-07-14, 07:17 AM

Depends.

If the group has a lot of new players or will have a lot of time then I do character creation on the first session. It's a fun way to learn and it can be a bonding experience, at the same time it can eat up nearly the entire session depending on some players. Otherwise I prefer characters built ahead of time, but sent to me ahead of time if possible as well so I can see what they can do.

Vrakk

2015-07-14, 07:21 AM

I prefer to have the setting known then build the characters without getting together beforehand. It can be fun to see what combinations of characters you end up with.

Corlindale

2015-07-14, 08:00 AM

I like doing it together at the first session, but I usually have a pretty well-formed idea in advance. It's fun to discuss character builds at the table, and it's good to be able to make adjustments to both fluff and crunch to fit the setting and the other PCs. My favourite example was when me and another player had coincidentally thought up exactly the same last name for our characters independently. We immediately decided that they had to be brothers and adjusted backstories accordingly.

Brookshw

2015-07-14, 08:07 AM

Usually character concepts are discussed over a few weeks prior to session one, characters are mostly constructed by the start of session one, half of that session gets spent fine tuning and making various small adjustments and the other half on the game itself. Then if someone wants to swap something out later I'm pretty permissive.

Gabrosin

2015-07-14, 08:34 AM

I build my characters in advance of the first session, for a few reasons. One, I don't like feeling rushed. Two, I put a ton of time and energy into them, perusing various options, stitching together a ton of possibilities, researching specific gear I want to acquire, and so forth. I tend to wind up with a 1-20 character plan in precise detail, regardless of whether the campaign is likely to extend that far. Build choices inform the character's backstory. I'm gearing up to play a Jade Phoenix Bard? Let me introduce another Jade Phoenix Mage in the backstory, so when it comes time for the Rite of Waking all the DM has to do is bring in that character, if they want. Nymph's Kiss? Sure, let me create a nymph NPC. Does my character have a mentor who has turned evil? Let me ease the DM's job by presenting them a possible recurring villain. All these things take time, and occupy my spare thoughts over weeks, so building at the table feels rushed.

My group and I are all adults now with busy lives and table time is at a premium. I prefer not to waste it on character creation, which can be done "offline" much more easily than actual play.

However, there's a huge amount of merit for an inexperienced player to have a veteran sit with them and help with character creation, be it the DM or another player. As long as the vet knows how to straddle the line between offering optimization advice and letting the player do what they want to do, it works out great.

From the DM's perspective, it's important to review what your players come up with, just to locate any potential problems, rules irregularities, and so on. It can be time-consuming, but that's another reason to let it happen offline. A DM at the table only has so much time to help each person with their characters. These characters should definitely arrive on the DM's desk before the first session, so there's ample time for story tweaks to make it feel more personal for the players.

Forrestfire

2015-07-14, 09:00 AM

Most of the time my groups set up an irc, skype, or facebook chat with which to bug everyone about character creation things in the week(s) leading up to the first session. It had never occurred to me that this apparently isn't normal.

Building a competent character, especially if it's a caster (actually noncasters are probably more time-consuming, because of the necessity of decent items), often takes a lot more thought and time than you could cram into a single session, so we don't try to do so.

Amphetryon

2015-07-14, 11:16 AM

So I just had an interesting discussion with a friend about when character creation should happen. I was personally of the opinion that it should be done before the first session, so the game can start right away when everyone arrives, but he was of the opinion that it should happen at the start of the first session as a means of player bonding of sorts, and also as a means of allowing more organic character creation, where you build your character to level 1 in the first session rather than planning it all the way to 20 beforehand.

So I thought I'd pose the question to the playground: When and how do you guys do your character creation?

Doing things strictly before the first session, without consulting the group, runs into a large tendency of PCs fulfilling the same role and function in the party, in a game generally better suited to each person filling a different role. So, I try to have folks at least brainstorm ideas and expectations ("OK, J is going to be the Face/Arcane guy, A is going to be the Sneaky guy with some healing capability, and R wants to be the Amplifier who can smash faces") during a Session Zero.

That said, I strongly encourage folks to plan out their advancement ahead of time, especially in 3.5. With all the various PrCs and Feat chains, failure to do so doesn't result in what I consider a more 'organic Character,' just in a Character more likely to be ineffectual for large swaths of the adventure.

Kesnit

2015-07-14, 11:46 AM

It thankfully never happened to me because I play with very fastidious and reliable people, but if you show up to a game without a character ready, I'm gonna resent you for it. You're just wasting everybody's time.

This is my attitude. Building in 3.5 (especially if the game is starting above LVL 1) takes time. By showing up without a character, you are telling everyone else that you are too "busy" to do the work beforehand. Instead, everyone has to wait for you to "get around to" doing what everyone else did in the days leading up to the session.

My group and I are all adults now with busy lives and table time is at a premium. I prefer not to waste it on character creation, which can be done "offline" much more easily than actual play.

This.

However, there's a huge amount of merit for an inexperienced player to have a veteran sit with them and help with character creation, be it the DM or another player. As long as the vet knows how to straddle the line between offering optimization advice and letting the player do what they want to do, it works out great.

I do that for the inexperienced player in our group. He and I FaceBook chat about what he wants, then I go build it. (He gave me a heart attack the other day because he said he wanted a Half-Elf Fighter Archer. I hinted that Rogue would be better, and he agreed.)

From the DM's perspective, it's important to review what your players come up with, just to locate any potential problems, rules irregularities, and so on. It can be time-consuming, but that's another reason to let it happen offline.

This, as well. For our new campaign, I built a rather complex PC. (Well, complex for our group. A CG Changing Saint Warlock/Cloistered Cleric/Eldritch Disciple with Vow of Poverty.) I sent all the info about the PC to the DM about 10 days before the first session, just so she would know what I am doing. Haven't heard back from her yet (game is tomorrow), but at least she can't say I didn't warn her!

Even without complexity, though, if the DM has to go over every character sheet (which should happen), that leaves a lot of time for players who aren't being reviewed to have to just sit around. This just takes more time away from playing.

Flickerdart

2015-07-14, 12:03 PM

I do that for the inexperienced player in our group. He and I FaceBook chat about what he wants, then I go build it. (He gave me a heart attack the other day because he said he wanted a Half-Elf Fighter Archer. I hinted that Rogue would be better, and he agreed.)
Ehhhhhh...archer fighters are quite decent, especially when your definition of archer isn't "shoot the guy 30-60 feet away."

Kesnit

2015-07-14, 12:08 PM

Ehhhhhh...archer fighters are quite decent, especially when your definition of archer isn't "shoot the guy 30-60 feet away."

If that's what he had decided he'd wanted, I would have built it for him. He's a great guy and a good friend, but struggles when it comes to making decisions in game. One of his previous PCs (built by another player) was a Druid. The guy tried, but was overwhelmed with all the options. The last character I built for him was a greataxe using Barbarian. He did fine with that, since I had pre-calculated his PA attack and damage, so all he had to do was "roll to hit, roll for damage."

Extra Anchovies

2015-07-14, 12:10 PM

I'd actually say that Rogues are worse archers than fighters. They don't have the BAB to keep up in accuracy and there are very few reliable means of getting sneak attack at range other than winning initiative and hoping to kill your enemy in one round. Also, Fighters can much more easily afford the feat costs inherent to archery, and in Pathfinder they pull even farther ahead because they have the BAB to easily support Deadly Aim, plus they get the bonuses to hit/damage from Weapon Training.

Also, why would you suggest Rogue for an archer? Swift Hunter is miles better (and also probably the best non-full-caster archer), and even single-classed Scout does a better job of it than the Rogue does.

Kesnit

2015-07-14, 12:15 PM

LoyalPaladin

2015-07-14, 12:21 PM

I generally try to get my 1-20 done about a week or two before the campaign starts. Our group will talk about what the party needs and all the extra fluff, then we'll break and build before the actual first session. We're fairly efficient, since we all prefer different roles.

MesiDoomstalker

2015-07-14, 01:08 PM

Depends on which group the game is for.

My IRL group, we'll meet at our normal start date, with the DM having a basic idea for the campaign (or the book if its an Adventure Path/Campaign Module). He will tell us character generation rules and then we discuss from there. Normally, we'd take our pick of party role trying to stay as close as possible to the traditional 4 man party (though we have never actually made one). Then we are turned loose. I personally can finish all but mid-to-high level character before our session is done (sans backstory), others usually need the next week to finish.

If its with my various groups on the forum, we hash out the game and I throw together a character mechanically then backstory. Process can take 3 days to 3 months depending on those involved.

atemu1234

2015-07-14, 01:46 PM

I communicate with players prior to the game so that they have premade characters.

Telonius

2015-07-14, 09:42 PM

I always talk with each of the players about their character concepts before the first session. Otherwise, it depends on the group. If there are a lot of newbies, or experienced players who haven't played together before, the first session is character generation. It's much easier to spot power discrepancies, or even playstyle issues, that way. It gives them a lot more of a clue what to expect.

If it's with a group that's gamed together before, that's when bringing a pregenerated character to the first session is most appropriate. You know what to expect, let's get down to gaming.

Honest Tiefling

2015-07-15, 11:35 AM

I try to show up with a full fledged character, with some workings of a backstory and some idea of level advancement. I am a very indecisive person you see, and I think I rather spare the party me going over options for an hour. I'm the type of person who will debate what color of horse to buy in an MMO for quite some time. Which unfortunately means I am the type of player who will bug the DM for some sort of setting details so I can have some bare bones story going in.

However, I much prefer to have a session 0 despite that, especially if others need help with builds. I am also not terribly fond of not having some sort of thing tying the characters together. Why would my PC associate with rather dangerous people they know nothing about again? I also have had too many groups that refer to everyone by class and/or race without even learning each other's names. Does not really facilitate the role play in my opinion.

Jay R

2015-07-15, 02:09 PM

Over the course of a week or two after reading the DM's campaign introduction, through a process of many email exchanges between players and the DMs and among all the players.

By the time I show up at the table, I want all my questions about rules interpretations and allowed supplements answered, with time to think after the answers. I want to know who's bringing meat, who's bringing snacks, and who's bringing drinks. I want to know enough about the other PCs that we have a balanced party. And then I want time to program my character's abilities into an Excel spreadsheet - after approval of every aspect by the DM.

Terazul

2015-07-15, 03:07 PM

Most of the time my groups set up an irc, skype, or facebook chat with which to bug everyone about character creation things in the week(s) leading up to the first session. It had never occurred to me that this apparently isn't normal.

Yeah... here in the information age, most of my groups either play online or have an easy online contact method. Email, GroupMe, IRC, Vent/Mumble. We'll end up discussing things at some point. In fact, we usually just set up a wiki for the campaign, so people tend to post their concepts/questions and they get revised/answered up to the date of actual play.

For most 3.5 games I typically pull out and revise one of my pre-made builds; between all the years of published content (and homebrew content for my more lenient GMs) I have a ton of interesting concepts/characters that have never gotten to see play. Typically no stats, but at least a roadmap of what I plan to do/be good at. It's pretty normal for me that if I stumble across a mechanic/feat/spell that tickles my fancy I'll toss together a loose sheet for it to use later, and then whip em out when I finally have an opportunity to see it through. Because of this, I usually let the other party members decide what they're interested in playing first, and then drop in with whatever rounds us out.

IcarusWulfe

2015-07-15, 08:38 PM

In my group, we generally build characters during the first session of a given campaign. It allows for the party to figure out what everyone else wants to play and work on party composition. It also lets everyone have access to more sourcebooks as not every member has access to their own books.

Note. I personally like to have my own character ready for the first session so I can help the others but that's just my personal preference.

BWR

2015-07-16, 08:59 AM

When starting a campaign we do everything at the table. That means we can iron out an niggling details, set proper guidelines, help coordinate the group so people can have help with ideas if they are stuck, etc. Making new characters after the game has been going a while is pretty much 'do however you want' so long as stats are rolled witnessed by the DM.
The idea of letting people come with whatever they want to the first session is odd. Maybe if there were proper guidelines and whatnot given beforehand but it would feel as though something were missing

Scheming Wizard

2015-07-16, 02:00 PM

Lots of reasons.

The first is bad experiences with people simply cheating. And, on a related note, people making major errors that require significant revision. I don't like having to hold things up while someone has to erase half their sheet and start over, y'know? It's not fair to the rest of the players.

I also like to roll for stats. I'm a 4d6 drop low guy (though I recognize the advantages of point buy systems). With my current group, yeah, I trust them to roll stats honestly, but that's not always the case. Pretty minor, really; I'm willing to tolerate a little bit of cheating on that sort of thing, but I prefer people do it with some restraint, and I feel like there's too much temptation when people aren't with the rest of the group.

As a DM, I also don't really prepare campaigns, as such. I'm not interested in telling a story to the players. What I want to do is create an environment that allows them to tell and create their own stories, both in and out of character. I want the players to create the characters that they want to play, and then I'll make what they want to do work. So I'll let them use a portion of that first session to figure out how they're going to fit together, and I'll use that time to figure out how to fit the world around them. It's easier for me to do that when I'm around the process of the characters being created, and I think it helps the players get a better handle on the capacities of the other characters. It also lets the other players act as a sort of common-sense check on what jedipotter might have called 'problem players' (a category which unfortunately included everyone). I'm willing to veto things; that's part of the job of the DM, but I find it comes better from the other players, who're wondering how someone's going to fit their Llolth-Touched Gravetouched Ghoul Water Orc into a game focused on playing court politics with the Silvanesti Speaker of the Stars. Obviously that's not always a problem, but sometimes I feel that maybe there's too much of a focus on making one's character a special snowflake, and slightly less on the fact that Dungeons and Dragons is a cooperative, communal game about creating a shared experience. Having all the players sit down and create their dudes and dudettes together reinforces that point.

And sometimes when you're lucky, your players do the work of putting the party together for you. And that's always a bonus.

If your worried about people cheating on their ability score rolls you might want to try the point buy system.

Nifft

2015-07-16, 02:18 PM

Decide on your character while communicating with the group (including me, the DM).
- This may mean we do character discussion for the first session, or it may mean discussion on the online group.
- First session may also include "city building", which I steal directly from the Dresden Files RPG.
- I don't care if you "do the math" at the table or at home and post it online. The important thing is that most of the defining choices -- class, goals, high concept -- were done in front of the group, and so you have a basic idea about what everyone else is doing.

Point buy, always. This removes an incentive for deception, and an excuse for mistrust.
- The only times I've ever seen someone show up with a character that they "rolled in advance", the characters' ability scores have been significantly above average. Not saying all of them were cheating liars, but I'd wager some were.

Backstory connections. Sometimes it's cool to have the PCs know each other from before, and have a reason for traveling together. That's easiest if the PC backstories are discussed by the group before the first combat.

Campaign expectations. Between the mechanical implications of the character choices and their backstories, I usually get some idea about what sorts of goals the group is interested in pursuing. If the design happens at the same time, character goals (and therefore player goals) tend to be better aligned, which makes my job easier, and they seem to have more fun.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2015-07-16, 02:22 PM

If your worried about people cheating on their ability score rolls you might want to try the point buy system.

Like I said, I recognize the advantages of point buy systems. I simply don't really like them most of the time. Given that I'm going to have my players create characters in person anyway, switching to point buy does nothing for me.

Nifft

2015-07-16, 02:34 PM

Like I said, I recognize the advantages of point buy systems. I simply don't really like them most of the time. Given that I'm going to have my players create characters in person anyway, switching to point buy does nothing for me.

What point buy does for me is:

- Allow re-design. If a player wants to try something out, and then later (when rebuilds are allowed) decides to go in a different direction, it allows fair rebuilding from the ground up.

- Easy to add a new character to an established group. This is important when a character dies, or when a new player joins. We don't have to take time out of a session to roll and build.

Shadowscale

2015-07-16, 06:09 PM

Y'all areisding out on the fun of accidently having 4 clerics by talking about things in advance. Also, one would think planning out everything from 1-20 takes out some of the fun.

Amphetryon

2015-07-16, 08:04 PM

Y'all areisding out on the fun of accidently having 4 clerics by talking about things in advance. Also, one would think planning out everything from 1-20 takes out some of the fun.

That seems to indicate there's more than one valid way to have fun. That can't be right.

OldTrees1

2015-07-16, 08:07 PM

Y'all areisding out on the fun of accidently having 4 clerics by talking about things in advance. Also, one would think planning out everything from 1-20 takes out some of the fun.

I have a Crusader, a Swordsage, and a Warblade in my group. They all created characters together on the first session. So while it was not a accidental, you can still enjoy this fun despite talking about things in advance.

Forrestfire

2015-07-16, 08:39 PM

Y'all areisding out on the fun of accidently having 4 clerics by talking about things in advance. Also, one would think planning out everything from 1-20 takes out some of the fun.

Personally, I've found the opposite. Planning out everything from 1 to something, at least, is mandatory in 3.x because of the way prerequisites work (especially for martial characters, who can't afford not to in most cases).

Also, a party of 4 clerics can be even more fun when you talk things out in advance. The cleric is versatile enough to cover every possible party role if you want, so you can each specialize in different things and be a mean, lean, god-fearing machine :smallbiggrin:

gooddragon1

2015-07-16, 09:03 PM

Curmudgeon

2015-07-16, 10:03 PM

People will pick roles to fill in discussion (usually by e-mail) ahead of time, then the building is done individually, ahead of the first game. There's never any dice rolling before the first game. Point buy is used for the abilities. 1st level money is always the average for the class. Height and weight are also average unless there's a mechanical reason (such as Skinny (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#skinny) or Stout (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#stout) traits) to go to an extreme. If the game starts at higher than 1st level, hit points are figured as average + ½ each level (which averages the same as rolling with all 1s rerolled). We use online character sheets, and issues can be addressed without spending game time.

Elkad

2015-07-16, 10:58 PM

Hiro Quester

2015-07-16, 11:43 PM

While I've got ideas kicking around, I have never preplanned a character 1-20.

I've kept a list of what skills/feats I needed for a PrC on occasion, but I've never had a sheet ready more than 1 level in advance. And quite often my character develops in a way I didn't intend, so I've changed my build path on the way.

Which leads to sub-optimal characters at times, but it makes them "characters" not just collections of stats.

I have usually planned out a 1-20 progression for my characters. But those plans have never survived.

By level 10 or so, the interaction between my character, other players, and the story has led to major deviations from that plan. I have never followed a plan all the way through.

For example, I'm currently playing a Druid. Original plan was true neutral Druid all the way. But after meeting a charismatic monk NPC my Druid converted to lawful neutral and trained with him to take a level of monk at 6th level (because after getting wildshape, he was increasingly in the frontline melee damage role; wis to AC, iterative unarmed strikes, and improved grapple augment wildshape combat well).

And recently, now at 9th level, we have had some eye-opening encounters with exploitively evil NPCs, and some of my fellow PCs have veered into the deeper end of the neutral alignment spectrum, while others have remained lawful or good. Having a "Road to Damascus" awakening, my character realized that lawfulness is antithetical to the balance between law and chaos required for a healthy ecosystem. Deliberate intentional, selfish, exploitive evil is the chief problem that needs to be resisted. So my Druid is now trying to be exaltedly neutral good, and pumping skills into survival to be able to take Lion of Talisid PrC.

These deviations from the original (so I though fairly well optimized) plan may be suboptimal, but more fitting with the story and context and with changes in party role. And more fun to play.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2015-07-17, 12:30 AM

What point buy does for me is:

- Allow re-design. If a player wants to try something out, and then later (when rebuilds are allowed) decides to go in a different direction, it allows fair rebuilding from the ground up.

- Easy to add a new character to an established group. This is important when a character dies, or when a new player joins. We don't have to take time out of a session to roll and build.

It's, uh, not like rolling takes that much time. Probably just as much as mathing out your point buy.

Shadowscale

2015-07-17, 01:08 AM

It's, uh, not like rolling takes that much time. Probably just as much as mathing out your point buy.

Point but seems communist, luck makes the game more fun, you have three dump stats, role play opportunity and a challenge to overcome, keeps things interesting.

Curmudgeon

2015-07-17, 01:11 AM

Point but seems communist, luck makes the game more fun ...
There's nothing "more fun" about having a character idea in mind, that simply won't work because you didn't get the scores you need.

Shadowscale

2015-07-17, 01:13 AM

There's nothing "more fun" about having a character idea in mind, that simply won't work because you didn't get the scores you need.

If you roll under 10 total one can refill says core, with that any build is possible. Plus, if you die you reroll and the character gets a Darwin award.

Extra Anchovies

2015-07-17, 01:33 AM

Are we really going to get into rolled stats vs point buy?

The purpose of this game is to have fun. Anything that enhances your enjoyment of the game is a good thing to have in your game, and anything that detracts from it is a bad thing to have in your game.

I don't like having to deal with an extremely low score in any of my stats, because I don't play Dungeons and Dragons (or Pathfinder) to create characters who are weaker, slower, less intelligent, or otherwise worse than me, unless I intentionally plan for them to be so. I play this game with the expectation that all of my characters won't be more than slightly below average in any particular area (and I can thus put up with higher-powered generation methods like 1d10+8 or 1d12+6, although I'd still prefer a high-value point buy), because I don't want to play average joes - I want to play heroes. I don't want my character to be challenged by their own fogged intellect or atrophied muscles - I want them to be challenged by external threats.

Rolled stats introduces a level of irreversible randomness into the game that I am not generally comfortable with and that I do not usually enjoy. To me, randomly generated ability scores are (in most cases) bad.

Others like the permanent randomness of rolled stats. They are open to the idea of taking a character who's barely capable of speaking Common and trying to roleplay that out, because that is the sort of challenge they look for in their games. To them, randomly generated ability scores are (in most cases) good.

I'm fine with people sharing why they prefer rolled stats or purchased stats, but trying to argue that one method of ability score generation is better won't produce anything meaningful.

Curmudgeon

2015-07-17, 02:56 AM

If you roll under 10 total one can refill says core, with that any build is possible.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but "any build is possible" is certainly not true. Here's the actual rule (Player's Handbook, page 8):
REROLLING
If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower.
You could have scores of 14, 11, 11, 11, 11, 9 and be considered perfectly fine (total modifiers +1; highest score above 13). If you had intended to build a Human Fighter starting with Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense, both of which require DEX 15, your build is not possible.

NichG

2015-07-17, 03:28 AM

In rolled-stats games, approaching the game with an idea for your character before you roll is exactly the wrong way to go. A big point of that kind of randomness is to force people to play a variety of characters and adapt to not having complete control. If you go into such a game with the insistence of 'I will play this', then naturally you'll be disappointed. The original rolled systems tend to be ones with higher character replacement rates and simpler character mechanics, so they didn't really encourage pre-planned 'builds' at all.

I'm not saying 'rolled stat games are better' or anything like that. Just that, yeah, different systems will appeal to different behaviors and styles of gameplay, and of course when you try to force something adapted to one style into another style it'll be awkward or unpleasant. But if you can adapt your own expectations to suit the game rather than expecting the game to automatically suit you, you might find it possible to enjoy a wider set of games than otherwise.

Nifft

2015-07-17, 03:32 AM

It's, uh, not like rolling takes that much time. Probably just as much as mathing out your point buy.

It actually does. Rolling in front of the group implies a huge span of time which must happen at the table.

This is true even though rolling itself doesn't take very long.

Why?

Because rolling must happen before every other part of character creation. Thus, if you're rolling for stats in front of the DM, you can't do any of the build at home before the game.

Point Buy means that character creation can happen away from the table, without any chance of cheating or lying or whatever else causes people to want rolls to happen in where the DM can see them.

Amphetryon

2015-07-17, 05:26 AM

Shadowscale

2015-07-17, 07:00 AM

Jay R

2015-07-17, 08:14 AM

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but "any build is possible" is certainly not true. Here's the actual rule (Player's Handbook, page 8):
You could have scores of 14, 11, 11, 11, 11, 9 and be considered perfectly fine (total modifiers +1; highest score above 13). If you had intended to build a Human Fighter starting with Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense, both of which require DEX 15, your build is not possible.

Yes, you're right. Any build is not always possible. In fact, if you could make any build with any rolls, then the rolls stopped being meaningful.

I have no problem with people playing the way that works for them, so I'm not trying to push one direction or the other. But I will point out that you are evaluating one playstyle using an assumption from the other one.

When using random rolls, you don't start building the character at all until all the rolls are in. So you don't plan for a Fighter with specific feats and then roll. You roll and then see what you can do.

I started with original D&D in 1975, and we rolled 3d6, in order. You couldn't even decide you're playing a Fighter until you see what your strength score is.

I'm not saying that people should play that way, but if there is randomness, you should not make plans until the relevant dice are rolled.

You look at the rolls and make a build off of them. You don't decide what build you want and then look at the rolls to see if you can have it.

That's like deciding you're going to buy Boardwalk before you roll the die to see where you land, or deciding what your first move in the chess game is before finding out if you're black or white.

Again, play the way you like. But if you choose to base the character off of random rolls, then base the character off of the rolls.

Forrestfire

2015-07-17, 11:50 AM

Then you put the 14 into dex and go without the feat until you can take it? Seriously, you don't have to be optimal to play.

Saying "you don't get to play your character concept for at least a few weeks and possibly several months depending on exp gains because you rolled badly" seems like a really terrible way to do things. It's not about 'optimal,' it's about 'possible.' Keeping up with the rest of the party is important, and someone with two swords attacking at -1/-5 is not going to do that. Your "you don't have to be optimal" is tantamount to saying "I don't think your character should be possible if you roll badly."

The game is about collaborative storytelling between you and the other players. Adding a randomness gate at the door with a chance of going "well, I guess you can't use the idea you liked, sucks to be you" is anti-fun.

Personally though, since adventuring is a tough job, it probably makes sense in-universe for someone with stats that low to end up being something like a farmer or a craftsman, rather than an adventurer. At which point it'd make sense to reroll until you got something that doesn't force you to play an optimized spellcaster to be able to keep up with the rest of the party.

I started with original D&D in 1975, and we rolled 3d6, in order. You couldn't even decide you're playing a Fighter until you see what your strength score is.

Even in 1st edition AD&D, they knew that rolling 3d6 straight down was a terrible idea. Of the five methods given for stat generation, none of them are what you described. Using that as some sort of qualifier to support your method really falls flat when your method wasn't even a default option in D&D outside of the basic boxes. :smallsigh:

(On a side note, I enjoy rolling stats, myself. I still think it's a terrible way to do things if there's no fallback/safety net for getting utterly useless stat arrays, but I enjoy the randomness. Can't resist random tables in games either. If I expect rolled stats, I'll put together multiple concepts and builds in my head, generally planning out contingencies for if a stat is bad or if I get lucky. Building the fluff and crunch beforehand and then just assign stats when needed, I guess.)

MyrPsychologist

2015-07-17, 12:04 PM

Times when I build a character at the first session:

1. Stat rolls or other randomization is required.
2. It's a system I'm not very comfortable with.
3. It is requested by the GM or another player for whatever reason.

In all other circumstances I tend to build on my own. Not because I want to be a jerk or cheat but because I want to avoid altering or changing my idea due to subconscious meta. I will always clear the concept first to make sure I don't step on someone's toes but would rather focus on making something that I find enjoyable and logical instead of shoehorning in small things for group optimization purposes.

Jay R

2015-07-17, 03:33 PM

Even in 1st edition AD&D, they knew that rolling 3d6 straight down was a terrible idea. Of the five methods given for stat generation, none of them are what you described. Using that as some sort of qualifier to support your method really falls flat when your method wasn't even a default option in D&D outside of the basic boxes. :smallsigh:

I repeat: I started with original D&D in 1975. This is before either Basic or AD&D.

And it's not a "terrible idea". We had lots of great games with it. It is now an unpopular idea, but unless there's only one true way, and anybody who enjoys anything else is having badwrongfun, that doesn't make it terrible.

Aetis

2015-07-17, 03:38 PM

I find that players like building characters at their own leisure, away from the table.

If the group is full of new players who have not played the game before, then using the first session to build characters is recommended. It's a bonding experience of some sorts.

Otherwise, I expect people to have finished characters that were already checked off by the DM when they sit down at the table. No need to waste play-time.

Nifft

2015-07-17, 04:23 PM

I repeat: I started with original D&D in 1975. This is before either Basic or AD&D.

And it's not a "terrible idea". We had lots of great games with it. It is now an unpopular idea, but unless there's only one true way, and anybody who enjoys anything else is having badwrongfun, that doesn't make it terrible.

3d6 down the line, no swap, is a fine method when characters are expected to be disposable.

That's exactly how we played Red Box / Blue Box, so it worked great for us at the time.

In a modern game, it seems that characters are not expected to be disposable.

This is a significant change from how OD&D worked, and that's fine.

Different editions seem to work best with different chargen.

Shadowscale

2015-07-17, 04:54 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize y'all didn't usually progress a level or three each month.

Crake

2015-07-19, 08:03 PM

It actually does. Rolling in front of the group implies a huge span of time which must happen at the table.

This is true even though rolling itself doesn't take very long.

Why?

Because rolling must happen before every other part of character creation. Thus, if you're rolling for stats in front of the DM, you can't do any of the build at home before the game.

Point Buy means that character creation can happen away from the table, without any chance of cheating or lying or whatever else causes people to want rolls to happen in where the DM can see them.

I think it's worth noting that all the arguments against rolling due to the fact that it has to happen at the table in front of the DM are ignoring the use of digital dice rolling methods that can be done online, like roll20. So saying that dice rolling is bad because it needs to be done at the table and stops you from being able to build your character at your own pace isn't really true anymore, thanks to technology (unless your DM is paranoid somehow and doesn't trust digital dice :smallannoyed:)

Rhyltran

2015-07-19, 08:19 PM

Nifft

2015-07-19, 08:30 PM

I think it's worth noting that all the arguments against rolling due to the fact that it has to happen at the table in front of the DM are ignoring the use of digital dice rolling methods that can be done online, like roll20. So saying that dice rolling is bad because it needs to be done at the table and stops you from being able to build your character at your own pace isn't really true anymore, thanks to technology (unless your DM is paranoid somehow and doesn't trust digital dice :smallannoyed:)

Unless you have a high degree of technical mastery, it's not at all obvious how to catch players who are trying to cheat via digital dice. Write down your procedure, I'll tell you if it's vulnerable.

If you're assuming your players would never cheat, then using digital or real dice is identical, but ... that kinda means your point is irrelevant.

It's not the (physical or digital) dice which are untrustworthy.

It's the people.

Brova

2015-07-19, 09:55 PM

Unless you have a high degree of technical mastery, it's not at all obvious how to catch players who are trying to cheat via digital dice. Write down your procedure, I'll tell you if it's vulnerable.

If you're assuming your players would never cheat, then using digital or real dice is identical, but ... that kinda means your point is irrelevant.

It's not the (physical or digital) dice which are untrustworthy.

It's the people.

If you want to securely roll dice over the internet, the solution is obvious - have the DM roll the dice. Now, he could also cheat, but if your DM is the kind of DM to screw people over before character creation starts, you probably need a new DM.

Curmudgeon

2015-07-19, 10:38 PM

If you want to securely roll dice over the internet, the solution is obvious - have the DM roll the dice.
Yes, that would deal with the problem by giving the DM more work to do. But what's the advantage, over using point buy and letting the DM spend more time fleshing out the campaign?

Crake

2015-07-19, 11:12 PM

Unless you have a high degree of technical mastery, it's not at all obvious how to catch players who are trying to cheat via digital dice. Write down your procedure, I'll tell you if it's vulnerable.

If you're assuming your players would never cheat, then using digital or real dice is identical, but ... that kinda means your point is irrelevant.

It's not the (physical or digital) dice which are untrustworthy.

It's the people.

Easy, have both DM and player in the same roll20 campaign at the same time, then the DM declares "roll your abilities now" then player then proceeds to roll 4d6k3 6 times and hey presto, ability score generated. Not sure how that'd be vulnerable in any way?

Edit: I feel like this is almost becoming a roll20 plug, though to be honest, they deserve it, roll20 is awesome.

Elkad

2015-07-19, 11:44 PM

Easy, have both DM and player in the same roll20 campaign at the same time, then the DM declares "roll your abilities now" then player then proceeds to roll 4d6k3 6 times and hey presto, ability score generated. Not sure how that'd be vulnerable in any way?

Edit: I feel like this is almost becoming a roll20 plug, though to be honest, they deserve it, roll20 is awesome.

Works plenty of other ways too. Same campaign on a RPTools server. Any online dice app + screensharing via skype or google whiteboard or whatever. I've never examined rolling here, but I assume it's at least semi-cheatproof. You hit post, GM looks at the result immediately.

Nifft

2015-07-19, 11:46 PM

Easy, have both DM and player in the same roll20 campaign at the same time, then the DM declares "roll your abilities now" then player then proceeds to roll 4d6k3 6 times and hey presto, ability score generated. Not sure how that'd be vulnerable in any way? That means the DM has to spend "table time" with each player. That saves travel, but not time.

The same could be accomplished with Skype and physical dice.

That's not an advantage of "digital dice", since it requires identical coordination and scheduling.

So sure, if you've all already got accounts on the same virtual table platform, then that probably works... but now you're talking about:
- Pick a virtual tabletop platform
- Every player makes an account
- Log in at the same time as me
- Then, roll

... which is a bit more involved than just "digital dice".

If you already play on a VTT platform, then I'm sure it seems like a natural answer to you.

Crake

2015-07-20, 12:42 AM

That means the DM has to spend "table time" with each player. That saves travel, but not time.

The same could be accomplished with Skype and physical dice.

That's not an advantage of "digital dice", since it requires identical coordination and scheduling.

So sure, if you've all already got accounts on the same virtual table platform, then that probably works... but now you're talking about:
- Pick a virtual tabletop platform
- Every player makes an account
- Log in at the same time as me
- Then, roll

... which is a bit more involved than just "digital dice".

If you already play on a VTT platform, then I'm sure it seems like a natural answer to you.

Well, roll20 has a persistent chatlog, so you don't even need to log in at the same time, as long as the player declares that he/she is rolling abilities before rolling, so they cant just roll, decide they don't like it, and say "oh that was a "practise roll" or something.

And no, a player and DM logging into a virtual tabletop together at the same time does not count as "table time". One on one time the DM spends with another player is not necessarily table time, especially since it doesn't detract from other people's time. Table time is when all the players and the DM get together with the intention of playing the game. You're just expanding the meaning of it to suit your argument.

Shadowscale

2015-07-21, 01:03 AM

I'm nort even sure what the point buy people are arguing over. Obviously you prefer your static system where everyone is equal and without variance, fine. What confuses me is you try to defend point buy as the ultimate system by saying rolling is "too time consuming" and other excuses. No, I think your DM rolling 6 D6's for each of his players and sending them a message stating the rolls doesn't take up too much of anyone's time, did I really just read that?

Nifft

2015-07-21, 02:35 AM

No, I think your DM rolling 6 D6's for each of his players and sending them a message stating the rolls doesn't take up too much of anyone's time, did I really just read that?

AFAICT you're the first one to mention the idea of the DM rolling for the player.

If your players would accept that, then more power to you.

Everyone with whom I've played seems to assume that they will roll their own stats.

Amphetryon

2015-07-21, 09:41 AM

Shadowscale

2015-07-21, 09:48 AM

If you believe that Point Buy produces Characters 'without variance,' I'm going to ask you to explain/defend that POV, please.

Everyone is basically forced to play with static stats that essentially end up with everyone having the same "points" this is without variance of rolling high or low and adapting accordingly which can give rp opportunity and the ability to try out something that point buys struggle with, for example a high roller playing a monk or a low roller having more interesting dump stats on their cleric. Am I wrong on this?

Amphetryon

2015-07-21, 10:18 AM

Everyone is basically forced to play with static stats that essentially end up with everyone having the same "points" this is without variance of rolling high or low and adapting accordingly which can give rp opportunity and the ability to try out something that point buys struggle with, for example a high roller playing a monk or a low roller having more interesting dump stats on their cleric. Am I wrong on this?

3.5 edition, 32-point buy:

(All stats are before Racial adjustment and merely arranged low to high, not in any assigned order)

Player 1 uses it for stats of 11, 11, 12, 14, 14, 16

Player 2 uses it for stats of 8, 12, 12, 12, 12, 18

Player 3 uses it for stats of 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18

Player 4 uses it for stats of 10, 10, 10, 11, 16, 17

Player 5 uses it for stats of 8, 11, 12, 14, 14, 17

You don't see any variance there? You don't see dump stats there? Could you explain how any of those sets of stats prevent 'rp opportunity'? For that matter, why is being bad at something inherently 'interesting,' exactly? If you're making a Cleric, you already know where your most reasonable spots for a dump stat are (INT, possibly STR or DEX if you have more than one); any other choice - assuming a choice is available - is less being 'interesting' and more deliberately fighting against the system. Every other base Class has similar prime spots for potential dump stats, as illustrated by the various handbooks. If you choose to ignore those prime spots and instead make, for example, a Barbarian who deliberately dumps CON, you're doing some combination of 3 things:

Intentionally playing on 'Hard Mode,' hopefully with DM foreknowledge
Using your system mastery to obviate the disadvantage you've built into your Character
Painting yourself as a potential 'Problem Player' who fights against how the game functions

. . . and all of the above can be done with point-buy as well as with rolled stats.

Shadowscale

2015-07-21, 04:25 PM

Rhyltran

2015-07-21, 04:42 PM

That means the DM has to spend "table time" with each player. That saves travel, but not time.

The same could be accomplished with Skype and physical dice.

That's not an advantage of "digital dice", since it requires identical coordination and scheduling.

So sure, if you've all already got accounts on the same virtual table platform, then that probably works... but now you're talking about:
- Pick a virtual tabletop platform
- Every player makes an account
- Log in at the same time as me
- Then, roll

... which is a bit more involved than just "digital dice".

If you already play on a VTT platform, then I'm sure it seems like a natural answer to you.

What's the difference between the DM having the player join a Roll20 session with his player at the same time than discussing what is expected of the campaign together? At some point the DM is going to be communicating with the players before the campaign. Why can't the DM do that while using a digital dice roller to roll for scores?

tiornys

2015-07-21, 05:09 PM

I personally feel these games are supposed to have pcs as varied as real life which would explain the random generation of rolling as each individual is unique. Truly I really only see point but thrown out for optimizers and those who feel they need to compete at these games.
Some people want to play with organically varied PCs, and that's fine, and randomizing works well for this. Other people want to play specific heroic archetypes (or other specific character concepts), and randomizing does not work well. It's not just about optimizers or head-to-head competition (although certainly both of these work better under the constraints of point-buy). The desire to play, for example, Black Widow as closely as I can translate her into whatever system I'm playing has little to do with optimization and nothing to do with competition.

There's no wrong way to have fun as long as everyone involved is having fun.

Nifft

2015-07-21, 05:16 PM

What's the difference between the DM having the player join a Roll20 session with his player at the same time than discussing what is expected of the campaign together? At some point the DM is going to be communicating with the players before the campaign. Why can't the DM do that while using a digital dice roller to roll for scores?

I can get email at work.

Sometimes, I can get on forums.

Loading up a VTT is not a possibility, though.

Being able to have a discussion which is not required to be real-time is very convenient to me.

Rhyltran

2015-07-21, 05:31 PM

Amphetryon

2015-07-21, 05:54 PM

All I was saying is the random thrill of rolling for stats allows for true number variance, for example one could end up with a 3 in an attribute, which can be a serious handicap to role play and play around with. Point big seems artificial on the account that you pretty much just build yourself to be as optimal as you want and the players all have the exact same attribute potential.

I personally feel these games are supposed to have pcs as varied as real life which would explain the random generation of rolling as each individual is unique. Truly I really only see point but thrown out for optimizers and those who feel they need to compete at these games.By default, if you're rolling AND you wound up with a 3, the odds are pretty good that, according to the PHb, you'll be allowed a reroll after you've finished, because your total modifier will have a major hindrance to overcome to be officially playable in 3.X. Granted, you could lobby to play the Character anyway, and I've rarely seen a DM who uses rolled stats decline a Player's request to play bad rolls.

Could you explain why you find it more fun to play a Character with stats of, for instance, 3 9 12 15 11 10 (not in order) alongside a Character with stats of 11 12 13 16 16 17, than you do to be on relatively equal footing? I'm honestly curious what's fun about being less able to contribute, less capable, and more likely to require the other Players to contribute more within the dice-oriented aspects of D&D 3.5 in order to make up for the inherent weaknesses of the first set of stats on a Character. I'm honestly curious as to the motivations in-game for the other PCs to have chosen that particular adventurer, of all potential applicants, as the one to bring into deadly situations many times a day. I would feel much more like a liability than a fellow adventurer in that situation; that's not about competing; that's about contributing in the actually dice-driven portions of a game that is built to be incredibly dice-driven.

mostholycerebus

2015-07-21, 09:19 PM

I start the very second I receive the House Rules document from the GM.

Crake

2015-07-21, 09:29 PM

I can get email at work.

Sometimes, I can get on forums.

Loading up a VTT is not a possibility, though.

Being able to have a discussion which is not required to be real-time is very convenient to me.

Thats why i specifically mentioned places with persistent chat logs. You can hop in, declare you're rolling stats, roll them, and then the DM is able to look through the chatlogs at a later point to find your abilities.

By default, if you're rolling AND you wound up with a 3, the odds are pretty good that, according to the PHb, you'll be allowed a reroll after you've finished, because your total modifier will have a major hindrance to overcome to be officially playable in 3.X. Granted, you could lobby to play the Character anyway, and I've rarely seen a DM who uses rolled stats decline a Player's request to play bad rolls.

Could you explain why you find it more fun to play a Character with stats of, for instance, 3 9 12 15 11 10 (not in order) alongside a Character with stats of 11 12 13 16 16 17, than you do to be on relatively equal footing? I'm honestly curious what's fun about being less able to contribute, less capable, and more likely to require the other Players to contribute more within the dice-oriented aspects of D&D 3.5 in order to make up for the inherent weaknesses of the first set of stats on a Character. I'm honestly curious as to the motivations in-game for the other PCs to have chosen that particular adventurer, of all potential applicants, as the one to bring into deadly situations many times a day. I would feel much more like a liability than a fellow adventurer in that situation; that's not about competing; that's about contributing in the actually dice-driven portions of a game that is built to be incredibly dice-driven.

I think he's referring to the idea that a flawed character is a more relatable and likable character. That being said, an 8 is still achievable with point buy, and a 3 in an ability is less a flaw and more a crippling drawback that could make your character nigh-unplayable, especiall against anything that might damage that ability score. 3 cha? down in 1 ego whip, 3 str? down in 1 shadow touch (and turned into a shadow 1d4 rounds later too, so screws your party over big time). There's nothing stopping you from having a flawed character with point buy. I'm running a ranger right now who has 8 cha, and because of it refuses to talk directly to any NPC, because she's too shy, so she says everything to her partner, who happens to have 16 cha and is loud and boistrous.

The main reason I run point buy as opposed to rolling is because nobody likes to run around with that one guy who is all smug for having rolled really high stats, and rubs it in your face. Even if he's humble about it, the lack of balance will niggle away at you over time. At least that's what I've found.

NichG

2015-07-22, 12:29 AM

I think he's referring to the idea that a flawed character is a more relatable and likable character. That being said, an 8 is still achievable with point buy, and a 3 in an ability is less a flaw and more a crippling drawback that could make your character nigh-unplayable, especiall against anything that might damage that ability score. 3 cha? down in 1 ego whip, 3 str? down in 1 shadow touch (and turned into a shadow 1d4 rounds later too, so screws your party over big time). There's nothing stopping you from having a flawed character with point buy. I'm running a ranger right now who has 8 cha, and because of it refuses to talk directly to any NPC, because she's too shy, so she says everything to her partner, who happens to have 16 cha and is loud and boistrous.

'Unplayable' is a bit much. Its a character with an Achilles' Heel - one particular weakness that can be used to shut them down with high efficiency. But if you're in a campaign where you encounter a reasonable array of challenges, the encounters where that comes up should generally be far and few between. Getting automatically shut down once or twice over a 100 encounter campaign isn't unplayable, it just means you need to watch out for certain things.

But definitely a 3 has a good chance of making you change your plans. If you've got a 3 Dex, its time to pay more attention to sources of miss chance and to effects that don't require ranged attack rolls (or aim for Zen Archery). If you've got a 3 Str, maybe you'll need to get clever with your gear in order to carry it, and when Shadows or Strength-damage poisons crop up you need to hang back or use spell slots or purchased protections you'd normally save for more severe situations (Delay Poison, Sheltered Vitality). 3 Con is pretty rough though.

Anyhow, that 'chance of making you change your plans' is part of the draw of it. If it were totally up to me, would I ever find myself trying to figure out how to survive with a 3 Dex, or would I just avoid the 3 in the first place? So even if it doesn't appeal to you personally, at least it should be understandable why it might appeal to some. Maybe an interesting intermediate approach would be something like, roll out sets of stats equal to the number of players, but then let the players decide who gets which array. So the guy who wants to challenge himself with the 3 Dex and has enough op-fu to pull it off can jump on that grenade, but the guy who really really wanted to play a Paladin still has a good selection. It might be interesting to do it as a bidding system, where you can e.g. bid a percentage of your XP gain for having your particular choice of stat array, which then gets redistributed evenly among the people who didn't get it. That way, if you think that you can deal with having a 3 Dex, you're probably going to end up with a +10% XP gain to soften the blow a bit since no one else will want it.

Crake

2015-07-22, 12:54 AM

'Unplayable' is a bit much. Its a character with an Achilles' Heel - one particular weakness that can be used to shut them down with high efficiency. But if you're in a campaign where you encounter a reasonable array of challenges, the encounters where that comes up should generally be far and few between. Getting automatically shut down once or twice over a 100 encounter campaign isn't unplayable, it just means you need to watch out for certain things.

But definitely a 3 has a good chance of making you change your plans. If you've got a 3 Dex, its time to pay more attention to sources of miss chance and to effects that don't require ranged attack rolls (or aim for Zen Archery). If you've got a 3 Str, maybe you'll need to get clever with your gear in order to carry it, and when Shadows or Strength-damage poisons crop up you need to hang back or use spell slots or purchased protections you'd normally save for more severe situations (Delay Poison, Sheltered Vitality). 3 Con is pretty rough though.

Anyhow, that 'chance of making you change your plans' is part of the draw of it. If it were totally up to me, would I ever find myself trying to figure out how to survive with a 3 Dex, or would I just avoid the 3 in the first place? So even if it doesn't appeal to you personally, at least it should be understandable why it might appeal to some. Maybe an interesting intermediate approach would be something like, roll out sets of stats equal to the number of players, but then let the players decide who gets which array. So the guy who wants to challenge himself with the 3 Dex and has enough op-fu to pull it off can jump on that grenade, but the guy who really really wanted to play a Paladin still has a good selection. It might be interesting to do it as a bidding system, where you can e.g. bid a percentage of your XP gain for having your particular choice of stat array, which then gets redistributed evenly among the people who didn't get it. That way, if you think that you can deal with having a 3 Dex, you're probably going to end up with a +10% XP gain to soften the blow a bit since no one else will want it.

When you consider what those numbers actually mean, a 3 in a mental stat is bordering on mental disorder, and a 3 in a physical stat is an almost literal cripple. That's not an achillies heal, that's a vulnerability, not a drawback. An achillies heel needs to be attacked to hinder you, a 3 in a stat hinders you no matter what. People with 3s in their ability scores just simply don't become adventurers.

NichG

2015-07-22, 01:10 AM

When you consider what those numbers actually mean, a 3 in a mental stat is bordering on mental disorder, and a 3 in a physical stat is an almost literal cripple. That's not an achillies heal, that's a vulnerability, not a drawback. An achillies heel needs to be attacked to hinder you, a 3 in a stat hinders you no matter what. People with 3s in their ability scores just simply don't become adventurers.

Someone who knows what they're doing can make a character with a 3 in a stat that would totally dominate the game and be omnifunctional. Fixating on any one malus and saying 'this is unplayable!' is just hyperbole. There is so much stuff in a game like this that there are almost always options, tricks, workarounds, etc that someone who knows what they're doing can make use of. Almost everything is playable, if you just know how and adapt to it.

Crake

2015-07-22, 02:05 AM

Someone who knows what they're doing can make a character with a 3 in a stat that would totally dominate the game and be omnifunctional. Fixating on any one malus and saying 'this is unplayable!' is just hyperbole. There is so much stuff in a game like this that there are almost always options, tricks, workarounds, etc that someone who knows what they're doing can make use of. Almost everything is playable, if you just know how and adapt to it.

I did say nigh-unplayable, not completely unplayable. However, I don't exactly enjoy playing cripples or people with mental disabilities, and since I care more about roleplay, I also don't particularly enjoy the idea of roleplaying someone with said disabilities. I'd probably be fine with going as bad as 6, but 3 would just be too weird to try and roleplay. Maybe if you're playing a half orc barbarian and just running around with 3 int yelling "KROG SMASH!" and that's fine with you, sure. But for me as a player, I wouldn't be happy with a 3, and as a DM, I would not allow a player to have a 3 (and I achieve that through using point buy)

Shadowscale

2015-07-22, 03:14 AM

I did say nigh-unplayable, not completely unplayable. However, I don't exactly enjoy playing cripples or people with mental disabilities, and since I care more about roleplay, I also don't particularly enjoy the idea of roleplaying someone with said disabilities. I'd probably be fine with going as bad as 6, but 3 would just be too weird to try and roleplay. Maybe if you're playing a half orc barbarian and just running around with 3 int yelling "KROG SMASH!" and that's fine with you, sure. But for me as a player, I wouldn't be happy with a 3, and as a DM, I would not allow a player to have a 3 (and I achieve that through using point buy)

No where does it say someone with a three is a cripple or one with mental disabilities. So, because you don't enjoy the thought of playing to a low ability score you won't allow your players, interesting.

Crake

2015-07-22, 04:47 AM

No where does it say someone with a three is a cripple or one with mental disabilities. So, because you don't enjoy the thought of playing to a low ability score you won't allow your players, interesting.

you're right, it doesn't say anywhere explicitly that that is the case, however extrapolating the mechanical effects of this, we can lead to that conclusion.

Take for example, 3 strength. This person cannot carry more than 10lb without being severely hampered, and cannot carry more than 30lb without being almost completely immobilized. This same person could barely jump 6 feet with a running start on a consistent basis. This person also cannot swim for the life of them, more often than not they would drown.

A person with 3 dex is so unco-ordinated that they could not balance across a beam 1 foot wide, or throw a rock and hit a medium sized crate from 5 feet away.

These are severe physical disabilities, don't even get me started on con. 3 con would be surprising for you to have made it to adulthood without significant care, likely in the realm of magical care.

As for mental scores, int of 3 you cannot "Ransack a chest full of junk to find a certain item" on a consistent basis. Wisdom of 3, you actually need to roll to catch the words of someone speaking right next to you, so you're actually so incapable of observing your surroundings you can actually miss half the content of a conversation you're having.

Charisma 3 is a bit harder to quantify, since charisma is interpreted in so many different ways, but if it keeps in line with the above examples, then it would be just as crippling.

As to why I don't allow my players to play someone so horrifically handicapped, that's because I run hard encounters, where bad physical stats can and will ruin peoples fun, and I also run very in depth roleplay encounters, where again, bad mental stats can and will ruin people's fun. Flaws I can understand, which is why I'd be happy playing/allowing people to play with as low as 6 in a score. Anything below that is not a flaw, it's a crippling handicap.

Keltest

2015-07-22, 04:50 AM

Charisma 3 is a bit harder to quantify, since charisma is interpreted in so many different ways, but if it keeps in line with the above examples, then it would be just as crippling.

I would think cha 3 would be some sort of severe speech inhibition.

Amphetryon

2015-07-22, 06:42 AM

OldTrees1

2015-07-22, 06:49 AM

It's possible to have a 4 with point buy, at 1st level, depending on Race. Some LA+0 Races have a -4 to a stat. I'm not convinced that having a 4 somehow makes for a better RP experience, though.

Continued:
8 from point buy can be modified downwards via:
-1, -3, -6 from Age
-2, -4 from Race
-2 from Pathetic Flaw

However, while point buy can get as low a stat as you want(ok, 1 in a mental score needs a template), if the player wants the feeling of "just rolling with it" then there is no substitute for just rolling.

NichG

2015-07-22, 10:23 AM

you're right, it doesn't say anywhere explicitly that that is the case, however extrapolating the mechanical effects of this, we can lead to that conclusion.

Take for example, 3 strength. This person cannot carry more than 10lb without being severely hampered, and cannot carry more than 30lb without being almost completely immobilized. This same person could barely jump 6 feet with a running start on a consistent basis. This person also cannot swim for the life of them, more often than not they would drown.

A person with 3 dex is so unco-ordinated that they could not balance across a beam 1 foot wide, or throw a rock and hit a medium sized crate from 5 feet away.

These are severe physical disabilities, don't even get me started on con. 3 con would be surprising for you to have made it to adulthood without significant care, likely in the realm of magical care.

As for mental scores, int of 3 you cannot "Ransack a chest full of junk to find a certain item" on a consistent basis. Wisdom of 3, you actually need to roll to catch the words of someone speaking right next to you, so you're actually so incapable of observing your surroundings you can actually miss half the content of a conversation you're having.

Charisma 3 is a bit harder to quantify, since charisma is interpreted in so many different ways, but if it keeps in line with the above examples, then it would be just as crippling.

As to why I don't allow my players to play someone so horrifically handicapped, that's because I run hard encounters, where bad physical stats can and will ruin peoples fun, and I also run very in depth roleplay encounters, where again, bad mental stats can and will ruin people's fun. Flaws I can understand, which is why I'd be happy playing/allowing people to play with as low as 6 in a score. Anything below that is not a flaw, it's a crippling handicap.

Skill rank investments mechanically dominate these effects when you get past Lv1 though. A Lv11 character with a 3 Dex could still have a +10 modifier on a Dex-based skill just based on rank investment. That's enough to take 10 and walk a tightrope. Even at Lv1, someone who has a 3 in a stat but max ranks in the associated skill will do as well as the average untrained person.

Crake

2015-07-22, 11:01 AM

Skill rank investments mechanically dominate these effects when you get past Lv1 though. A Lv11 character with a 3 Dex could still have a +10 modifier on a Dex-based skill just based on rank investment. That's enough to take 10 and walk a tightrope. Even at Lv1, someone who has a 3 in a stat but max ranks in the associated skill will do as well as the average untrained person.

They COULD, yes, but how many characters have you designed where you took a significant number of ranks in skills that weren't related to your character? How often will said skills likely be cross class, thus further reducing the likelihood of skill investment? Not to mention potentially half the number of max ranks. Let's say you're a mental type character, which is why you're dumping something like dex. Being martial is unlikely, being a rogue even more so, so you're PROBABLY going to be a caster of some kind. Of the casters with decent skill lists, in core at least, you're looking at a bard, every other cast simply don't have enough skill points to be able to make the investment, and are more likely to just put the points into knowledge/spellcraft/concentration. As a bard, with a decent int, and being a human, you could maybe afford to put some skill ranks in dex based skills like balance, or hide/move silently. But the question at that point becomes would you? I think you'll find that most people play to their strengths. You wont be able to skill up every dex based skill without neglecting the things your character is supposed to be good at.

Ultimately, that point is a purely hypothetical one that I don't really ever see coming into play.

prufock

2015-07-22, 11:20 AM

NichG

2015-07-22, 12:22 PM

They COULD, yes, but how many characters have you designed where you took a significant number of ranks in skills that weren't related to your character? How often will said skills likely be cross class, thus further reducing the likelihood of skill investment? Not to mention potentially half the number of max ranks. Let's say you're a mental type character, which is why you're dumping something like dex. Being martial is unlikely, being a rogue even more so, so you're PROBABLY going to be a caster of some kind. Of the casters with decent skill lists, in core at least, you're looking at a bard, every other cast simply don't have enough skill points to be able to make the investment, and are more likely to just put the points into knowledge/spellcraft/concentration. As a bard, with a decent int, and being a human, you could maybe afford to put some skill ranks in dex based skills like balance, or hide/move silently. But the question at that point becomes would you? I think you'll find that most people play to their strengths. You wont be able to skill up every dex based skill without neglecting the things your character is supposed to be good at.

Ultimately, that point is a purely hypothetical one that I don't really ever see coming into play.

I've certainly took a significant number of ranks in skills that weren't related to the archetypal version of my characters. But then I made sure to make those skills relevant to my character in particular. If I take 12 ranks of Craft(Stoneworking) for my wizard, I'm also going to take the time to research a variant of Animate Object that lets me bring that to bear to cause animated objects to spring fully-formed out of stone walls using my Craft(Stoneworking) to be able to customize them. If I take a lot of Balance as a Fighter, I'm going to make sure I've got a buddy with grease pots or spells who can help me make that matter. Even if I decide to take something like Profession(Brewer), I'm going to use that to start conversations, select nice wines to gift to NPCs, etc.

Its all about the choices and the ability to make those choices. If I'm really bothered by not being able to balance because of my 3 Dex, I can actually remedy that aspect of my character. If I'm okay with it, then it doesn't matter if you stick a label like 'disabled' onto it because, well, I've had the option to do something else and decided not to.

A prime example of this in practice would be something like Charisma. I might have a low Charisma but decide 'hey, I want to participate in talking to NPCs'. Its not like the mechanics say 'no, you have a low Charisma, you aren't allowed to do that'. They say 'hey, you can put ranks in Diplomacy, and actually be reasonably competent at it so long as you don't want to do anything too epic but just have basic functionality'. Putting 4 ranks in Diplomacy isn't that expensive and its pretty broadly available. Even cross-class, its not so bad, though it delays things a bit. I still won't be very intimidating, my lies will be pretty transparent, and I can't figure out how the heck to get people to blab secrets to me about generic things, but at least I've learned how to cover my uncontrollable facial spasms with my sleeve so I can get by in polite company as well as the average person.

I'll make 2 points here.

1. Not all checks have ranks. There are flat ability checks. Not being able to carry 10 lbs without difficulty? That debilitating for an adventurer, even one who doesn't rely much on strength.

2. Think about what you said for a second. I don't think your argument really supports your claim that this isn't a disability. Training can overcome a disability, but you're comparing an average guy with no training to someone who has trained their whole career.

When it comes to how someone wants to roleplay it, I feel thats really up to them. If they want to treat Int 3 as 'I cannot put half a word together', that's up to them. But its not true that the mechanics force you to play a character with that and only that interpretation, and so that's what my comment was centered on. Most of the things that low stats do to you can be overcome through a variety of means if you wish to do so, including means that are entirely a result of training or other mundane advantage.

D&D is a game where you can start as a character who has such problems with their senses that they can't hear a conversation taking place next to them, and end up as a character who can hear a whisper through a door across a room, simply through hard work and training. With that kind of range, while the stats certainly can matter, they're not all-defining.

Username.

2015-07-22, 01:00 PM

D20 characters can have bizarre character creation demands. You can easily have a character that takes 3 minutes to make and another that takes days of research. That makes this topic problematic without context. Point-buy systems like GURPS and Champions are often criticized for character generation times, but d20 can easily be worse than both of those as one increases system mastery, while point buy systems get creation times shortened as you gain mastery. Because of how bizarre these outcomes are, I think what's best is constant contact between players and GM long before a session, even a character creation session, begins, so that blatant problems can be solved before in-person communication makes researching things slow. Outside of that, hard-and-fast guidelines are tricky: personally, I've taken hours to make a noncaster beatstick and I've written up a high-op wizard fourteen minutes into a game.

When it comes to how someone wants to roleplay it, I feel thats really up to them. If they want to treat Int 3 as 'I cannot put half a word together', that's up to them.

This is simply not true. Int 3 is animal-level intelligence by RAW. Encumbrance is determined by Str, by RAW. Saying otherwise either displays staggering ignorance of rules -- rules that I've seen new players demonstrate knowledge of within hours of deciding to play d20 -- or rather blatant dishonesty.

Either game assets have an effect on rp or they don't. Trying to pretend they both do and don't simultaneously is a symptom of Stop Having Fun Guy having decided that rolling dice for ability scores is the One True Way and all other forms of character generation are badwrongfun, to use as many shibboleths as possible. Rolled stats can be amusing for the person rolling them, but they by no means create an objectively greater rp challenge; indeed, in 3x/PF, they make rp easier. Because stats have mechanical weight, they constrict character concepts. This can (subjectively, though) encourage players to play the same character again and again because the conceptual range is shrunk. Note that the only way to contradict this fact is to assert that stats don't have mechanical weight -- e.g., stats don't matter. But that's a) blatantly false and b) if true, one would have to ask why it matters whether or not stats are generated at all.

Saying that you can expend another game asset to offset rolled stats is disingenuous to an almost extreme degree. The entire problem is that some characters have more assets than others due to this randomness: expending more assets to cover missing assets does nothing to change this problem. It's robbing your kids' college fund to pay for your gambling habit. And it also does nothing to change the relevance of the underlying stat. If an Int 3 is animal-level intelligence, you cannot remedy it by pumping every skill point into Knowledges. You still have animal-level intelligence, which undermines the notion that you can take a single class level in the first place. All you've done is mollified one benchmark problem (minimum skill level to accomplish X). You still have fewer assets than is expected by the game, throwing off encounter balance and any other minigame benchmark, so having "solved" one benchmark problem is irrelevant (and, again, probably illegal in this case). When it's pointed out that X is greater than Y and Y should be equal to X, claiming that you can ignore 1% of the problems that inequality causes and thereby ignore the inequality is a peculiar brand of sophistry.

Rolled stats undermine the entire point of having character generation economic rules in the first place: making sure that PCs have equal spotlight time. If a player rolls high and picks a character concept that exploits high stats for greater character effectiveness and another player rolls low, the first player is objectively stronger than the second. Which is fine if you are running a strange variant of Ars Magica (where the stronger character sheet or assets will be handed to the players of weaker characters next session) or Toon (where incompetence can be a measure of character success), but in conventional games, that outcome is objectively bad. And if you think it isn't bad, you have to ask, why place restrictions on character power in character generation in the first place? Why not let one character be level 3 and another level 12 at start? If you'd have a problem with that, you'd have the exact same problem with rolling stats.

That said, I have played in (very strange) games where character power varied wildly and stats were rolled, but the GM and players all agreed on rules and motifs that sucked spotlight away from the strongest characters and handed it off to the weakest -- much like with the Ars Magica and Toon examples mentioned above would. But those aren't exceptions to the rule; they simply place the design principle of PC equality outside the character creation sphere as opposed to in it.

Rolled stats can be used to good effect, if particular rules are in place to homogenize their effects on game balance. But declaring that they are an inherent good for character creation in conventional d20 is absurd on its face.

Shadowscale

2015-07-23, 01:05 AM

intelligence 1 and 2 is animal intelligence, a 3 means sentience. i'm not sure where you're getting this from? The Half-orc has its intelligence clause in 3.5 for a reason. And no, it's only a opinion to believe all players have to have the same number of strengths and weaknesses based off their stats, sometimes rolling and dealing with the random array is fun, which is why in fact it is the default method.

Mechalich

2015-07-23, 01:37 AM

The hardest stats at extremely low-levels to justify are Intelligence and Wisdom.

Playing a character with a severe physical or social disability (or even both, if you have incurable leprosy) is possible, and there are historical and mythological examples and it might be an interesting role-playing experience, and many point-buy systems explicitly allow characters to take such weaknesses. If a gaming table is willing to role with it that might make for a good experience in certain kinds of games.

Playing a character whose mental capability is borderline nonfunctional is far more challenging, has way more limitations (a 3 Int or Wis is way beyond 'Hulk Smash' territory) and more difficult to resolve.

Regarding random rolling for stats, yes, it produces imbalance. That's the design, it is intended to produce imbalance in an impartial way. Choosing to have characters role means that you, as a gaming table, accept that imbalance is baked into the setting and that not everyone will contribute equally. This does have the benefit of greater verisimilitude. It has the downside that it makes equal contributions much more difficult to manage.

In D&D imbalance is basically incompatible with optimization. If the players are making their characters with optimization in mind at all, then I think the DM should immediately go to point buy or some other non-random method. On the other hand, if all of your players are of the 'I want to play an Ewok Jedi named Jubjub who wears a jetpack' (actual character in a game I ran) persuasion then maybe rolling works out just fine.

Madbranch

2015-07-23, 02:57 AM

We generally have the first session meant for character creation. It's nice if all the players and GM are together and every player already has a few ideas. This way it is ensured that the party is nicely filled out and not everyone plays the same thing. GM is also able to provide information whether the build would fit the setting or not.

NichG

2015-07-23, 03:45 AM

This is simply not true. Int 3 is animal-level intelligence by RAW. Encumbrance is determined by Str, by RAW. Saying otherwise either displays staggering ignorance of rules -- rules that I've seen new players demonstrate knowledge of within hours of deciding to play d20 -- or rather blatant dishonesty.

And yet, there is no rule that an Int 3 character is automatically illiterate. There is no rule that a Str 3 character cannot lift their own body weight out of bed. The problem with generalizing based on particular examples is that D&D is, inherently, not something that maps precisely on to the real world. Treating them as if they do have a one-to-one map is including inconsistent axioms in your reasoning system, and when you reason with inconsistent axioms you can prove any statement as being both true and false.

What that means is that there are lots of things when you talk about what numbers in D&D 'really mean' which don't have a truth value, because you've pulled in too many assumptions about that real world mapping and now the entire thing becomes inconsistent. 'How must an Int 3 character behave?' is one such thing, because you're picking on certain observations ('animals have 3 Int, and having 3 Int qualifies one to be affected by things which affect only beings of animal intelligence') to anchor your mapping to the real world analogy you're building, but if I pick other observations ('my Intelligence as a D&D character does not directly influence my chance of brokering a trade deal between two hostile nations because Diplomacy is a Charisma-based skill') then I can draw other conclusions.

That flexibility ends up being a good thing in many ways, because it creates a space in which interpretation is fair game. That in turn gives rise to a lot of flexibility in what you can play and how you play it.

prufock

2015-07-23, 09:02 AM

When it comes to how someone wants to roleplay it, I feel thats really up to them.
Then why not just use point buy and if they want to have a debilitated ability score, that's really up to them as well.

sometimes rolling and dealing with the random array is fun, which is why in fact it is the default method.
That would be a pretty poor reason to have it be the default. Sometimes rolling and dealing with the random array is NOT fun.

Personal disclosure: I've done both; I prefer point buy because of the flexibility it allows in building characters, but neither really destroys my fun.

Username.

2015-07-23, 10:20 AM

And yet, there is no rule that an Int 3 character is automatically illiterate. There is no rule that a Str 3 character cannot lift their own body weight out of bed.

There are rules on Toon and there are hundreds if not thousands of flat DC checks for tasks. Those are objective measures.

Regarding random rolling for stats, yes, it produces imbalance. That's the design, it is intended to produce imbalance in an impartial way. Choosing to have characters role means that you, as a gaming table, accept that imbalance is baked into the setting and that not everyone will contribute equally.

Then there is no reason why a level 3 character shouldn't adventure with a level 12 character. Such disparities are actually supported by source material.

Impartiality is completely irrelevant. Indeed, I have seen games become crushing failures due to stat-rolling, while games with deliberate, partiality-created imbalances were successes. Again, Ars Magica comes to mind, but even in d20 I've had games where this works. Each time it does work, it's because a suite of external rules addresses the character imbalances created by other rules.

If stat-rolling does not create a significant problem that must (and can) be addressed by other rules, then the caster/martial disparity problem is a lie and the level system is pointless. This is true for Toon, but not for the various versions of D&D.

Stat-rolling doesn't have to flip the table. The problem is that it can and therefore needs to have rules preventing it from doing that. If you're claiming that you have houserules that add those rules, then more power to you (I've done the same), but conventional D&D doesn't have those rules.

This does have the benefit of greater verisimilitude.

No it really doesn't. The following has happened in every "real-world" verisimilitude game I've every played with severe disparities in character problem: the deadweight syndrome. This is when the PCs realize that the weak character simply has no place in the party. Playing gritty campaigns with various GMs/DMs (including myself), high character power disparity has always resulted in characters realizing that their freshly-killed party-member wasn't worth the cost of rezzing, or the kidnapped PC wasn't worth recovering, or, at the very least, the weak PC was so out of his or her league (as shown by the last encounter) that dropping the character off at the nearest town and grabbing a bunch of cannon-fodder hireling replacements was the best move. Now, the players didn't necessarily take those steps (unless they were jerks irl). This could be because the characters felt honor-bound to tend to the weaker party member, but that's not the real issue. The real issue, of course, is that the players have to address each others' ability to play the game or they violate the social contract that put them at the table in the first place. If there are strong disparities in character ability, you end up with this huge disassociated mechanic fiasco if you play your PCs realistically.

You can, of course, ignore this. In some games we all did. But that's reducing verisimilitude, not increasing it.

In D&D imbalance is basically incompatible with optimization.

Not even close to true. First game of D&D I ever played I rolled ridiculous stats and outshined ever other player in combat (and everything else), creating all the problems that is attendant with that. A fellow player -- a veteran -- rolled garbage stats. His response? Kill the character off in the first three minutes of play. Reroll character: more garbage stats. Killed in eight minutes. This happened about four times until he got where he wanted to be. This was completely socially acceptable. After all, if a mediocre character was leveled-up, it would eventually get killed due to incompetence but now your investment would be wasted. Better to bet on the high-stat horse.

Now, things have changed for D&D's rules and culture since then. But the ability to abuse rolled stats has not. First of all, many people want to roll stats in order to gamble: by getting better than the array or point buy, they "beat the spread," and the re-roll rules are built to do just that. This gambling urge is huge: though this is anecdotal, I have never, in private or at cons and the like, seen stat-rolling that didn't have a gambling cast. Second, since the stat-roller intends to fit the rolled stats into a class suite that optimizes those stats, they are optimizing by the very definition of the word. Not only are rolled stats subject to severe and extreme optimization, people have been optimizing rolled stats longer than many people on these boards have been alive. GURPS was created, in part, in response to this phenomenon.

Raise your hand if you saw rolled stat min-maxing in the Reagan era.