PDA

View Full Version : Forgetting the basics? Rolls vs Point Buy



Pages : [1] 2

SensFan
2007-08-13, 08:57 AM
Before joining these forums a few months ago, I had never built a character, or played in a campaign, using Point Buy. Here, using Point Buy seems to be the norm, or at least thats my perspective of it, from the registration threads I've seen. Hopefully I'm wrong on that note.

The first chapter of the Player's Handbook explains that the attributes of characters are determined by rolling four (4) six-sided dice (d6s), and removing the lowest roll. It does not say that rolling is one of the ways to do it, it says that rolling is the way to do it. No other ways of determining ability scores are mentioned in the PHB.

The DMG has a whole host of variants availible to be used, some of which most people probably don't even know/remember. Many variants see use in a few games, perhaps even in half or so. Some of the very popular ones, possibly even the most popular ones, are the alternative systems for determining the six (6) ability scores.

I don't have an issue with variants being used in the game. I personally use a handful of those presented in the Unearthed Arcana in the games I run. I don't even care all that much that there is a variant on one of the basic principles of the game. No, what I dislike about Point Buy is I feel it is becoming the standard. I'm worried that people are seeing Point Buy as the normal way of doing it, being surprised, or even upset, at a DM that uses rolling.

To me, rolling is the best way of determining ability scores. Since joining this forum, I have made more than a few characters with the Point Buy method, due in large part to the huge number of DMs that use it. What I have found is that the characters are way too customizable. Primary spellcasters can sacrifice their Strength score to put their casting ability through the roof. Melee builds (well, alot more than just Melee builds, but they're the most common offenders) can completely ignore Charisma. And that's not even going into the complete exclusion of odd scores. Your character will be tuned to perfection. No more having moderate scores where you don't need them to be that good. Make the scores you need amazing, and the rest horrible. Someone trying to succeed as an Archer in the real world can't become dumber to make them stronger. They can't remove every bit of social grace from their body to improve their agility. No, sometimes in life you have to make due with what life gives you.

With rolling, you get some of that variety back in the game. You still get the choice to decide what you are best at. Is that not enough? Is it that horrible that your character doesn't have the maximum natural Intelligence for his race? Or that he isn't as strong as some of the world's strongest men? Is him being stronger, faster, smarter and wiser that the vast majority of people will ever be not good enough for you? Enough of this nonsense. Point Buy is akin to making people robots, as far as I can see. Fine tuning them to to what they want to do as well as they can, with no regard to doing much else.

Maybe some of you want impecably-tuned robots. Me? I'd rather play with a character that has to make due with his shortcomings, not eliminate them.

Quietus
2007-08-13, 09:02 AM
Point buy is used on the forums for PbP characters, because it's easier to do stats that way than it is to have someone flood your inbox or the forums was large numbers of stat rolls. More importantly, it's used in theoretical optimization because that way two people trying to optimize the same thing have a guaranteed reasonable stat base to work off of, rather than one person having a pile of 12's and 13's, and someone else having four of their six stats above 15.

banjo1985
2007-08-13, 09:04 AM
I think one of the reasons that points buy is becoming so popular is it takes a lot of the luck out of character creation. While it is guilty of giving you a bit too much control over your ability scores, at least you don't end up with a near useless character because of a pants dice roll. In the past we've used the standard rules, and one character has become the focus of everything in combat because of a couple of lucky 18's, which isn't good for anyone else.

All characters ideally should be created on an equal footing, and points-buy allows that, whereas dice-rolling can put you at an unfair disadvantage right from the start, points-buy appears like the fairest way.

Having said this, I agree that over-customisation is a problem, and that points-buy isn't ideal, it just irons out the unfairness that random rolls can create.

rollfrenzy
2007-08-13, 09:06 AM
While I agree with you, the reason for point buy is to keep chance from making one member of a group be awful and another being godlike. It keeps everybody even keel, and it also prevents the "I was gonna make a (whatever) but my stats weren't right so I have to change my idea.

That being said, I use exclusively rolled stats at the table.

edit : ninja'd. but I agree^^^

Hefty Lefty
2007-08-13, 09:09 AM
Yeah, for me at least, rolling is the norm table-side, because everyone can see the rolls. On PBPs, however, no one can resist saying "Oh yeah, seriously, I rolled 3 18s! Crazy, huh?" except for that one honest guy, who ends up with three stats under 14 and doesn't make a difference all game. I suppose you could use the dice roller on the forums and attach your roll when you send in your sheet, but...it's more fair when everyone is as good as everyone else.

Paragon Badger
2007-08-13, 09:16 AM
I've seen a few DMs do the roll-your-stats thing multiple times, getting 3 or so sets of ability scores... then offering them to the player to choose which one they like best. That way, you still have a choice between the straight 14-14-14-14-14-14 roll (just an example, folks.) or the 18, 8, 18, 8, 18, 8 roll. And you are less likely to get screwed over (although you're also more likely to get uber-stats)

And even then, if none of those rolls were to the players' liking, they could simply point buy, albiet at a slight disadvantage.

slexlollar89
2007-08-13, 09:26 AM
at our table, the DM would watch evryones rolls, then estimate figure the piont buy from the average of what people rolled. he would also adjust peoples rolled scores so that they could be as effective as the rest of the group. it worked quite well, and the person who used piont buy almost always was more powerful than evryone (at his particular area of expertise).

AlterForm
2007-08-13, 09:30 AM
I believe that the Stormwind Fallacy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11990222&postcount=2) has some relevance here.

Paraphrase: Roleplaying and Rollplaying are not polar opposites.

If I point-buy my wizard's STR into the gutter (bad idea, IMO, since he can't carry anything), instead of rolling a less-than-perfect INT score for him, I'm not roleplaying a less-hindranced character, I'm roleplaying a differently-hindranced character. Same deal with a fighter dumping CHA: what if he gets stuck in a social situation? He's in big trouble. If he had had subpar CON score, and got into battle? He's also in big trouble.

Personally, I love point-buy. It rocks, IMO. I've rolled for stats before, and been on both sides: uber-god and pathetic-wimp. With point-buy, all the characters in my group come out at roughly the same power level to start with, and then it's up to the players to decide how powerful they are.

To each his own.

SensFan
2007-08-13, 09:31 AM
While I understand the balance part of the game, I still struggle with the concept that everyone should be equal. I guarantee you that you are a part of a group of some sort where not everybody is as good as everyone else.

Also, I'll have to run the numbers when I get around to it, but would 5d6b3 organic (roll in order, first roll is you Str, then Dex, etc...) be on par with the standard 4d6b3 arrange as you want?


Edit - Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that using Point Buy has any effect whatsoever on the quality of roleplaying involved. I just think that it allows too much customization. And again, I'm not saying it should be banned or anything, but that it is, and should remain, a variant. Not the norm.

banjo1985
2007-08-13, 09:36 AM
5 dice drop 2 organic sounds fiendish to me, but would probably make for more even characters, while not making them completely the same. I've done that before,and while it made for some very powerful characters it did go some way to addressing the balance issue.

It's true that in a group of any number not everyone will be equal, but in a game of heroic fantasy it seems only fair that every character gets to be on an equal footing at creation. Points-buy allows this, all characters get the same resources, but can use them as they see fit.

Cubey
2007-08-13, 09:36 AM
There is no difference from a powergaming POV between giving your Fighter 18 STR and 8 CHA in point-buy, and assigning your highest dice roll to STR while your lowest to CHA.
Rolling can give you a very weak character, which won't be fun to play and certainly won't make it a better roleplayed character.

The solution here isn't to roll, but to make the players suffer consequences of dump stats. If you have 6 CHA, people sneer at you on the streets, bartenders want to kick you out and guards get very suspicious.

Of course, feel free to play with rolling stats, but it shouldn't be elevated as some superior way of promoting RP and weeding out munchkins in your group - because it isn't.

EDIT: With so many ninja-posts, this one's kinda redundant and outdated. Oh well...

AlterForm
2007-08-13, 09:42 AM
Edit - Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that using Point Buy has any effect whatsoever on the quality of roleplaying involved. I just think that it allows too much customization. And again, I'm not saying it should be banned or anything, but that it is, and should remain, a variant. Not the norm.

Ah, okay then! I'll leave that link up there just in case anyone else gets any silly ideas. :smallamused:

However, I'm not sure if I'd even call it a variant anymore. I'd actually call it one of two options for generating ability scores nowadays: roll for them, or point-buy for them. I'm not sure how one would define "the norm", but I don't think even getting it to be less than the majority of times used would cut it...but we are entitled to opinions. :smallbiggrin:

valadil
2007-08-13, 09:43 AM
After you've played with someone who gets his characters killed off just to get another chance at rolling sick stats, you'll see the value in point buy.

While I personally don't care that everyone in the group has balanced stats, I do care that there's no whiny kid who won't shut up if someone rolled better than him. Point buy alleviates that problem too.

Dhavaer
2007-08-13, 09:46 AM
There is no difference from a powergaming POV between giving your Fighter 18 STR and 8 CHA in point-buy, and assigning your highest dice roll to STR while your lowest to CHA.

There is, actually. A point-buy Fighter with 18 Str will probably be quite weak (for a Fighter) unless the point-buy is very high, due to the decreasing returns of increasing one ability. Assigning a high roll to Str doesn't have any effect on your other scores.

SensFan
2007-08-13, 09:47 AM
After you've played with someone who gets his characters killed off just to get another chance at rolling sick stats, you'll see the value in point buy.

While I personally don't care that everyone in the group has balanced stats, I do care that there's no whiny kid who won't shut up if someone rolled better than him. Point buy alleviates that problem too.
If a player in a game I was in got himself killed, just for the sake of rolling again, he would probably have an array of stats all 1 worse than the original ones (example, if he has 14Str 15Dex 12Con 8Int 11Wis 9Cha, I would give him an array of 13, 14, 11, 7, 10, 8 to arrange however he wanted). Keep in mind that any very bad rolls are subject to being rerolled.

Dausuul
2007-08-13, 09:56 AM
The OP hits on a problem common to all RPGs where it is possible to purchase advantages by accepting disadvantages; the tendency to pile on disadvantages that won't affect the character in order to buy advantages that will.

This does in fact happen even with stat rolling. People will still "dump" the stat they value least; the wizard's lowest stat is still very likely to be Strength or Charisma, it's just that with stat rolling, that lowest stat could be a 14... or a 4. Stat rolling does prevent the most egregious optimization (all casters will not start with an 18 in their casting stat), but at the cost of making some characters gods and others weenies.

In an effort to find a good midpoint, I have experimented with a system where I create a list of stat arrays, all of them balanced to the same point buy value, and players roll to see which stat array they get. I'm considering expanding this to allow players to choose one of three options:

1. Straight-up point buy using, say, 32 points.
2. Roll on a list of stat arrays balanced to 36-point buy, then arrange as you like.
3. For the truly ballsy, roll on a list of stat arrays balanced to 40-point buy, then roll to see which stat goes where.

Ultimately, though, I think the real solution is to reduce the amount of synergy in the system and limit the amount of specialization allowed. That is: "Okay, you've maxed out all your combat stats. You are as good a combatant as you can possibly be at your level; you can specialize no further. Now you have leftover points. Whatcha gonna do with 'em?" If the system is well-designed, the answer to this question will vary from player to player; there should not be any "no-brainer" response.

crabpuff
2007-08-13, 10:14 AM
It is a good system corrupted by power gamers, I am guilty of this. But you still have the chance to do some really interesting things.
EX: I had a half-orc Barbarian with a maxed out Cha, Wisdom and the rest split between the other stats. Why I did it I'm not sure mostly for the laugh value i think, since he sucked in a fight.
You can still create charaters like the roll method but it does take a random factor out of play. One way to put it back in is to let the player input his scores and then one by one roll a D6 for each stat to see where they go.(1-STR, 2-DEX 3-...etc..) Most likely in a different spot. Thats what I do with my powergamers it really irks them when the 18's get moved from what they wanted.

Matthew
2007-08-13, 10:16 AM
Isn't there already a Thread open about this?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53181

Dausuul
2007-08-13, 10:20 AM
Isn't there already a Thread open about this?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53181

Technically, that thread is about rolling for hit points rather than ability scores. Although I could see merging the two, since there is definitely a lot of overlap.

Matthew
2007-08-13, 10:25 AM
True, though at its core it is really about randomisation within the game, which is what this will also boil down to.

UserClone
2007-08-13, 10:34 AM
OK, first of all, I do not use point buy or rolls in my games. Everyone gets the Elite Array, that is to say: 15,14,13,12,10,8. Put 'em where you want to. It's simple, clean, and no one is ubergodlike, no one is super wimplike, yet everyone is better than a commoner-yet worse than a Great Wyrm.

That being said, 25 point buy is the Standard for RPGA games, with the exception of Greyhawk, which uses 28. If anything could be called a "standard" D&D game, it would be an RPGA game. However, they are used merely because it is easier, logistically speaking, to get balanced characters that way, balanced to each other and to the game world.

That having been said, I would consider the OP to be correct insofar as rolling is the standard rule from the PHB. However, I feel that it is antiquated and no longer necessary, and most likely will appear, if at all, as a variant in 4E.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-13, 10:38 AM
Rolling has two problems. It can create gross inequality in the party, with one character being in an entirely different class from others (3 18s! Or on the flip side, 14,10,10,10,10,8...actually, you could make a workable halfling rogue with that, I guess, but it's still awful rolls). It also can force you to base your class on your rolls. If you've got nothing above 14, playing a primary caster is a stretch. If you can't find 3 fairly good scores, you probably have no business as a monk or paladin. If you have no problem with playing whatever class your dice support, this is fine...and I admire your flexibility, too. But if I were playing organic rolls and came up with a 16 in strength as my defining stat, I'd probably throw in my character sheet. I've got no interest in playing meat, and anything else is going to have a hard time with abilities like that.

If you've got any limits at all on what you're willing to play, pointbuy, or at least something that gives you more choice than normal rolling about your stats, is very helpful.

internerdj
2007-08-13, 10:40 AM
I never had a problem adjuciating poor ability rolls even in AD&D (with the ability requirements for classes). If someone was needing a point on an ability to make their class I didn't mind bumping it. If someone really blew their rolls I would let them reroll if they wanted to. My players had no problem letting me know if their stats made them unplayable.

banjo1985
2007-08-13, 10:45 AM
The last time we roled ability scores we'd decided on character roles beforehand. One poor guy wanted to play a Cleric and the oprganic roles left him with a Wisdom of 8.....poor guy

Alyorbase
2007-08-13, 10:49 AM
Our DM has always allowed us to roll 3 sets of stats and then pick one while he watched us roll, if one of the sets was illegal (all the stat bonuses combined < +1) then we got to roll additional sets until we had 3 legal sets of stats. The worst stats I ever had was a character with no score above 14 on the rolls (and only 1 of those at that), and he turned out to be one of my favorite characters that I've ever played. He was a cleric. So I'm of the belief that while helpful, you don't always HAVE to have uber godlike stats in your main stat in order to have a good character. What's really funny is that cleric with a 14 wisdom lasted until the end of the campaign. My other characters who had at least 16 in their main stats lasted at most maybe 5 or so sessions (I went through 3 characters in that particular campaign).

As far as point-by goes, I like the idea of it, but in my little experience with it, there's too much twinking that goes on, which IMO makes the game less fun for those who like to roleplay.

Just some of my thoughts on it.

SensFan
2007-08-13, 10:51 AM
Just note a note to those who don't want to play a Wis 8 Cleric because of rolls. If I were to run the 5d6 organic campaign, I would have the players choose a race, then roll, then the rest. Just like in real life, you would be born into a race, grow and see your relative strengths and weaknesses, then choose a job and all the rest.

banjo1985
2007-08-13, 10:55 AM
Hehe yeah, we told him to do that, but he had his heart set on a cleric and he insisted....you've never seen a more useless character.

Meat Shield -"I've taken a pounding any chance of healing me?"
Cleric - "Errr no."

Happy days

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-13, 10:57 AM
I use point buy because it's balanced, and rolling isn't.
It's kind of that simple;

Newer characters are probably better rolling because they can handle the randomness better because they aren't as likely to be optimizing.

Were-Sandwich
2007-08-13, 11:01 AM
I once had a group where one player rolled 18, 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, right in front of my eyes, and another player rolled 13, 12, 10, 9, 14, 12. There were balance problems in that party.

Telonius
2007-08-13, 11:03 AM
I suspect that "Lawful" players tend to prefer point buy, and "Chaotic" players prefer rolling. I happen to prefer rolling. :smallbiggrin: Both have their limitations. I will say that Point Buy is particularly good for playtesting and determining which classes are balanced against each others. But for actual campaigns, I prefer rolling. I normally do 4d6, drop lowest, reroll one 1 per stat (Mulligan if it's below +1 collectively). Next time I DM, I'll be doing d8+10, to get a more epic-heroic feel. Of course the monsters will be stronger to compensate, but the players don't need to know that just yet. :xykon:

Kiero
2007-08-13, 11:08 AM
I have no interest in randomness in any part of chargen. I build my character to meet the concept I've come up with before coming to the system. I don't try to rationalise a set of stats with a concept after the fact.

Not unless random just means different, rather than better or worse, such as that in REIGN.

Fhaolan
2007-08-13, 11:09 AM
I don't use point-buy in D&D. I use it in GURPS and other systems that have point-buy as the standard.

I've only played online a couple of times, and using a set stat array (Elite) was the DMs preference in those few times. The other games I looked at, but didn't join, were using an online secure die-rolling engine.

I've played 3d6 in order, all the way up to 6d6 drop 3, depending on the DM.

My personal preference as DM is 4d6 drop 1.

AkumaWolf
2007-08-13, 11:17 AM
Well... the way we used to do it waaay back when we started was by opening the standard character generator program that comes with the D&D manual and NAILING that 'roll' button until your arm cramps or you got something you like... (whichever came first :P)

The highest I ever got with doing that was equal to 76 points using point-buy, which, according to the charts, must be somewhere close to some demi-god.

Looking back at it now, it actually seems kinda silly to me. The lowest score I had was a 12 and the rest was all above 16 (Had myself QUITE a couple a 18's :P ).
The point I'm getting at is, I was a fighter, but I had better DEX than the rouge in the party, my INT was on par with the mage and I was tougher than the dwarf cleric we had. There was nothing about my character that hinted to his class, I could sneak almost just as good as the rogue, cast a couple of good spells with the mage in my free time (if I took up the class :( ) and could probably beat the dwarf in a drinking contest.
And that's just the beginning. It was HELL trying to weave my ability scores into a background story... "uuhhhh... yeah... my fighter took a few years off from being a mercenary to get a good education..."
Yeah... that didn't work. :(

Point-buy at least balances a party and forces you to sacrifice one ability to boost another to best fit your class. Also, it gives a DM some freedom on your characters in his story. If he wants you particularly heroic, he'll just give more points.

So yeah... thanx to point-buy, I'm actually very happy with my cleric and his sucky DEX. Being in a party of stealthy characters with me and my breastplate and over-encumbered load and +0 DEX modifier has made for some pretty memorable and entertaining moments when were asked to roll a 'move silently'. :P

talsine
2007-08-13, 11:19 AM
While i know of several groups who still roll for stats, i can't remember the last time i played in an "organic" roll system. It leaves you with almost no control over your roll. Sure, if you have a 16 str and a 12 Int, you can playa wizard, but i wouldn't. Organic is probably the worst way to generate a character unless you have no idea what you want to play when you sit down, then it really doens't matter.

SensFan
2007-08-13, 11:23 AM
While i know of several groups who still roll for stats, i can't remember the last time i played in an "organic" roll system. It leaves you with almost no control over your roll. Sure, if you have a 16 str and a 12 Int, you can playa wizard, but i wouldn't. Organic is probably the worst way to generate a character unless you have no idea what you want to play when you sit down, then it really doens't matter.
So in life, what if you want to be a pro football (American) player, but are 5'1'', 120 lbs? Decide to switch your intelligence and become stronger?

Seffbasilisk
2007-08-13, 11:24 AM
Personally? I like rolling. Not everyone is equal in ability, as point buy would have them. And I like the randomness (and when I get good rolls o' 'course!)

Point Buy is good for things like Fighter Vs Wizard arena battle to keep things equal, but I prefer to roll.

In my IRL games, if someone's really gimped, IE: 12, 10, 11, 13, 10, 12...technically a +3 and not qualifying for a re-roll, I give it to'm anyway, but I think rolling is a good set.

Does it suck when your highest stat is a 16? Yes. I'll say it does, I've played characters who's highest stat is a 14 (gnome sorcerer, died horribly), and I've played characters with multiple 18's (and been besieged by pseudo-roleplayers unable to comprehend the Stormwind Fallacy).

Is life equal? No. Is everyone you meet going to be awesome at one thing? No. I'm tougher then most of my friends...is it fair that I'm faster and stronger as well? No. My buddy got me beat in Wis by a loooong shot, he's also got a notch on me in Int, and his con's closer to mine then the rest of the gang. Is it 'fair'? Especially to the guy in this friend group who's con is probably around a 6 (or lower), and who's only good stat is Int? Nope, but that's life.

I support rolling. It's simple as that. Point buy may make things more 'even', but then a lot of the sparkle's gone. If you don't like the way things are rolling, then CHANGE'M for your game when you DM.

My first DM had us roll 4 sets of stats, 4d6 take highest 3, re-roll all 1's, and stick'm where we pleased.

Another DM of mine had us roll 3d6+2 and stick them in stats in the order they were determined.

's just how things are. Just stick to that if the combined bonuses and penalties are < 3, re-roll and be happy. 's about all I can tell ye.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-13, 11:26 AM
I guess point buy is used when planning characters, assuming a minimum set of values.
In forums, for example, you get a lot of "if you have a minimum of Dex 13, you can do..."
It's more to know what to do than to actually play. With my friends, we tend to do the 4d6 basic method, even if it means one of the players may get overpowered (in this case we ask him to roll again, same for underpowered characters)
And in many online games, it's to keep a player from going "I rolled 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 7."

Seffbasilisk
2007-08-13, 11:30 AM
I guess point buy is used when planning characters, assuming a minimum set of values.
In forums, for example, you get a lot of "if you have a minimum of Dex 13, you can do..."
It's more to know what to do than to actually play. With my friends, we tend to do the 4d6 basic method, even if it means one of the players may get overpowered (in this case we ask him to roll again, same for underpowered characters)
And in many online games, it's to keep a player from going "I rolled 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 7."

Online rollers? If you don't like the board's, just go with http://invisiblecastle.com/ and you can roll online and prove the rolls.

Renx
2007-08-13, 11:31 AM
I have the worst luck in ability rolling. Just ask my first DM, I had to re-roll a good ten times (and I'm not exaggerating) before I got a set with just one under 10.

Also, I'm not sure if it contributed to its popularity, but IMO point buying is a helluva lot better in computer games than having a 're-roll stats' button. Call me old-fashioned.

Kiero
2007-08-13, 11:34 AM
So in life, what if you want to be a pro football (American) player, but are 5'1'', 120 lbs? Decide to switch your intelligence and become stronger?

Roleplaying isn't like life, nor is life like roleplaying.

nagora
2007-08-13, 11:41 AM
Just roll "4d6, discard the lowest" in order. Scrap any naff character (nothing over 15 or more than one 3).

If you don't want to do that, get the DM to draw up a character for you (without input from you beyond perhaps the character's class, race and sex).

Points systems have their place in remote gaming but they're not a great way to discover how you handle quirks (like a magic user with 17 in INT and STR) and they're often the best characters.

kjones
2007-08-13, 11:48 AM
One of the reasons I don't like point-buy is because it doesn't allow scores lower than 8. For balance reasons, you can't drop a score below 8 to gain extra points. (Druid with 3 Str? No problem? Add this to Middle-Age cheese and it gets even more disgusting) Nobody likes low scores, but point-buy makes what can be a good role-playing opportunity literally impossible.

nagora
2007-08-13, 11:49 AM
Roleplaying isn't like life, nor is life like roleplaying.

The first is only true up to a point (and the better the DM, the less it is true), the second even less so. Children become adults chiefly by roleplaying. That's why we talk about the importance of role-models.

nagora
2007-08-13, 11:52 AM
(Druid with 3 Str? No problem? Add this to Middle-Age cheese and it gets even more disgusting)

What's the Middle-Age cheese? Druids are Iron-Age/Dark Age at the latest, and really the Bronze Age was their hayday.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-13, 11:57 AM
Roleplaying isn't like life, nor is life like roleplaying.This. Very this. In a longer form, I'm gonna grab some stuff I mentioned in the rolling for HP thread.


I'm a fan of reducing probability as a factor in rolling for HP, and I'll take point buy or an array over rolling any day. That doesn't mean that I want probability to be a non-factor in my games; if that were the case, I'd be writing a book instead of planning a campaign.

In a story, it doesn't matter that Caramon is everything Sturm is and then some when it comes to usefulness, that Superman is objectively better than Supergirl, and so on and so forth. Writing a story is not an inherently cooperative activity wherein every character needs a time to shine. RPGs, on the other hand, involve people who have vested interests in individual characters.

As a result, it's wise to seek a level of equality; if characters are getting outclassed by their companions, the players tend to get frustrated and stop playing. That's why there's always so much talk of balance, and why people get frustrated when they see something and feel its overpowered -- that sort of thing can throw off a group dynamic. And so I say again, people in stories -- or real life for that matter -- are not created equally. Some come from better families, some have genes that make them smarter, some have genes that make them bigger, and so on. But there's no fun to be had in modeling those probabilities. Rather, leaving it to chance smacks the entire cooperative fantasy gaming idea in the face. No longer are we starting from even ground and building characters as we wish them to be; again we're handed an essential part of what we are and told "Eh, work with it."

Hence, far-reaching probabilities like rolling for stats have no place in my game. I want to see my players try to succeed at crushing the golem, disarming the trap, or resisting the dominate. I don't want to see them try to succeed at being born.

While I understand the balance part of the game, I still struggle with the concept that everyone should be equal. I guarantee you that you are a part of a group of some sort where not everybody is as good as everyone else.You're absolutely correct here; D&D is not a flawlessly designed game, and generally, some party members will rise above others. However, I don't see that as a justifiable reason to say "Eh, it's not going to be perfect, so it's no harm if we screw it up further." I want characters to start from the same ground, to give them all an equal opportunity. Will I attain the goal? No. Not completely. (Even if I do refuse to allow preparative casters in my games) But that's not going to keep me from doing what I can to level the playing field as best I can.

To draw a possibly-too-belligerent analogy, you and I are scientists working in a poorly funded lab. Realizing that we cannot completely sterilize our petri dishes, I have opted to wash mine with soap, and you opted to use the one you ate spaghetti out of three days ago. It might work out okay, but there isn't much to gain by doing it.

kjones
2007-08-13, 11:58 AM
What's the Middle-Age cheese? Druids are Iron-Age/Dark Age at the latest, and really the Bronze Age was their hayday.

I didn't mean Middle Ages... I meant starting a Druid at middle age (~40 for a human) to get +1 to Int/Wis/Cha while taking a -1 to Str/Dex/Con, which they don't care about anyway. :smalltongue:

Dausuul
2007-08-13, 12:35 PM
So in life, what if you want to be a pro football (American) player, but are 5'1'', 120 lbs? Decide to switch your intelligence and become stronger?

Nah, I'll just go to Africa with an elephant rifle and shoot me some elephants. They're CR 7, I can get up to 8th or 9th level that way before the XP awards become too small to bother with. I'll put all my skill ranks into Profession (Athlete) and pick up Skill Focus, Run, and Improved Overrun. The extra skill ranks and BAB will make up for my Strength penalty. A couple of giant squid (CR 9) and I'll be the best player in the NFL!

...oh, wait. The D&D rules aren't an exact model of the real world. I forgot.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-13, 12:42 PM
For me, I'll make a compromise. Everyone rolls once. If you don't have 6 people, DM rolls twice. That way, you can't exactly bitch about the bad scores(unless the lot of you suck, in which case, PHB would recommend rerolling anyway), and it makes MAD classes less out of reach(compared to say, Point-Buy, where you'd likely wind up with a bunch of 14s and 12s). Then again, I'm a bit more of a "Fly by the seat of my pants" sort of person, so I would rather throw the dice, then think about what I can do with them, than go "Ooh, this campaign, I'm gonna blog about my *insert Mary Sue*" and then tweak every last point into place.

Plus I like the fact that you can hit a 3 and have a crucial flaw(Even if the party "face" is the only one with a positive modifier on his Cha, nobody wants to give shelter to the mini-leper colony that just wandered into town). That's totally unavailable in Point-Buy(or if it was, it would be tweaked to put even more points into the good stuff while dumping others).

GryffonDurime
2007-08-13, 12:48 PM
I prefer Point-Buy. I can't think of another RPG I've played besides DnD where so many aspects of character creation--one of the major elements that the players are supposed to be in total control of--are ruled by arbitrary chance. Most other systems use a point based system for every aspect of character creation...and that's the way, uh huh uh huh I like it.

Besides, we've already got a player in our group who cheats on every last roll. Why leave character creation to his devious devices?

Mike_G
2007-08-13, 12:50 PM
So in life, what if you want to be a pro football (American) player, but are 5'1'', 120 lbs? Decide to switch your intelligence and become stronger?


Ummmmmmm...

This is a fantasy role-playing game.

If I pick up D&D because I think the idea of being Conan is cool, and I want to hack giant snakes to death and wield a huge broadsword and have naked slave girls swoon at my feet, but I roll an "organic" 3 STR and 5 CHA but a 15 INt for my high stat, and the DM says "Quitcher whinin'. Juts play a Wizard," I'll probably not be too thrilled.

That is not why I showed up. Maybe I am a librarian in real life and want to play a savage swordsman instead of a bookworm.

It's a game, dude. Let the players play the kind of character they want. I don't object too much to rolled stats, but at least let the player assign them where he wants.

AlterForm
2007-08-13, 01:28 PM
Our DM has always allowed us to roll 3 sets of stats and then pick one while he watched us roll, if one of the sets was illegal (all the stat bonuses combined < +1) then we got to roll additional sets until we had 3 legal sets of stats. The worst stats I ever had was a character with no score above 14 on the rolls (and only 1 of those at that), and he turned out to be one of my favorite characters that I've ever played. He was a cleric. So I'm of the belief that while helpful, you don't always HAVE to have uber godlike stats in your main stat in order to have a good character. What's really funny is that cleric with a 14 wisdom lasted until the end of the campaign. My other characters who had at least 16 in their main stats lasted at most maybe 5 or so sessions (I went through 3 characters in that particular campaign).

As far as point-by goes, I like the idea of it, but in my little experience with it, there's too much twinking that goes on, which IMO makes the game less fun for those who like to roleplay.

Just some of my thoughts on it.

Ah, I do believe you want to read this:

The Stormwind Fallacy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11990222&postcount=2)

Sleet
2007-08-13, 01:34 PM
The first ("Roleplaying isn't like life") is only true up to a point (and the better the DM, the less it is true)...

You're correct only if the point of the game is to simulate real life.

The games I GM are not pursuing that objective.

ravenkith
2007-08-13, 01:56 PM
Point buy is fair.

It's the only way to make certain that all the players start on an even footing, and no-one goes through a campaign with a crappy character because he had a bad day rolling the dice.

I normally give my players the choice, before rolling:

32 point buy, or 4d6b3 (reroll 1s).

Then it is up to the players whether they take the chance or not.

Personally, I am NOT INTERESTED in the adventures of " 'Tard the Wonder Orc" for the fiftieth fricking time.

It wasn't interesting the first time.

nagora
2007-08-13, 01:59 PM
You're correct only if the point of the game is to simulate real life.

Not real life, but real (ie, believable) characters.

nagora
2007-08-13, 02:01 PM
Besides, we've already got a player in our group who cheats on every last roll. Why leave character creation to his devious devices?

Why play a game with such a moron at all?

Sleet
2007-08-13, 02:07 PM
Not real life, but real (ie, believable) characters.

Which does not preclude point buy or going into a game with a character concept in mind, then building the character to fit. In that sense, roleplaying is not like life.

Draz74
2007-08-13, 02:20 PM
One idea I once saw that I liked was this:

Start with 25-point buy.

Then, after you've assigned your stats, roll 3d6 for each stat in order. If the 3d6 roll is higher than the purchased ability, replace it.

The point buy component guarantees that you'll be able to play, more or less, anything to a reasonable degree. You'll be able to have a fair amount of control over shaping your character. It also narrows the power gap between different players, at least statistically.

The rolling, on the other hand, makes the characters feel more organic; not every Sorcerer will have a low Strength, and odd-numbered abilities (9+) will actually exist sometimes.

Two problems with this method: (1) You still will never see a score below 8, which is sad because it can be really fun to play a character with one extreme weakness. (More than that gets overwhelming.)

(2) And a Wizard will be even more likely to sacrifice all his other stats to get an 18 Intelligence. In this system, Wizards will no doubt all have 18 Intelligence, 14-15 Constitution, 8 Strength/Charisma/Wisdom, 8-9 Dexterity before rolling. And then they will just pray to roll high on their Dexterity score with the dice (and have a fair chance of improving it beyond an 8).

ravenkith
2007-08-13, 02:29 PM
Why play a game with such a moron at all?

Sometimes the person in question is otherwise a very good friend of yours, and you don't want to end a friendship over some dice rolls.

Only thing you can do is watch 'em, and take whatever dice rolls you can out of their hands.

Tormsskull
2007-08-13, 02:32 PM
I prefer rolling by far, IMO it leads to more interesting characters. I think point-buy leads to "builds" and I hate builds. I'd much rather have players identify with their characters by their names, titles, or accomplishments than by Wiz6/PrC(1)6/PrC(2)8.

But I hate people who say they are cool with rolling stats and then moan, whine, and complain when they roll bad almost as much. Almost.

ravenkith
2007-08-13, 02:35 PM
I prefer rolling by far, IMO it leads to more interesting characters. I think point-buy leads to "builds" and I hate builds. I'd much rather have players identify with their characters by their names, titles, or accomplishments than by Wiz6/PrC(1)6/PrC(2)8.

But I hate people who say they are cool with rolling stats and then moan, whine, and complain when they roll bad almost as much. Almost.

Concur.

As a DM, I always offer point buy to avoid just this eventuality.

"Look man, you had a chance to do point buy, now your stuck with those rolls for this campaign,"

Did I mention that while they can rearrange the rolls, and change races (and thus racial modifiers), they don't get to reroll the stats if they suicide...?

I don't much like people who go out and pick a fight with a dire bear at level 3 just so they can go reroll....

SensFan
2007-08-13, 02:39 PM
Sometimes the person in question is otherwise a very good friend of yours, and you don't want to end a friendship over some dice rolls.

Only thing you can do is watch 'em, and take whatever dice rolls you can out of their hands.
While you're at it, why not just have them NEVER roll dice? If we made all d20 rolls into a 10.5 instead, we would remove all chance from the game! Oh wait...

-Cor-
2007-08-13, 02:40 PM
Well. I got through half the posts before I couldn't read anymore. Sorry if I'm repeating, but to the OP (and some others):

I personally like the d10 + 8 then assign system. Randomness, but no one gets screwed. Yeah, you might roll a 1 on a stat and have a -1 bonus but that's what stat bumps every 4 levels are for. In terms of "reality" in the game, it's working on something you know you're not good at.

I see a lot of, "It's not realistic to dump social skills CHA to make yourself more athletic (DEX)", but really, I think that's completely realistic. If I spent all my time in the gym, or studying a martial arts manual, I may very well become socially inept by all the time I spend in the same place and not around lots of different people. The converse holds true that if I spent all my time in my room studying (INT) and never outside playing with friends then perhaps both my physical abilities (STR) and my social abilities (CHA) would suffer.

I don't see any problem creating a character that way with point buy.

ravenkith
2007-08-13, 02:46 PM
While you're at it, why not just have them NEVER roll dice? If we made all d20 rolls into a 10.5 instead, we would remove all chance from the game! Oh wait...

I was talking about things like search, spot and listen checks...you know, the ones the DM is kind of 'sposed to roll anyways, so you won't know how well you did?

Tormsskull
2007-08-13, 02:50 PM
I was talking about things like search, spot and listen checks...you know, the ones the DM is kind of 'sposed to roll anyways, so you won't know how well you did?

A slight bit of a tangent, I've found that players don't complain about other player's rolls when they don't get to know what they are. I ran a campaign before like this, and everything was going great, we were all having a blast, etc. Until one of the nosy players looked in one of the other player's folders and found out that he had better scores. Then he was upset and saying the game wasn't any fun.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-13, 02:56 PM
I prefer rolling by far, IMO it leads to more interesting characters. I think point-buy leads to "builds" and I hate builds. I'd much rather have players identify with their characters by their names, titles, or accomplishments than by Wiz6/PrC(1)6/PrC(2)8.

But I hate people who say they are cool with rolling stats and then moan, whine, and complain when they roll bad almost as much. Almost.
Players identifying with their characters has nothing to do with their using a build:
Also, munchkins are infinitely more attached to rolling than point buy, because they tend to fudge and "reroll" their way up to 2 18s.

SensFan
2007-08-13, 03:01 PM
Players identifying with their characters has nothing to do with their using a build:
Also, munchkins are infinitely more attached to rolling than point buy, because they tend to fudge and "reroll" their way up to 2 18s.
It's very simple, as the DM, I choose when you reroll, not you.

Tormsskull
2007-08-13, 03:08 PM
Players identifying with their characters has nothing to do with their using a build:


To each their own. I play in heavy-roleplaying campaigns, and player's refering to their characters by an abstract non-roleplaying related term disconnects from the type of atmosphere that we're trying to create.



Also, munchkins are infinitely more attached to rolling than point buy, because they tend to fudge and "reroll" their way up to 2 18s.

I would disagree. A munchkin wants as much control over his character in his hands rather than the DMs. And as such I would say that a munchkin would prefer point-buy. Besides, only a very poor DM would be so blind as to not see a player fudging their way up to 2 18s.

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 03:16 PM
While I understand the balance part of the game, I still struggle with the concept that everyone should be equal. I guarantee you that you are a part of a group of some sort where not everybody is as good as everyone else. This is really a non-argument, though. "Since we can't have perfect balance, we shouldn't concern ourselves with trying to be balanced" isn't going to sell well. Apply that logic to any other part of the game, you'll see how poorly it fares.

My games use point buy because of a string of interesting die rolls years ago--the dice loved my characters, and it showed. I would roll my characters alongside other players (when I wasn't DMing, of course) and had an annoying tendency to do things like get characters without a single stat under 14, or with multiple 17-18's and maybe a 9 or 10--grossly out of the power range of the rest of my party (play an 18/80 fighter at low levels when nobody else even has a single 17...it's wrong). I suggested a point-buy rule after that happened one time too many, simply to keep all characters in roughly the same ballpark as far as stat balance goes. It was simply more fun for everyone.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-13, 03:30 PM
To each their own. I play in heavy-roleplaying campaigns, and player's refering to their characters by an abstract non-roleplaying related term disconnects from the type of atmosphere that we're trying to create.



I would disagree. A munchkin wants as much control over his character in his hands rather than the DMs. And as such I would say that a munchkin would prefer point-buy. Besides, only a very poor DM would be so blind as to not see a player fudging their way up to 2 18s.

An exagerration; I think most munchkins prefer the chance at a really high ability array.

Having statistics is necessary, and it doesn't make you a worse roleplayer, anymore than playing a straight fighter with nothing but toughness makes you a better roleplayer. It isn't a matter of having or not having a build, it's a matter of roleplaying.

You can be the most overoptimized batman Wizard and have a great character; it's a matter of not mentioning that when you're roleplaying.

nagora
2007-08-13, 03:34 PM
Which does not preclude point buy or going into a game with a character concept in mind, then building the character to fit. In that sense, roleplaying is not like life.

No, it doesn't. But I do think a random or unseen build can get you out of a rut of just playing things you're comfortable with.

In the last 15 years, I'd say our groups have moved almost completely to "New game, DM hands out the PCs sight unseen to the players". No rolling, no points. It works fine, really.

LotharBot
2007-08-13, 03:37 PM
I once had a group where one player rolled 18, 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, right in front of my eyes, and another player rolled 13, 12, 10, 9, 14, 12. There were balance problems in that party.

If you like die-rolling, but also want to maintain balance, try this variant:

Everyone rolls stats together. Everyone writes their set of rolls on a whiteboard. The DM crosses out any set of stats he's unwilling to allow (18-18-18-16-14-12? Sorry, not allowing that.) Then everyone is free to pick from the remaining stats. It's OK if several people pick the same set of stats. If you want to, allow players to shift a point or two from one stat to another to customize a little more.

You can end up with some really quirky characters this way. Consider the following set of die rolls I just created with 4d6 (and their point-buy values, assuming a 6 is worth -2):
15 15 15 14 9 6 = 29 (can move 1 point around)
17 15 13 13 13 10 = 38 (DM requires a flaw)
18 16 14 11 11 8 = 38 (DM requires a flaw)
17 14 14 11 8 8 = 28 (can move 1 point around)
18 16 15 14 12 6 = 42 (DM veto)
16 14 13 12 11 10 = 30 (can move 1 point around)

Clearly, there would be some balance problems if my 6 players were using these 6 arrays as written. But if I exercise a DM veto clause on the 42-point line, require either of the 38-point arrays to come with a flaw (that will actually matter), and allow players to swap one point around on any other array, I suspect my players will make some different choices, but none will be particularly underpowered or overpowered compared to the others. Other DM's might judge differently -- maybe I really should veto the 38-point lines? I don't know. But I do know none of my players would complain that some other player had better rolls than them.

Dausuul
2007-08-13, 03:40 PM
I would disagree. A munchkin wants as much control over his character in his hands rather than the DMs. And as such I would say that a munchkin would prefer point-buy. Besides, only a very poor DM would be so blind as to not see a player fudging their way up to 2 18s.

No, you're thinking of optimizers. Optimizers look for clever ways to wring the most performance out of any character concept, but for them the thrill is in the cleverness of the build. A true optimizer may well play a single-class half-orc monk just to see how effective he or she can make a traditionally underpowered class and race. Optimizers dislike stat rolling because it introduces a random element into what they view as a test of strategy and skill.

Munchkins are something else entirely. A munchkin wants the biggest numbers possible by any means possible. Stat rolling appeals to munchkins because of the possibility of rolling uber-stats. If they roll badly, they will whine, moan, complain, and look for a way to get the character killed at the earliest opportunity. If prevented from doing so (or if forced to stick with the same rolls for the new character), the munchkin will continue to complain about how unfair it all is, and will agitate for ending the whole campaign and starting afresh... with a new set of stat rolls, of course.

The optimizer seeks perfect mastery of the D&D ruleset; the munchkin wants to win the D&D game.

Sleet
2007-08-13, 03:41 PM
No, it doesn't. But I do think a random or unseen build can get you out of a rut of just playing things you're comfortable with.

That's a long way from saying that a good DM makes the game as true to real life as possible, which is the root of my disagreement with you.

nagora
2007-08-13, 03:53 PM
That's a long way from saying that a good DM makes the game as true to real life as possible.

It's not connected - character generation is such a small part of a character's existance that it's not worth getting too worked up about it. Get it done by any means so everyone's fairly happy - or not too unhappy - and get playing.

Regardless of that, a good DM WILL make the game seem like it was dealing with real life even while involving gods and demons. I have had DMs that were so good at evoking the scene that I can still hear the drow's harpoons skittering down the cobbled streets of the Underdark city we were trapped in when they sailed overhead in their black catamarans. And I can remember the feeling of the rain in the fog when the hog of hell was released by mistake in a small village in Northumberland. To say nothing of the dank sewers where the white mice scorned us and the brown rats fought the great black rat of doom.

Not our real life by any means, but the characters' "real life". These adventures meant something to us - and still do - because they seemed real, and not just a quick game of Dungeon.

Sleet
2007-08-13, 04:53 PM
Not our real life my any means, but the characters' "real life".

OK, that didn't seem to be what you were saying before. I think we're ultimately in agreement.

Kiero
2007-08-13, 05:01 PM
The first is only true up to a point (and the better the DM, the less it is true), the second even less so. Children become adults chiefly by roleplaying. That's why we talk about the importance of role-models.

No, it's only true insofar as that's a goal of the group in question. If versmilitude isn't your thing, then your games aren't anything like life.

nagora
2007-08-13, 05:14 PM
No, it's only true insofar as that's a goal of the group in question. If versmilitude isn't your thing, then your games aren't anything like life.

If versmilitude isn't your thing, then you aren't role-playing. You might be rolling or playing, but you're not role-playing.

ChrisMcDee
2007-08-13, 05:23 PM
I like rolling for stats but am wary of balance within the group. That's why I use a variation on a method I came up with some time ago.

The DM rolls his dice of choice (say roll 4 drop 1) and gets the total. Say this is 17. The players each choose to put this 17 in one of their abilities. They can't move it once it's here, so the Wizard can put the 17 in his Int or hold out for the 18 if he's feeling lucky. The DM then repeats this until all Attributes are filled.

This gives the player some choice in where his high rolls go but also keeps that element of surprise. Particularly if an unexpected 18 were to come up as the last roll you may well end up with a very strong Wizard if he was ignoring Str!

The best part is that everyone in the party will have the same attributes in total.

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 05:27 PM
If versmilitude isn't your thing, then you aren't role-playing. You might be rolling or playing, but you're not role-playing. Or they're roleplaying in a campaign that is high fantasy and doesn't attempt to match the real world in any way, which I have known people to do. "Verisimilitude" is just the degree to which something includes realism, it's no measure of roleplaying at all.

Remember one of the golden rules of gaming..."my way of playing need not be the only right way of playing" :smallcool:

The best part is that everyone in the party will have the same attributes in total. ...although it might not give everyone the same total value from attributes.

That is a fun twist on rolling for stats, I must say, but it's imperfect--like all methods.

Dausuul
2007-08-13, 05:28 PM
If versmilitude isn't your thing, then you aren't role-playing. You might be rolling or playing, but you're not role-playing.

That depends a lot on what you mean by "verisimilitude." Take a game like Wushu. Although nominally set in the real world, Wushu does not strive for an accurate simulation of reality... at all. It is designed to encourage the players to have fun with it, to describe their characters doing wild and incredible things such as one might see in a really over-the-top kung-fu movie. Want to kill an entire SWAT team in full armor by flinging butter knives at them? Go for it! The rules don't concern themselves with how you kill the SWAT team, only with whether you can. If the rules and the dice say you can do it, you're at liberty to describe the means pretty much however you like. (I think there's some mechanic to allow other players and/or the GM to veto stuff they just can't deal with, but I doubt that often sees use.)

Is that verisimilitude? Lots of folks would say no. Yet I'd say you can play Wushu, as intended, and still be roleplaying.

ChrisMcDee
2007-08-13, 05:57 PM
...although it might not give everyone the same total value from attributes.

That is a fun twist on rolling for stats, I must say, but it's imperfect--like all methods.
You're absolutely right. It's a nice comprimise if you have players wanting both points buy and rolling, though.

nagora
2007-08-13, 06:24 PM
Or they're roleplaying in a campaign that is high fantasy and doesn't attempt to match the real world in any way, which I have known people to do. "Verisimilitude" is just the degree to which something includes realism, it's no measure of roleplaying at all.


No. Verisimilitude is the appearance of being real, and no matter how high-fantasy or wildly unlike the real world (see my previous post about the black rat of doom), it is that quality which defines role-playing.

If you don't have any feeling that the activities in the game involve you - are in a sense "real" - then you simply can't be playing the role: its an oxymoron. If you always feel that the action is just numbers and dice rolls and figures on a cardboard map, then you are not role-playing; how could you be? "What's your character like?" "He's a lead figure."

That's part of why the type of character generation is not all that important: you're going to be playing the role, not the numbers, aren't you? If the generation of characters throws up an interesting character then it's done its job and game balance should be a secondary factor, although not one to be totally ignored since there's usually more than one person playing.

In role-playing generally, the only time "reality" is important is in regard to your character. If s/he/it doesn't feel real to you, then there is no role to play, unless you count "the guy that rolls the dice".

Kiero
2007-08-13, 06:27 PM
If versmilitude isn't your thing, then you aren't role-playing. You might be rolling or playing, but you're not role-playing.

Oh please.

nagora
2007-08-13, 06:29 PM
Is that verisimilitude?

If it make you feel that it's happening to you, then yes, and that's the point about role-playing - you feel that you are involved rather than simply looking down on a board or listening to someone else's telling of a story.

Wushu sounds fun.

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 06:32 PM
No. Verisimilitude is the appearance of being real, and no matter how high-fantasy or wildly unlike the real world (see my previous post about the black rat of doom), it is that quality which defines role-playing. Do you know where your towel is? Because I know a frood who forgot his when his planet exploded, but I'm pretty sure we could roleplay his universe with practically nothing verisimilar. Roleplaying is defined by playing a role; if you're adding more restrictions than that, you're breaking the golden rule, my friend. You might not be able to roleplay in a world where you can suddenly forget to hit the ground when you fall, but that doesn't make it not roleplaying, it's just not your way.


If it make you feel that it's happening to you, then yes, and that's the point about role-playing - you feel that you are involved rather than simply looking down on a board or listening to someone else's telling of a story. No, nagora, that is not verisimilitude. What you are describing is "compelling storytelling", which is another attribute entirely.

nagora
2007-08-13, 06:32 PM
Oh please.

Well, then, explain how you can be role playing if you don't have any feeling of reality attached to your actions. I just don't see how it can be possible to role-play AND at the same time never identify with the character as a real(ish) person.

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 06:35 PM
Well, then, explain how you can be role playing if you don't have any feeling of reality attached to your actions. I just don't see how it can be possible to role-play AND at the same time never identify with the character as a real(ish) person. Imagination. People have varying degrees of it. For some of us, it's really no problem at all.

Your way of playing is not "the right way", while everyone else's is "the wrong way", and it's getting a little tiresome to point that out so often. Roleplaying is playing a role, not some weird attribute of the degree to which something includes realism.

nagora
2007-08-13, 06:37 PM
Roleplaying is defined by playing a role;

Hooray! Someone's got it!


if you're adding more restrictions than that, you're breaking the golden rule, my friend. You might not be able to roleplay in a world where you can suddenly forget to hit the ground when you fall, but that doesn't make it not roleplaying, it's just not your way.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Of course you can roleplay in such a world. So long as you can identify with the character (ie, they seem real) then it matters not a jot what the world is like. Other wise fantasy role-playing would be impossible!

It's all about the characters: characters feel real = role-playing; characters seem abstract = not role-playing.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-13, 06:41 PM
Well, then, explain how you can be role playing if you don't have any feeling of reality attached to your actions. I just don't see how it can be possible to role-play AND at the same time never identify with the character as a real(ish) person.

Because the player is a completely unreal person. It's one thing for a player to try and act out a player, but it's the ultimate overacting to say "my player makes the decision, I'm only playing his role."

Check "Making Tough Decisions" on this very site for a good treatise on this.

nagora
2007-08-13, 06:44 PM
Imagination. People have varying degrees of it. For some of us, it's really no problem at all.

Your way of playing is not "the right way", while everyone else's is "the wrong way", and it's getting a little tiresome to point that out so often. Roleplaying is playing a role, not some weird attribute of the degree to which something includes realism.

That's right. My point is simply that people can't play roles that are totally alien to them; if the DM can give the players some hook of understanding on how to play an intelligent tuna fish with fricking lasers on its head, then s/he has done their job. They have made that role "real" to the players. Some people need less help from the DM than others but if the characters never take on a life of their own - never seem real - then how can anyone play those characters as roles?

Surely role-playing requires a certain amount of imagining what it would be like to be that tunafish or that hobbit or that cop? That's the only "realism" that counts - getting into the role as if the character actually existed - but it does count.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-13, 06:50 PM
Because the player is a completely unreal person. It's one thing for a player to try and act out a player, but it's the ultimate overacting to say "my player makes the decision, I'm only playing his role."

Check "Making Tough Decisions" on this very site for a good treatise on this.
While I somewhat fear to set foot in this exchange, I disagree with the article on that point.

But then, I disagree with a lot of positions based on smooth running over consistency.

nagora
2007-08-13, 06:56 PM
I prefer rolling by far, IMO it leads to more interesting characters. I think point-buy leads to "builds" and I hate builds. I'd much rather have players identify with their characters by their names, titles, or accomplishments than by Wiz6/PrC(1)6/PrC(2)8.

I agree to an extent. Builds tend to stress the mechanical nature of the game from the off and I've seen newbies who never recover from this and can never break down the barrier between themselves and the character. But, for experienced players and/or a DM who stresses the reality of the characters as people (or, err, whatever they happen to be) instead of a bunch of mechanical numbers, I don't think it's often fatal to the role-playing.

Fhaolan
2007-08-13, 07:00 PM
However, *too* much identification with a character leads to... problems... and steam tunnels. :smallsmile:

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 07:00 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Of course you can roleplay in such a world. So long as you can identify with the character (ie, they seem real) then it matters not a jot what the world is like. Other wise fantasy role-playing would be impossible! The degree to which a character seems real has very little to do with whether or not it can be roleplayed. You might not be able to do it, but it's not impossible--just not in your bag of tricks.
It's all about the characters: characters feel real = role-playing; characters seem abstract = not role-playing. To you.
We are not you.
That's right. My point is simply that people can't play roles that are totally alien to them; if the DM can give the players some hook of understanding on how to play an intelligent tuna fish with fricking lasers on its head, then s/he has done their job. They have made that role "real" to the players. The verisimilitude of something is the degree to which it is real/realistic/believable. The less verisimilar a story is, the more suspension of disbelief you need in order to connect with it. A PC who was an intelligent tuna fish with fricking lasers on its head is a pretty significant suspension of disbelief, and is thus not particularly verisimilar. You could play it, DM and co-players permitting, but it's not verisimilar at all.

If you honestly feel that roleplaying an intelligent tuna fish with fricking lasers on its head is an example of verisimilitude in action, then this argument is pointless primarily due to your definition of the term having no bearing whatsoever on what it means to the rest of the world.

Compelling storytelling is what gets someone into a character--verisimilitude is just an attribute that may or may not be present in any significant degree.

nagora
2007-08-13, 07:24 PM
The degree to which a character seems real has very little to do with whether or not it can be roleplayed.

If you say so. I suppose you could have a table to roll on when the character had to make a decision; that would avoid having to pretend they were real.


You might not be able to do it, but it's not impossible--just not in your bag of tricks. To you.

I bow to your superior ability to play a role while simultainously not having to imagine what it would be like to be in that role. Is this some sort of Dualist's koan?


We are not you. The verisimilitude of something is the degree to which it is real/realistic/believable. The less verisimilar a story is, the more suspension of disbelief you need in order to connect with it. A PC who was an intelligent tuna fish with fricking lasers on its head is a pretty significant suspension of disbelief, and is thus not particularly verisimilar. You could play it, DM and co-players permitting, but it's not verisimilar at all.

I don't care how weird or unreal the story or background is. The issue is whether the DM or world creator can get across the reality of being an intelligent tunafish in that world. It's all about the reality of the character in the context of the fantasy.


If you honestly feel that roleplaying an intelligent tuna fish with fricking lasers on its head is an example of verisimilitude in action, then this argument is pointless primarily due to your definition of the term having no bearing whatsoever on what it means to the rest of the world.

Okay, well perhaps I didn't go to a school that taught the correct world for "something that isn't real but which is depicted in such a way that viewers could imagine it - but WITHOUT pretending that it was in any way real". I thought "verisimilitude" (defined in the OED as "the appearance of being true or real; likeness or resemblance to truth, reality, or fact") would have done the job. Sorry about the confusion.


Compelling storytelling is what gets someone into a character--verisimilitude is just an attribute that may or may not be present in any significant degree.

Again, I give way to your supernatural ability to imagine how something or someone would act in a situation without ever having to pretend that it was in any way real. Your parents must be very proud.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-13, 07:27 PM
Nagora, it's perfectly possible to roleplay without ever imagining oneself as that character--just like not all actors are method actors. Think in terms of "telling a story". I sure don't put myself in the shoes of every character I write.

Donovan
2007-08-13, 07:39 PM
Seriously guys, get a grip. The reason why point-buy is overwhelmingly popular is simple: its easy and fair.

It easy because you don't have to play these games to try to balance out and get normalized results from random rolling. I've played with rolled stat in AD&D and it was annoying to be quite honest. You invariably have one person playing "Supra the Human Paragon" who had the lowest stat of 14 and one person playing "Pathos the Horribly Crippled" who barely qualified to be a dung sweeper. Unless of course you allowed rerolls, then it was merely an endurance run to see just how many times at the dice it took for you to make a Paragon.

It's fair because all PCs and NPCs play by the same rules. You won't have people complaining about the next guys stats because, mathematically, they are the same as yours.

That being said, play however you want. As long as all players agree to the mechanics before the game starts, its all good. For example, I run a game with a 36 point buy with gestalt characters. It's certainly high powered, with plenty of both roleplaying and rollplaying. However, NPCs have the same benefits so it balances out. Most importantly, everybody is having lots of fun which is the most important factor of all.

nagora
2007-08-13, 07:40 PM
Nagora, it's perfectly possible to roleplay without ever imagining oneself as that character--just like not all actors are method actors. Think in terms of "telling a story". I sure don't put myself in the shoes of every character I write.

Hello again!

I'm quite happy to discuss this as a possibility, but I do start from the point of view that if you don't put yourself in their shoes, or they simply don't seem belivable characters, then what basis do you have to judge what they would do? Won't any such judgement be arbirary? In which case, you could just roll on a table. And if that's the case, then in what way can you say that you're playing a role and not just shuffling mini's about?

It seems to me to be a requirement of playing a role that you can imagine it as a real thing and then act out their life, or some small part of it. If not, then what does the term "role-playing" mean to you?

nagora
2007-08-13, 07:46 PM
It easy because you don't have to play these games to try to balance out and get normalized results from random rolling. I've played with rolled stat in AD&D and it was annoying to be quite honest. You invariably have one person playing "Supra the Human Paragon" who had the lowest stat of 14 and one person playing "Pathos the Horribly Crippled" who barely qualified to be a dung sweeper.

Would it be worth mentioning at this point that the original Nagora was a fighter with STR 11 (rolled randomly, obviously). Became the highest level character in our games ever (13th after many, many years of play in 1e), in the end.

Perhaps a nice compromise would be for the DM to build the characters with points. That way everyone would have "fairness" but get something that they might not have thought of playing themselves. Obviously, the DM should know his/her players well enough to to give anyone something they actually hate.

Corolinth
2007-08-13, 07:50 PM
Point buy is becoming popular for a few reasons, the most obvious is people wanting to tweak their character to not have any weaknesses, or to have their dump stat exactly how they want it. (And I have a player who periodically tells me how certain character concepts are underpowered because you could easily do A, B, or C on a X-point-buy). I'm inclined to say it's achieved popularity due to the number of players who drifted over from games like Legend of Five Rings, Shadowrun, or Vampire, except that D&D is generally where new players pop their role-playing game cherry. Sound, rational theory, but probably wrong.

It eliminates a lot of the bitching that Gary is going to do because he didn't roll an 18 for his dexterity, but Bob rolled an 18 for his charisma. Or vice versa, that Bob rolled a 7 for his constitution, but Gary rolled a 12. I had a player who rolled the elite array and bitched that he didn't have an 18. Of course, there's another player on the elite array, and two others who have a 7 to work around (they all added up to 25 or 26 point characters). Either way, someone is still likely to bitch. Point-buys make that your own damn fault. Ultimately, though, this still isn't the #1 reason for the popularity of point-buy systems.

When you roll dice, the DM watches. On internet-based campaigns, the DM can't watch over your shoulder while you roll dice. To ensure that nobody cheats, most people use point-buys. Where are we getting the impression that everybody uses a point-buy these days? You got it - the internet. It has nothing to do with fairness, customization, "role-playing", or streamlining character creation. It's so that your players don't have any way to cheat prior to the game.

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 07:57 PM
If you say so. I suppose you could have a table to roll on when the character had to make a decision; that would avoid having to pretend they were real. ...or just run with the premise regardless of how unreal it appears.
I bow to your superior ability to play a role while simultainously not having to imagine what it would be like to be in that role. Is this some sort of Dualist's koan? It's roleplaying.
I don't care how weird or unreal the story or background is. The issue is whether the DM or world creator can get across the reality of being an intelligent tunafish in that world. It's all about the reality of the character in the context of the fantasy. That is important, I agree. That's not verisimilitude though.
Okay, well perhaps I didn't go to a school that taught the correct world for "something that isn't real but which is depicted in such a way that viewers could imagine it - but WITHOUT pretending that it was in any way real". "compelling fantasy"
You're welcome.
I thought "verisimilitude" (defined in the OED as "the appearance of being true or real; likeness or resemblance to truth, reality, or fact") would have done the job. Sorry about the confusion. I'm flabbergasted--you just quoted a definition that completely contradicted your own interpretation without realizing it. You're emphasizing "appearance" and "likeness" as though they were ironic (ie, not meaning what they would literally mean), but they're not an ironic usage, they mean exactly what they would literally mean.
Does it appear real?
Is it like reality?
If not, then by the definition you just quoted, there's no verisimilitude!

"Verisimilitude" is the noun form of "verisimilar", which means "having the appearance of truth; probable; depicting realism"...something that does not appear true, is improbable, or doesn't depict realism is not verisimilar.

I'm not just making this up. If you don't want to believe that the dictionary was using "resemblance to reality" to mean "resemblance to reality", then try a google search to see how the term is being used for exactly the sort of situations we're talking about:
The sense that what one reads is "real," or at least realistic and believable. For instance, the reader possesses a sense of verisimilitude when reading a story in which a character cuts his finger, and the finger bleeds. If the character's cut finger had produced sparks of fire rather than blood, the story would not possess verisimilitude.
Verisimilitude is the state or quality of something that exhibits the appearance of truth or reality.

In literature and theatre, the term denotes the extent to which a work of fiction exhibits realism or authenticity, or otherwise conforms to our sense of reality. A work with a high degree of verisimilitude means that the work is very realistic and believable; works of this nature are often said to be "true to life".
Verisimilitude is described as the quality of appearing to be true or depicting reality. In storytelling, the audience contributes to the experience by their "willing suspension of disbelief". The more the story resembles reality -- even in small details -- the easier it is for the audience to engage. Realism and plausibility are especially important ingredients in an alternate reality game (ARG). ...do you see how the term is actually used? That is the correct reading of the definition you quoted, not the ironic usage you were assuming. They mean "like reality" when they say "like reality"--they don't mean "completely different from reality, but usually consistent", that's something else entirely.
Again, I give way to your supernatural ability to imagine how something or someone would act in a situation without ever having to pretend that it was in any way real. Your parents must be very proud. And my gaming group is very entertained, it makes for good roleplaying.

You're getting kind of flamey here, mind dialing it back a notch before it gets out of hand? There's no need to do that to a perfectly good thread.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-13, 07:58 PM
Hello again!

I'm quite happy to discuss this as a possibility, but I do start from the point of view that if you don't put yourself in their shoes, or they simply don't seem belivable characters, then what basis do you have to judge what they would do? Won't any such judgement be arbitrary?

No more arbitrary than your imagination. All characters are arbitrary somewhere--you decide that the character grew up the son of an [x], that his parents are alive/dead, et cetera.

Like I said--compare it to method acting. Not all actors are method actors, and the ones that aren't do just fine for themselves. "Putting yourself in someone's shoes" can even be a worse idea, since you're not considering the ways it might be reasonable for someone with that personality to react, but instead considering how you'd react--and wouldn't that make all of your characters a little too much like you?
I quite enjoy theater and I act sometimes (big surprise), and I'm not a method actress. The way I deal with and react to various emotions and the way any given character might are very different; the way I stand and look, even. If I'm going to be nervous and distraught in character, I'm going to portray that character being nervous and distraught (which is going to be different for different characters--a soldier will have different nervous habits than a housewife), and I'm not going to do that by engaging in my nervous habits, or by imagining myself in that situation.

If I'm narrating what my character's doing, of course it should be believable, but that doesn't mean I need to try to make myself feel what the character is feeling, or ask, what would I do in that situation? If everyone did that all the time, few people would play characters different from themselves. (And at the moment, I'm playing a "hardcore", violence-happy street punk turned gladiator and a genteel beguiler with an affected exoticism; you can see how them being similar might not make much sense.)

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 08:08 PM
Like I said--compare it to method acting. Not all actors are method actors, and the ones that aren't do just fine for themselves. "Putting yourself in someone's shoes" can even be a worse idea, since you're not considering the ways it might be reasonable for someone with that personality to react, but instead considering how you'd react Indeed, you don't need to imagine "what would I feel" in order to play a character that would respond a certain way--you just act out how that character would respond, on the character's own terms. That's still playing the role of the character, a personal attachment to each of your character's responses isn't necessary to play the role convincingly.

nagora
2007-08-13, 08:17 PM
...or just run with the premise regardless of how unreal it appears.

That can be done. But, my original point, the more real the DM can make it seem the better the roleplaying will be.


"compelling fantasy"

And what is it about a fantasy that makes it compelling if it's not suspention of disbelief, ie the ability to make the audience/players believe in the characters for the duration? A story where the viewer is constantly aware of the artifice is not compelling. Beckett breaks down the very artificial appearance of his plays by drawing the viewer into the world inside the character's heads. By the end of the first act, those characters have taken on a life of their own. If not, then the play is a failure for that viewer.



You're welcome. I'm flabbergasted--you just quoted a definition that completely contradicted your own interpretation without realizing it. You're emphasizing "appearance" and "likeness" as though they were ironic (ie, not meaning what they would literally mean), but they're not an ironic usage, they mean exactly what they would literally mean.

I'm not seeing what you are getting at, perhaps an example useage quote would help (also from OED): "Truth has no greater Enemy than verisimilitude and likelihood."

This is what I meant when stressing those words: verisimilitude is only the appearance of something being real or true. It specifically means something which is not true but is made to appear so. That, to me, is what every DM should strive for - to make their world be accepted, like a good play or film, as real while playing it no matter how unlike our reality it is. Real seeming, not realistic. Clearly, verisimilitude in our world must also imply realistic, but I thought the context of a fantasy world would make it clear that it this would become optional. Orcs are not realistic or, but good storytelling can make them at least appear real, while the story runs its course. A flawed depiction can drop the reader/player out thinking "that seems wrong" even though they have accepted all sorts of wonders and freaks for three hours of play beforehand.


They mean "like reality" when they say "like reality"--they don't mean "completely different from reality, but usually consistent".

No, but they do mean "something false which is meant to be taken as real".

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-13, 08:27 PM
Before joining these forums a few months ago, I had never built a character, or played in a campaign, using Point Buy. Here, using Point Buy seems to be the norm, or at least thats my perspective of it, from the registration threads I've seen. Hopefully I'm wrong on that note.

The first chapter of the Player's Handbook explains that the attributes of characters are determined by rolling four (4) six-sided dice (d6s), and removing the lowest roll. It does not say that rolling is one of the ways to do it, it says that rolling is the way to do it. No other ways of determining ability scores are mentioned in the PHB.

The DMG has a whole host of variants availible to be used, some of which most people probably don't even know/remember. Many variants see use in a few games, perhaps even in half or so. Some of the very popular ones, possibly even the most popular ones, are the alternative systems for determining the six (6) ability scores.

I don't have an issue with variants being used in the game. I personally use a handful of those presented in the Unearthed Arcana in the games I run. I don't even care all that much that there is a variant on one of the basic principles of the game. No, what I dislike about Point Buy is I feel it is becoming the standard. I'm worried that people are seeing Point Buy as the normal way of doing it, being surprised, or even upset, at a DM that uses rolling.

To me, rolling is the best way of determining ability scores. Since joining this forum, I have made more than a few characters with the Point Buy method, due in large part to the huge number of DMs that use it. What I have found is that the characters are way too customizable. Primary spellcasters can sacrifice their Strength score to put their casting ability through the roof. Melee builds (well, alot more than just Melee builds, but they're the most common offenders) can completely ignore Charisma. And that's not even going into the complete exclusion of odd scores. Your character will be tuned to perfection. No more having moderate scores where you don't need them to be that good. Make the scores you need amazing, and the rest horrible. Someone trying to succeed as an Archer in the real world can't become dumber to make them stronger. They can't remove every bit of social grace from their body to improve their agility. No, sometimes in life you have to make due with what life gives you.

With rolling, you get some of that variety back in the game. You still get the choice to decide what you are best at. Is that not enough? Is it that horrible that your character doesn't have the maximum natural Intelligence for his race? Or that he isn't as strong as some of the world's strongest men? Is him being stronger, faster, smarter and wiser that the vast majority of people will ever be not good enough for you? Enough of this nonsense. Point Buy is akin to making people robots, as far as I can see. Fine tuning them to to what they want to do as well as they can, with no regard to doing much else.

Maybe some of you want impecably-tuned robots. Me? I'd rather play with a character that has to make due with his shortcomings, not eliminate them.

Wow. I have never seen a flame as an opening post before.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-13, 08:39 PM
While I somewhat fear to set foot in this exchange, I disagree with the article on that point.

But then, I disagree with a lot of positions based on smooth running over consistency.
I've seen players up and leave an encounter because "his character wouldn't do that." That is not good roleplaying, that is not good gaming, that is choosing to intentionally create friction to try and aggrandize the imagined quality of your character.


The reason why one doesn't imagine "what your character would do" is because your character is not real. No character is real, regardless of how good the person is at roleplaying. They can't make decisions; if someone says their character "decided" to do something, they didn't. That person made a decision, and saying that the "character decided" is untrue. Flatly.

I'm not saying that one shouldn't get into character; but call a spade a spade. Characters are characters.

nagora
2007-08-13, 08:42 PM
No more arbitrary than your imagination. All characters are arbitrary somewhere--you decide that the character grew up the son of an [x], that his parents are alive/dead, et cetera.

True, but once generation is over, that sort of arbitrariness should quickly fade. Players who's characters spend years hating kobolds and then suddenly set up a home for injured kobolds with no more explanation than "I changed my mind" are not role-playing very well.


Like I said--compare it to method acting. Not all actors are method actors, and the ones that aren't do just fine for themselves.

The difference with role-playing is that we're not scripted. We have to be "method" to some extent because that is our only source for deciding what happens next, no one is telling us so we have no way to "just go with what it says to do". Unless the DM is a railroader.


"Putting yourself in someone's shoes" can even be a worse idea, since you're not considering the ways it might be reasonable for someone with that personality to react, but instead considering how you'd react--and wouldn't that make all of your characters a little too much like you?

This is a good point, but is it really possible to do this without just falling back on blind imitation of other people you've seen before? In which case you're not really playing a role, just copying a role someone else played before.

I think the truth for most people is that they act out what they would do or how they would react if. "If I was a man." "If I was rich" "If I was brave enough to go into battle." "If I could just get up and leave my responsibilities behind". The best that the vast majority can hope for is to play out aspects of our real character; those are the parts people play best, I think. After all, what do we know better? And, again, if it's NOT coming from inside us, then are we playing a role?


I quite enjoy theater and I act sometimes (big surprise), and I'm not a method actress. The way I deal with and react to various emotions and the way any given character might are very different; the way I stand and look, even. If I'm going to be nervous and distraught in character, I'm going to portray that character being nervous and distraught (which is going to be different for different characters--a soldier will have different nervous habits than a housewife), and I'm not going to do that by engaging in my nervous habits, or by imagining myself in that situation.

But then you're not being asked to imagne yourself in the situation: you're being given the description and told to portray it. The script, the "what next?" are in the hands of someone else.

Have you tried improv theatre? THAT's much more like an RPG.


If I'm narrating what my character's doing, of course it should be believable, but that doesn't mean I need to try to make myself feel what the character is feeling, or ask, what would I do in that situation?

Even so (and I'm unconvinced), don't you have a feeling of what is a "realistic" reaction for that character? If there's no reality to them then any action is as good as any other, yet you must know that isn't true. The character is unlikely to do A, likely to do B. Why? Because that's how you think a real person who resembled the character would act. They have a reality about them. The more you understand the character, the more real they seem, then the easier it is to play them.


If everyone did that all the time, few people would play characters different from themselves. (And at the moment, I'm playing a "hardcore", violence-happy street punk turned gladiator and a genteel beguiler with an affected exoticism; you can see how them being similar might not make much sense.)

Are you enjoying it? If so, then there's some part of you in that character. Be warned!

Kidding aside, I think this venting and playing with parts of our personalities is one of the most valuable things we get from role-playing. I've played LE and CG and I know that both of them represent parts of my makeup even though, like most people, I act TN most of the time. I want law and order, but not oppression, I want freedom but not chaos, life should be protected but sometimes war is necessary.... In an RPG we can think about what happens when some of those 'but's get lopped off.

nagora
2007-08-13, 08:46 PM
The reason why one doesn't imagine "what your character would do" is because your character is not real. No character is real, regardless of how good the person is at roleplaying. They can't make decisions; if someone says their character "decided" to do something, they didn't. That person made a decision, and saying that the "character decided" is untrue. Flatly.


Well, certainly, if they're using the third-person then they're not playing the role, are they? They're just describing the role.

I think you're being too literal here. I suspect you don't jump up in a cinema and shout "No! NO! He's not Han Solo; he's Harrison Ford! Liar liar!", do you?

We all know the characters don't exist; we're just pretending they do.

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 09:01 PM
This is what I meant when stressing those words: verisimilitude is only the appearance of something being real or true. It specifically means something which is not true but is made to appear so. Of course, it is only used in the context of art, literature, theatre, etc--which are all reflections of reality rather than reality itself. This changes nothing with regard to the verisimilitude of the painting/book/play being its resemblance to reality. The painting of a fresh red apple is not a real apple, but it has verisimilitude if it properly resembles an apple. The armored human fighter is not a real human, but it has verisimilitude if it properly resembles a human. The intelligent tuna fish with lasers on its head is not a real fish, but it has verisimilitude if it properly resembles a tuna fish...and probably won't manage to do so.
No, but they do mean "something false which is meant to be taken as real". You're thinking more along "suspension of disbelief lines"...and if what you just said what OED meant, that's what OED would have said. This is a dictionary we're talking about, they tend to define terms directly rather than leaving it up to the connotations of one of the words that might or might not mean something. I believe you're reading too much into that connotation and not enough into the actual denotation, which is why I gave you several sources in the previous post to help with practical usage. They show how the term is being used, and it varies in an important way from how you're using it.


And now, backing up a moment...
That can be done. But, my original point, the more real the DM can make it seem the better the roleplaying will be. That directly contradicts the claim that...
If versmilitude isn't your thing, then you aren't role-playing. You might be rolling or playing, but you're not role-playing.
...because you just changed it to "verisimilitude makes for easier roleplaying", which is a dramatically different statement. Either you're coming around to the validity of our way of playing or the goalposts are moving. I can't tell which--can I roll Sense Motive?

AlterForm
2007-08-13, 09:02 PM
Well, certainly, if they're using the third-person then they're not playing the role, are they? They're just describing the role.

I think you're being too literal here. I suspect you don't jump up in a cinema and shout "No! NO! He's not Han Solo; he's Harrison Ford! Liar liar!", do you?

We all know the characters don't exist; we're just pretending they do.

I think you're being too literal, and contradicting yourself!

Literality: He isn't saying "when your pal (Jeff, RPing Telor) is referred to, by the King of Somewhere, as Telor, you should say, no, he's Jeff!" He's saying "when your pal (Jeff, RPing Telor) is referred to, by the King of Somewhere, as Telor, you should acknowledge that neither Telor, nor the KoS, exist in reality, however, Jeff and Tim (the DM) have imagined a pair of humans and how they might behave when interacting with each other."




Contradiction: What happened to your "RPing is improv acting, not scripted acting!" thought process?



Also, have you read this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11990222&postcount=2)?

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 09:06 PM
The difference with role-playing is that we're not scripted. We have to be "method" to some extent because that is our only source for deciding what happens next, no one is telling us so we have no way to "just go with what it says to do". You do if you decided the relevant portion of the personality for your character--you do what has been determined the character would do, even if you can't personally relate to it. Once again, your method of roleplaying is not the one true method, and everyone else's method is not wrong. We do not have to do it the way you describe.

Sleet
2007-08-13, 09:13 PM
The issue is whether the DM or world creator can get across the reality of being an intelligent tunafish in that world. It's all about the reality of the character in the context of the fantasy.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the observation that a roleplaying game is not necessarily intended to mirror real life as closely as the GM's skill will allow, which certainly seems to be what your original point in this thread was. Perhaps that's the source of the disconnect here.

nagora
2007-08-13, 09:22 PM
Indeed, you don't need to imagine "what would I feel" in order to play a character that would respond a certain way--you just act out how that character would respond, on the character's own terms.

But that's what I'm trying to get at: if you have no handle on how that character would respond, then how do you decide? There must be some internal sense of reality to the character to know what their own terms are.

And the more the DM manages to create a sense of reality about the world and its contents, the better the players are able to grasp or infer those terms and thus better able to play their parts, and add their own interpretations which fit the reality of the DM and the other players. After a year or so of this the world will seem very real, hopefully.

Which brings us back to where we started: the more real the DM makes the characters' lives seem, the better the role-playing will be and the better a DM they are (with the ultimate case being that a total failure of the DM to make the character's lives seem real results in no role-playing at all).


That directly contradicts the claim that...

If versmilitude isn't your thing, then you aren't role-playing. You might be rolling or playing, but you're not role-playing.

...because you just changed it to "verisimilitude makes for easier roleplaying", which is a dramatically different statement. Either you're coming around to the validity of our way of playing or the goalposts are moving.

Without a sense of the reality of that character, there is no role to play. I don't think I've moved from that position; which I honestly think is your's too if only I could express myself clearly enough. Versmilitude does not just make it easier, it makes it possible at all.

Without some imitation of a real life (but not the real life we as players know), as represented by the character and the world, there is nothing to justify or deny any action and all decisions by the player as to what the character does next are arbitrary.


You do [ have a way to "just go with what it says to do" ]if you decided the relevant portion of the personality for your character--you do what has been determined the character would do, even if you can't personally relate to it.

But there's still a realism element. A character who knows a fact one minute and doesn't know it the next, or who hates beer on Tuesday and loves it on Thursday with no explanation (not even insanity) is not a role being played, it is a set of whims being indulged. Once we start explaining why the character does this (worships Thor, say) we are both starting to construct a reality for that character AND playing a role; it is not a coincidence that both occur together - they are inseparable.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-13, 09:26 PM
Woo first post!

The problem I'm noticing here is that nagora believes that his way of roleplaying is the only valid one. The method of generating a character's ability scores is mutually exclusive to how well said character is role played. [anecdotal evidence] I've played characters whom I heavily optimized to compliment their other abilities. There was a time I created a character who worked so well that he was destroying enemies before the other characters realized there was an enemy. I retired him after I realized he was only getting stronger. He may have been overpowered and threw off balance, but that did not impact how well he was roleplayed. We all had fun, and we all agreed that he was to be retired and left to oblivion.[/anecdotal evidence]

nagora
2007-08-13, 09:32 PM
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the observation that a roleplaying game is not necessarily intended to mirror real life as closely as the GM's skill will allow, which certainly seems to be what your original point in this thread was. Perhaps that's the source of the disconnect here.

I think the problem is the word "real" (although "versmilitude" hasn't proved a winner either). I never meant it to be taken as "being like the real world we live in". Just that things happen in the world for a reason and characters do things for a reason.

Those reasons may be wildly different from the one's we're used to (especially the "world" ones) but DMs who change things because a player owes them money, or players who play characters differently when their girlfriend is present are breaking the game's reality and that undermines role-playing. There are many other, much more subtle, examples, but generally treating the game as a game while playing it is what I see as the thing that needs to be avoided if you are to really role-play.

nagora
2007-08-13, 09:40 PM
Woo first post!

The problem I'm noticing here is that nagora believes that his way of roleplaying is the only valid one.

Treating the characters as real within their world is hardly a massive leap out of the mainstream; it's pretty well what "role-playing" means and a big part of what distinguishes RPGs from from things like chess or even Munchkin.

How you play within that is wide open with probably hundreds of different styles.


The method of generating a character's ability scores is mutually exclusive to how well said character is role played. [anecdotal evidence] I've played characters whom I heavily optimized to compliment their other abilities. There was a time I created a character who worked so well that he was destroying enemies before the other characters realized there was an enemy. I retired him after I realized he was only getting stronger. He may have been overpowered and threw off balance, but that did not impact how well he was roleplayed. We all had fun, and we all agreed that he was to be retired and left to oblivion.[/anecdotal evidence]

I think that's happened in a lot of groups even when using dice to generate (some would say especially). It's certainly happened a couple of times in our groups.

tainsouvra
2007-08-13, 09:42 PM
I never meant it to be taken as "being like the real world we live in". Just that things happen in the world for a reason and characters do things for a reason. You can just use "consistent" for that, you know :smallsmile:

nagora
2007-08-13, 09:46 PM
You can just use "consistent" for that, you know :smallsmile:

I was avoiding that word because I thought someone might try "magic isn't consistant". And, especially in D&D, they'd be right, too. But magic is a reason, even if its an inconsistant one.

Boy, we have some great fights here. We should all be in politics.:smallbiggrin:

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-13, 09:50 PM
Treating the characters as real within their world is hardly a massive leap out of the mainstream; it's pretty well what "role-playing" means and a big part what distinguishes RPGs from from things like chess or even Munchkin.
You missed the point. Point-buy does not mean the character can't be treated as real. You assume that point buy breaks the suspension of disbelief. Your ability to roleplay a character is determined by how you are at role playing. I don't care if you roll stats, buy stats, or pull them out of a hat.


I think that's happened in a lot of groups even when using dice to generate (some would say especially). It's certainly happened a couple of times in our groups.

Although the reason that character was so powerful was barely related to his ability scores, it's much easier to create a grossly overpowered character with dice rolling then point buy.

Sleet
2007-08-13, 09:56 PM
I think the problem is the word "real" (although "versmilitude" hasn't proved a winner either). I never meant it to be taken as "being like the real world we live in".

Fair enough. You responded to a post in which the context appeared to be "real life," so I thought that's what you were referring to, and given that the weight of the rest of your argument isn't one I disagree with, I'll stop now. ;)

nagora
2007-08-13, 09:56 PM
You missed the point. Point-buy does not mean the character can't be treated as real. You assume that point buy breaks the suspension of disbelief.

No. I know it breaks it for some people because I've seen it happen.

I don't mind it for that reason, I prefer not to use it because I think it denys me the chance to get something I didn't expect, like a fighter with INT 18.


Your ability to roleplay a character is determined by how you are at role playing. I don't care if you roll stats, buy stats, or pull them out of a hat.

Obviously.


Although the reason that character was so powerful was barely related to his stats, it's much easier to create a grossly overpowered character with dice rolling then point buy.

Well, it's more likely, perhaps. How easy it is depends on how good you are at sneaking your loaded dice in.

AlterForm
2007-08-13, 10:06 PM
No. I know it breaks it for some people because I've seen it happen.


So, clearly, because a few people have, in your experience, had problems with suspension of disbelief when they generated scores with point-buy, all people who generate scores with point-buy will have problems with suspension of disbelief, and thus suck (or at least be not as good at) roleplaying, as compared to the people who rolled for their stats?

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-13, 10:08 PM
No. I know it breaks it for some people because I've seen it happen.
I think that if someone loses their suspension of disbelief over using points buy instead, their problem isn't with point buy, but their ability to maintain suspension of disbelief.


I don't mind it for that reason, I prefer not to use it because I think it denys me the chance to get something I didn't expect, like a fighter with INT 18.

If you have a fighter made via dice, and you have a high int/wis/cha you either have rolled too high, or you made a rather unoptimized distribution of stats. I like neither.

nagora
2007-08-13, 10:10 PM
So, clearly, because a few people have, in your experience, had problems with suspension of disbelief when they generated scores with point-buy, all people who generate scores with point-buy will have problems with suspension of disbelief, and thus suck (or at least be not as good at) roleplaying, as compared to the people who rolled for their stats?

No. Sorry. I didn't say, and don't agree with, any of that. I even specifically said that I don't tend to roll stats any more and suggested a system using points but under control of the DM so that players get "fair" stats but also some element of surprise in what they end up playing.

Some people I have known persisted in treating their characters as just lists of numbers after using points systems; many didn't.

nagora
2007-08-13, 10:13 PM
I think that if someone loses their suspension of disbelief over using points buy instead, their problem isn't with point buy, but their ability to maintain suspension of disbelief.

Probably.



If you have a fighter made via dice, and you have a high int/wis/cha you either have rolled too high, or you made a rather unoptimized distribution of stats. I like neither.

Or I took the scores as they were rolled in order and decided to play the character based on the idea of a smart but not very strong fighter who had his own reasons for taking up the sword, which was sparked by the randomness of the generation system.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-13, 10:15 PM
Some people I have known persisted in treating their characters as just lists of numbers after using points systems; many didn't.

So by saying persisted you're implying that their behavior was already present and the point buy had no effect, correct?

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-13, 10:22 PM
Or I took the scores as they were rolled in order and decided to play the character based on the idea of a smart but not very strong fighter who had his own reasons for taking up the sword, which was sparked by the randomness of the generation system.

Combat is as much to the game as roleplaying IMO, so I personally enjoy making a fighter who can fight, a wizard who can cast spells etc., but to each his/her own. :confused:

nagora
2007-08-13, 10:23 PM
So by saying persisted you're implying that their behavior was already present and the point buy had no effect, correct?

In the case of newbies, it's very easy for them to only think of the numbers during generation, especially in a points system where they have to think about where the numbers are going. Sometimes I've found that they don't get past that stage. I've never seen it cause trouble for experienced players.

Insofar that the fact that the players in question were newbies was not caused by using a points system, then you could say that it had no effect. If you like.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-13, 10:27 PM
In the case of newbies, it's very easy for them to only think of the numbers during generation, especially in a points system where they have to think about where the numbers are going. Sometimes I've found that they don't get past that stage. I've never seen it cause trouble for experienced players.

Insofar that the fact that the players in question were newbies was not caused by using a points system, then you could say that it had no effect. If you like.

So in a rather roundabout way, you're agreeing... do I win?

nagora
2007-08-13, 10:30 PM
Combat is as much to the game as roleplaying IMO, so I personally enjoy making a fighter who can fight, a wizard who can cast spells etc., but to each his/her own. :confused:

Yes, well, as I said, the character in question eventually became 13th level (in 1st edition, which is pretty well equivilent to epic levels in 3rd edition) and lived to be over 70 years old, so I'm not crying too much.

The lesson is that ability scores are not the be-all and end-all of a successful character's career, so worrying too much about exactly how you generate them is probably not worth it. Get playing and get the xp's in.

Sleet
2007-08-13, 10:33 PM
For the record, I prefer point-buy for D&D campaigns that will last a long time - I prefer to have the power to create the character that I want to play if I'm going to be playing him weekly for two or three years.

For shorter term games in certain systems (Warhammer Fantasy and Pendragon come to mind), random can be fun.

nagora
2007-08-13, 10:33 PM
So in a rather roundabout way, you're agreeing... do I win?

If you'd been paying attention you would have noticed that I agreed several posts ago when you said



I think that if someone loses their suspension of disbelief over using points buy instead, their problem isn't with point buy, but their ability to maintain suspension of disbelief.

and I replied


Probably

Newbies are by their nature less used to suspending their disbelief in a game, and character generation of any sort tends to feed into that.

Happy now?

nagora
2007-08-13, 10:40 PM
For the record, I prefer point-buy for D&D campaigns that will last a long time - I prefer to have the power to create the character that I want to play if I'm going to be playing him weekly for two or three years.

For shorter term games in certain systems (Warhammer Fantasy and Pendragon come to mind), random can be fun.

That's interesting because I'm the opposite. I'd do a "rollie" for a long game and tend more to a bespoke for one-offs or short games. I rather enjoy overcoming unexpected shortcomings or quirks and that usually takes time to develop compensatory traits or skills, or just good old magic items which can go a long way to making up for your lack of GCSEs or whatever.

But these days, as I said, we usually just get the DM to hand us new characters at the start of a campaign. That's even more fun most of the time because the DM isn't going to hand out duds or wonderkids but can tailor the characters to be interesting and surprising.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-13, 10:51 PM
If you'd been paying attention you would have noticed that I agreed several posts ago when you said

Your early reply was vague and for me to assert that you agreed could have been a false assumption. So I further inquired to reach a more certain assumption. Now that we are in accordance it seems we can agree to two conclusions.

A. Roleplaying and the method used to generate your character are mutually exclusive
B. The better system used for determining abilities scores is purely preferential.
b1. Using dice creates variability.
b2. Point buy allows more customization.

Sleet
2007-08-13, 11:00 PM
I rather enjoy overcoming unexpected shortcomings or quirks and that usually takes time to develop compensatory traits or skills...

I tend to look for things to overcome in places other than attributes. I use them for a quick "This is a Con game oneshot and I need a quick handle on this character" idea, but for longer-term games I tend to look for more background-related complications.

Interesting how peoples' play styles differ. :smallsmile:

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-13, 11:00 PM
Generally speaking, I have a harder time roleplaying these supposedly "organically" made characters than one I had more control over. I'm generally used to point buy, and so my character creation method tends to be as follows:

Check and see what other people are playing.
Pick a role the group still needs.
Generate a character concept within that role. This sometimes involves browsing through prestige classes for inspiration.
Create a general background for why they are like this.
Do some stating on the character
Come up with more backstory
Do more stating
Repeat last two steps until done, inserting discussions with DM when possible.

If I roll to be 'organic', I could get either insanely high rolls, or insanely low rolls, and wind up having my character choices constrained by my stats, rather than working my stats around to match my character concept.

Character power usually winds up being even more unbalanced than normal.
And for all this, I have yet to roll below the average of the group I play with. Whenever we roll stats, I tend to roll one of the best arrays. I still don't like the 'organic' character generation.

And generally speaking, I have been respected by some of my DMs for being both a fluff and crunch monkey. In other words, I tend to build highly optimized characters, and then be one of the more skilled at roleplaying them. And this isn't for min-maxing.

My biggest problem in roleplaying is 'playing down' so even when playing a physical character, I almost never drop a mental stat below 10.

The problem comes when I go to a game session overly tired. Then I tend to make loads of mistakes and roleplay with less skill... and get into more arguments.

UserClone
2007-08-13, 11:01 PM
Very little of the last twenty-or-so posts had to do with the original topic. Just thought I would point that out. Also, I had always considered verisimilitude to be very similar to what the rest of these posts are simply calling "consistency," that is to say, "a sense that even though this doesn't match up to a true definition of reality, it makes sense in the context of itself." (i.e., werewolves do not exist, but in D&D, when a player discovers that werewolves are vulnerable to silver weapons, and finds this vulnerability to be true of all the werewolves he encounters, it makes the idea of werewolves existing seem that much more real).
That having been said, I read those posted definitions out of OED and they are more consistent with verisimilitude boiling down to: "fiction modeling reality."

nagora
2007-08-13, 11:02 PM
Your early reply was vague and for me to assert that you agreed could have been a false assumption. So I further inquired to reach a more certain assumption. Now that we are in accordance it seems we can agree to two conclusions.

A. Roleplaying and the method used to generate your character are mutually exclusive

I would say "generally unrelated". "Mutually exclusive" suggests that something prevents something else. Law and Chaos alignments are mutually exclusive, for example. Height and hair colour are generally unrelated.

However, role-playing ability may affect which system works best for an individual. My experience is that points systems are troublesome for beginners who might not really understand why points should be distributed in certain ways and can become distracted by the system from the already tricky (to them) question of what makes an RPG different from a board game.



B. The better system used for determining abilities scores is purely preferential.


Yes; it is certainly a matter of taste for experienced players and only an issue for the minority of newbies.



b1. Using dice creates variability.
b2. Point buy allows more customization.


Clearly, since those are the objectives of both systems.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-13, 11:03 PM
Well, certainly, if they're using the third-person then they're not playing the role, are they? They're just describing the role.

I think you're being too literal here. I suspect you don't jump up in a cinema and shout "No! NO! He's not Han Solo; he's Harrison Ford! Liar liar!", do you?

We all know the characters don't exist; we're just pretending they do.
You're describing the role if you use the first person; you're just internalizing it differently.

I don't scream at the theater; but I know that it's Harrison Ford playing Han Solo; there isn't a real one. I suspend disbelief, I don't lose control.

D&D is storytelling; Roleplaying is storytelling; Acting is storytelling; none of those things involve believing that a being outside of you exists and controls how you act.

If I'm playing a character and I'm presented with a situation where I have a choice between two ways of acting: I can do either and have a way of explaining it "in character." One isn't "the wrong choice," or what "my character wouldn't do", because I control the character and he doesn't exist outside of what I want him to be.

If I was looking from the outside and making decisions based on "what he wants," there would be one right choice and anything else would be wrong.


I study literature in college, and the number one mistake people make in looking at fiction is that they try to analyze them as though they were reading a psychological report
"I think that Gatsby tried to get back with Daisy because he wanted to rekindle the simpler life before he was caught up with wealth"
But Gatsby isn't real, he doesn't think, and he doesn't miss people like that; it's not because F. Scott Fitzgerald was a bad writer, it's because fictional characters aren't real. Fitzgerald chooses Gatsby's actions because he wants to create a certain image, but that's not the same.

It doesn't threaten versimillitude, because it's only the appearance of reality, not the creation of artificial reality.

nagora
2007-08-13, 11:06 PM
If I roll to be 'organic', I could get either insanely high rolls, or insanely low rolls, and wind up having my character choices constrained by my stats, rather than working my stats around to match my character concept.

Character power usually winds up being even more unbalanced than normal.
And for all this, I have yet to roll below the average of the group I play with. Whenever we roll stats, I tend to roll one of the best arrays. I still don't like the 'organic' character generation.


I think part of our difference is that I'm purely a 1e player and, with no skills or feats, there's less advantage or disadvantage in ability scores outside of the average range.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-13, 11:06 PM
Internal consistency, according to one of my friends, makes FLCL make sense...

In any case, I think the OP is right in that for some, like myself, Point buy is the norm. I often have access to dice servers so that I know my players won't cheet. I still choose point buy. So do the majority of my DMs... to the point that I find rolling to be a very odd, and uncommon variant, rather than the standard... due to the fact that I view the 'standard' as that which is normally to be expected.

When I join a campaign, my first questions that have nothing to do with the campaign world are "How many points are we using for point buy" and "what house rules are you using?"

nagora
2007-08-13, 11:22 PM
You're describing the role if you use the first person; you're just internalizing it differently.

That's very slippery semantics. If an actor walks on stage to play Henry V and preceeds all his lines with "And then Henry says..." you would not say he was playing the part but describing it; similarly if an RPGer speaks his character's words and describes actions in the first person then they're playing the role more closely than one who never does so.



.
.
.
If I was looking from the outside and making decisions based on "what he wants," there would be one right choice and anything else would be wrong.


Right, I think I see what you're getting at now. But in a situation where you are improvising a part, that judgement is subjective but not, hopfully, totally random. The character carries with him/her an inherited worldview given by the DM, a history of how they have been played before and possibly in-game social traits and weights which all guide the player's decisions as to what the character would do. These things make up the reality to which I referred before - it is the internal reality of the character. If you as the player do not know any of these things then you can't play the role for the simple reason that you do not know what the role is. A new character needs at least a "boost up" from the DM's ability to give the world a seeming of reality.


I study literature in college, and the number one mistake people make in looking at fiction is that they try to analyze them as though they were reading a psychological report
"I think that Gatsby tried to get back with Daisy because he wanted to rekindle the simpler life before he was caught up with wealth"
But Gatsby isn't real, he doesn't think, and he doesn't miss people like that; it's not because F. Scott Fitzgerald was a bad writer, it's because fictional characters aren't real. Fitzgerald chooses Gatsby's actions because he wants to create a certain image, but that's not the same.

Firstly I would offer my sympathies at having to read The Great Gatsby which is a waste of trees. But, also, there is the question of authors writing from experience. There may well be ghosts of real people lurking in the background, as in the famous case of Fagin in Oliver Twist, and there may be some milage in analysis of the characters from that point of view. Although, as you say, the case remains that Fitzgerald chose to use those experiences and leave out others because they suited the work he was making.


It doesn't threaten versimillitude, because it's only the appearance of reality, not the creation of artificial reality.

A subtle distinction. Are you saying that the V-word can not be used in relation to a play such as, well, Henry V? Is the wooden-O incapable of giving the appearance, or even the suggestion of "artificial reality"?

Bosh
2007-08-13, 11:44 PM
If I make a character via rolling I have to look at what stats I get and then make a character based on those stats. The stats come first.

If I make a character via point buy I think up a character concept and set up stats that model that character concept. The character concept comes first.

For me being able to shape the stats around the character concept results in much better RPing than vice versa, for other people the situation might be the opposite.

In any case if you like the randomness that stats create just do the following in a point buy campaign:

1. Choose a point buy value.
2. Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest five times and add up how much those are worth according to point buy. For scores lower than 8 you subtract a number from your point buy equal to the amount that the score is lower than 8.
3. Set a value for the 6th stat so that your total basket of stats is equal to your desire point buy.
4. If you can't get the right total point buy by adjusting the 6th stat, adjust the 5th by a bit.
5. Either assign the values to the stats or choose which roll goes to which stat as you roll.

For example:

I want a random 28 point buy character

Rolling 4d6 drop the lowest five times:
7
11
16
16
13
That's a total point buy of 29 (would be 28 but the 7 makes it 29) so I put a 9 in my 6th stat.

So I could either assign them or end up with stats for a pretty good wizard if I take them as they land.

horseboy
2007-08-14, 12:00 AM
Yes, I think we can all agree that The Great Gatsby is "teh suXX0r"

On the topic of the OP: The only game I roll stats for is Rolemaster. Everything else is point buy. Point buy just doesn't work in that system.

On my second off topic point, A competent optimizer never buys an 18. It's too cost inefficient. If they're buying 18's they're noobs or min-maxers. Amendment: You can do it if your "point sinking" because your character concept requires a low stat or two.

Bosh
2007-08-14, 12:33 AM
I'm quite happy to discuss this as a possibility, but I do start from the point of view that if you don't put yourself in their shoes, or they simply don't seem belivable characters, then what basis do you have to judge what they would do? Won't any such judgement be arbirary?

This stuck out at me because I RP in a VERY different way. If I make characters who are similar to me in personality or are characters whose shoes I fit in easily I end up having characters do something similar to what I would do in a given situation. If I start doing this then the line between me as the player and me as the character never gets drawn properly.

In order to RP I don't try put myself in the shoes of the character so much as figure out in a concrete way what sort of things would that character do that would be irrational from a purely roll-playing perspective. If I can't make a good sized list of the sort of things that come up frequently in a D&D game that the character would do that would be irrational from a roll-playing perspective then I know that its a character that I wouldn't have fun playing. For me I can't RP properly unless I embrace irrationality. Because of this I'm not much good at RPing characters with high mental stats, since I have a hard time separating "smart" from "would do what wold be most beneficial from a roll-playing perpsective."

For example for one recent character (based on an orcish childhood survivor of the "what do you do with the baby orcs" cliche) I decided that he would be irrational in the following ways:
-If a certain NPC was "innocent" from any resonable perspective I would attempt to protect it.
-If would avoid using lethal force against humanoids unless absolutely necessary. Would use sundering/non-lethal damage/grappling as much as posisble.
-I would attempt to dissuade/bully other PCs from killing helpless/surrendering foes.
-I would do what I could to keep the BBEG's cannon fodder from getting slaughtered.
-I wouldn't give a rat's ass about morality that doesn't fit the above.
-I would care about glory and would charge first into battle and tend to browbeat and intimidate people to get my way even when that wasn't the best idea.
-I would change/add to the above if something in the campaign made that necessary.

This ended up working much better than when I made up complicated backstories since I based it around doing things that directly contradicted rollplaying that would come up often in a standard session.

LotharBot
2007-08-14, 12:38 AM
A competent optimizer never buys an 18. It's too cost inefficient. If they're buying 18's they're noobs or min-maxers. Amendment: You can do it if your "point sinking" because your character concept requires a low stat or two.

Depends on how many points you have for buying, and what class you're playing. Point-buy 32 with a sorcerer, you probably should get an 18. Point-buy 25 with a monk, probably not.

Yahzi
2007-08-14, 01:06 AM
I'd rather play with a character that has to make due with his shortcomings, not eliminate them.
But... with those high-rolling numbers (and the meta-game ability to simply dispense with a character who didn't roll well), your characters won't actually have any shortcomings. Their lowest rolls will likely be 12+.

Whereas a wizard who gimps his strength to be a genius will actually have to live with a gimped strength.

Corolinth
2007-08-14, 01:50 AM
Wow. I have never seen a flame as an opening post before.You think that post was a flame? Arrogant, yes. Confrontational, certainly. But a flame?

Seriously?

Joltz
2007-08-14, 02:34 AM
I've had a few of the same thoughts as the OP, and eventually I decided that dice suck. I spent several hours one night rolling ability score sets using various methods. My favorite was when I rolled a set of scores with two 18s and a 17, followed by a set with one 15 and nothing else over 13 (with the same method of course).

After that, I decided to make point buys work. They're not really that bad. You just get over the fact that you're not going to start with a base 18 (I'm using a little tweak that makes all casters require 2 abilities for spellcasting) and it's kinda nice.

Just my thoughts after reading the first page and skipping the rest...

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-14, 03:36 AM
I've seen players up and leave an encounter because "his character wouldn't do that." That is not good roleplaying, that is not good gaming, that is choosing to intentionally create friction to try and aggrandize the imagined quality of your character.
Up and leave an encounter? That's...interesting. What sort of character would try to just walk out of a combat situation? The real question is what would the character do, not what wouldn't they...

The reason why one doesn't imagine "what your character would do" is because your character is not real. No character is real, regardless of how good the person is at roleplaying. They can't make decisions; if someone says their character "decided" to do something, they didn't. That person made a decision, and saying that the "character decided" is untrue. Flatly.

I'm not saying that one shouldn't get into character; but call a spade a spade. Characters are characters.
I did say I read the article, didn't I?:smalltongue:

Certainly, the player makes the decision, because there's only one brain tied to that character, and it lives in the player's skull. But the character exists as a constraint on that decision. The article outright suggests stretching that constraint to its outermost limits or beyond to avoid mismatch with either the other characters or the DM's idea of where you ought to go next. It outright says: "In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.". And that's true enough. But you really shouldn't have to choose between them. In the worst case, a character who really can't work with the group anymore, (and hopefully was mixed in with them by mistake, since knowingly writing up a character that will be incompatible with the game is pointless and obnoxious.) they can withdraw from the party and be replaced with someone who isn't going to flip out because the other characters are mercenary. Or are such do-gooders they refuse to check if there's any payment before jumping in.

...from your subsequent post, I suspect that there's a fundamental disagreement about game reality here. You say it isn't about the creation of artificial reality, I say that's exactly what it is.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-14, 03:52 AM
You think that post was a flame? Arrogant, yes. Confrontational, certainly. But a flame?

Seriously?

Generally, I characterize any post that is by intent insulting to others, even if those people feel differently from you, to be a flame... and the way I read the origonal post, the poster meant to insult anyone who preferred point buy.

Kiero
2007-08-14, 04:03 AM
If it make you feel that it's happening to you, then yes, and that's the point about role-playing - you feel that you are involved rather than simply looking down on a board or listening to someone else's telling of a story.

That's not versimilitude, that's immersion you're talking about. Versimilitude is nothing more than internal consistency, which has nothing to do with whether you "feel it's happening to you", and instead is about credibility - whether you think it's all feasible. And immersion isn't required for roleplaying at all, that's just one of many potential goals.

Grey Paladin
2007-08-14, 04:58 AM
Personally I use the "controlled chaos" variant, I roll 4D6b3, and then roll a D6 to decide where to stick them, after that, for each 3 points above 32 the character gets a randomly generated flaw, for each point below 32 the character gets an equal amount of points that he can spend on feats and special abilities. (The special abilities being generally in this style: "Arcane Savant: Perquisites: Arcane Caster, Int/whatever <15, Effect: for the purpose of spellcasting your primary casting score is treated as being two points higher then its actually is, This ability may be taken more then once, but each time you take it beyond the first you lose a number of Wisdom points equal to the number of times you took this ability. Cost: 2, 4, 6, 8")

nagora
2007-08-14, 05:16 AM
That's not versimilitude, that's immersion you're talking about. Versimilitude is nothing more than internal consistency, which has nothing to do with whether you "feel it's happening to you", and instead is about credibility - whether you think it's all feasible.

In the context of a fantasy game, feasiblity and credibility are two different things. Credibility is the important one and without it the game can only be a shallow pantomime. "Highlander 2" is crap not because it's unfeasible but because it lacks any credibility in the context of what was established in the first movie. But without credibility how can any coherent role be constructed or played? How does even the player judge what a character will or won't do in a game without meaning? Without meaning, how can one achieve any semblance of role-playing?


And immersion isn't required for roleplaying at all, that's just one of many potential goals.

So, you are saying that you can be role-playing while always feeling that you are "simply looking down on a board or listening to someone else's telling of a story." Apart from the historical fact that this is exactly what role-playing was intended to get away from, in what way are you doing the "role" part of role-playing then? Aren't we back at "What's your character like?" "He's a lead figure."?

Actually, perhaps it's easier if you say what you mean by "role-playing", because I'm increasingly feeling that you don't think it means anything at all.

Tormsskull
2007-08-14, 06:03 AM
I find it very interesting the way that some of you are using the term "role-playing". There was a time when role-playing meant acting as your character, and more specifically, the interactions between your character and other characters (be they PCs or NPCs) that did not involve dice rolls in anyway.

When Gard the Barbarian is talking with Vinian the Cleric about life out in the wild, that is role-playing. When I move my mini from one spot on the map to another to obtain a flank, that is not role-playing.

Also, while it may cause some problems in the group, there are times when role-playing involves a character making a choice that is sub-optimal for the rest of the group. Some of you may call that poor gaming instead of role-playing. But analyze why that is. Is it because you as a player in the group might have some detrimental effect placed upon you because of one of the other player's role-playing and you think that's unfair?

If so, then you might still be role-playing, but you've clearly stated that your focus is not role-playing.

Dausuul
2007-08-14, 06:55 AM
I find it very interesting the way that some of you are using the term "role-playing". There was a time when role-playing meant acting as your character, and more specifically, the interactions between your character and other characters (be they PCs or NPCs) that did not involve dice rolls in anyway.

When Gard the Barbarian is talking with Vinian the Cleric about life out in the wild, that is role-playing. When I move my mini from one spot on the map to another to obtain a flank, that is not role-playing.

Actually it is, albeit of a very limited nature. By moving your mini (representing your character) into a flanking position, you are playing a character with certain tactical skills and habits; someone who is good at group tactics and is willing to take some risks to provide advantages to himself and his allies. You could instead be charging recklessly in, being a mad berserker who cares nothing for tactics. You could be standing off and using missile weapons, being a cautious (some would say cowardly) type who doesn't want to risk getting up close to whatever fearsome beast you're fighting. You could even be an outright traitor stabbing your friends in the back.


Also, while it may cause some problems in the group, there are times when role-playing involves a character making a choice that is sub-optimal for the rest of the group. Some of you may call that poor gaming instead of role-playing. But analyze why that is. Is it because you as a player in the group might have some detrimental effect placed upon you because of one of the other player's role-playing and you think that's unfair?

That depends on how detrimental the effect is. If we're in delicate negotiations with a gigantic red dragon, and the paladin decides it's good roleplaying for him to attack the beast, and he gets us all killed because we're level 3 and it's a great wyrm... yeah, I'm gonna call that poor gaming. He just ruined the fun of everyone else at the table. As Rich says in his article, there are times when it's a player's duty, not to blindly follow whatever "in-character" impulses come into his head, but to come up with an in-character reason to play well with the rest of the group.

Now, a player who doesn't always play for the greatest tactical advantage because it's not in character... okay, that's fine. But "good role-playing" is not an excuse to trash a campaign.

Bosh
2007-08-14, 07:29 AM
If we're in delicate negotiations with a gigantic red dragon, and the paladin decides it's good roleplaying for him to attack the beast, and he gets us all killed because we're level 3 and it's a great wyrm... yeah, I'm gonna call that poor gaming. He just ruined the fun of everyone else at the table.
Well it wouldn't really be bad roleplaying, but it would be being an *******. And being an ******* is a hell of a lot worse than being a bad RPer.

Overlard
2007-08-14, 07:32 AM
I'm always torn between the two systems. I love the randomness that rolling brings (but I hate the organic method), as a very low stat or two is fun to roleplay. As a DM, when I use rolling for char gen, I let players reroll if their highest stat is 13 or under, or if all their modifiers add up to a negative number. That way they're guaranteed a half-decent character.

I hate the organic method as it doesn't allow people to make the characters they want. It forces them to play what they can. If I want to play a spellcaster, but end up with not a single mental stat above 10, but a great Str, then I'm prett much restricted to melee classes. But I don't want to swing a sword right now, I want to make them explode with my brain.

But that links into why rolling at all can ruin character creation. I've spent days/weeks formulating a character in my mind. A history that is complex and involving, a personality that I've never tried before, and abilities that go with it. All I need are three half-decent abilities (I was creating a monk) and hopefully two respectable ones. I rolled two 9s, 10, 11, 13 and 18. That would be a great caster, so my friends congratulated me on the 18. But those stats just couldn't support my concept. For my idea I would have had to put the 18 in Cha, and the rest in the other stats, which would have led to a monk who was virtually unable to contribute. I had to scrap the concept for then and played a sorcerer instead, whose history and personality was formed over 10 minutes while I picked skills, spells and feats.

Similarly, if you roll too averagely, without a single high stat, then what do you do? If someone gave me a bunch of 10s-12s and asked me what I wanted to play, I'd probably pick an expert and never leave the town. There's virtually no way I'd go adventuring if I didn't have some natural ability to rely on.

Point buy is too predictable. Nine times out of ten, you can guess what someone's stats are going to be just from their class and race. But on the upside, it does let you plan characters to a much greater extent.

Dausuul
2007-08-14, 07:41 AM
Point buy is too predictable. Nine times out of ten, you can guess what someone's stats are going to be just from their class and race. But on the upside, it does let you plan characters to a much greater extent.

I think that's more the fault of an overly rigid class and attribute system than it is the fault of the point buy mechanic. For any given class, the game offers tremendous rewards for pumping certain attributes, and very little for pumping others. It's no surprise that players will tend to pump the favored attributes and dump the rest, within the limits of whatever stat generation system you give them.

Compare this to, for example, Iron Heroes, which makes a point of being flexible in allowing you to use different attributes for things. The Weapon Bond trait alone offers tremendous versatility. For those who haven't played IH, Weapon Bond allows you to pick one specific weapon, such as the greatsword, and choose one stat to take the place of Strength when wielding that weapon. So you could choose Int and apply your Int bonus to attack rolls and 1.5 times your Int bonus to damage rolls with a greatsword, using that instead of Strength. The result of this is that melee warriors in Iron Heroes are in no way restricted to pumping Strength and dumping Int and Cha. If you want to play a fighter-type with high Charisma and mediocre Strength, all you have to do is take Weapon Bond (Charisma) and you'll be right up there kicking ass with your muscle-bound berserker buddy.

Overlard
2007-08-14, 08:22 AM
Compare this to, for example, Iron Heroes, which makes a point of being flexible in allowing you to use different attributes for things. The Weapon Bond trait alone offers tremendous versatility. For those who haven't played IH, Weapon Bond allows you to pick one specific weapon, such as the greatsword, and choose one stat to take the place of Strength when wielding that weapon. So you could choose Int and apply your Int bonus to attack rolls and 1.5 times your Int bonus to damage rolls with a greatsword, using that instead of Strength. The result of this is that melee warriors in Iron Heroes are in no way restricted to pumping Strength and dumping Int and Cha. If you want to play a fighter-type with high Charisma and mediocre Strength, all you have to do is take Weapon Bond (Charisma) and you'll be right up there kicking ass with your muscle-bound berserker buddy.
I like that in theory, but how does it actually make sense? I can see Int or Wis as viable stats for that (knowing where/how/when to strike, rather than relying on just hitting as hard as you ca), but Cha doesn't seem to link in at all there.

Dausuul
2007-08-14, 08:48 AM
I like that in theory, but how does it actually make sense? I can see Int or Wis as viable stats for that (knowing where/how/when to strike, rather than relying on just hitting as hard as you ca), but Cha doesn't seem to link in at all there.

That's up to the player to decide. If I were making a Cha-based warrior, I would probably explain it as a quasi-supernatural thing, the sheer force of your personality and spirit breaking through your opponent's defenses, like a paladin's smite ability. Or a combination of deception and intimidation, confusing your foe to create openings for more deadly attacks.

The one that's really hard to explain is Constitution...

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-14, 08:56 AM
That's not versimilitude, that's immersion you're talking about. Versimilitude is nothing more than internal consistency, which has nothing to do with whether you "feel it's happening to you", and instead is about credibility - whether you think it's all feasible. And immersion isn't required for roleplaying at all, that's just one of many potential goals.

Definitely. Verilisimitude breaking events are ones like "Wait. You can find me out of the middle of no where in a forest, and are reallly good tracking rangers... but you can't find a trope of orcs that leave a trail 10 feet wide through the forest? What gives?"

Generally, I've seen people able to keep immersion in a world that breaks verilisimitude. They just adopt a cartoony mocking attitude, or have their characters snark at the total non-sensical nature of the world.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-14, 09:13 AM
I like that in theory, but how does it actually make sense? I can see Int or Wis as viable stats for that (knowing where/how/when to strike, rather than relying on just hitting as hard as you ca), but Cha doesn't seem to link in at all there.

Feinting.

Then again that system probably doesn't have the exact same six stats that D&D does. But yeah, I can think of several stats for which this "swap" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Such as appearance, if you play White Wolf.

Kiero
2007-08-14, 09:17 AM
In the context of a fantasy game, feasiblity and credibility are two different things. Credibility is the important one and without it the game can only be a shallow pantomime. "Highlander 2" is crap not because it's unfeasible but because it lacks any credibility in the context of what was established in the first movie. But without credibility how can any coherent role be constructed or played? How does even the player judge what a character will or won't do in a game without meaning? Without meaning, how can one achieve any semblance of role-playing?

Again you're actually talking about immersion, not versimilitude. "Judging" what a character will or won't do has nothing to do with versimilitude of the setting. It isn't even necessary - that's you imposing your own particular biases and assumptions on how everyone roleplays.


So, you are saying that you can be role-playing while always feeling that you are "simply looking down on a board or listening to someone else's telling of a story." Apart from the historical fact that this is exactly what role-playing was intended to get away from, in what way are you doing the "role" part of role-playing then? Aren't we back at "What's your character like?" "He's a lead figure."?

Actually, perhaps it's easier if you say what you mean by "role-playing", because I'm increasingly feeling that you don't think it means anything at all.

I couldn't care less whether someone at my table is playing their character as nothing more than an avatar of their own wants ("my guy") or their so deeply into the character that they exist as almost a facet of their own personality, or indeed anywhere in between those points. Long as they're enjoying what they'e doing.

What roleplaying was "intended to get away from" is totally irrelevant. What matters is whether those people are enjoying what they're doing. That's the only thing that matters at my table.

I don't know what it is about those who prize immersion, but it always seems to be accompanied by this obnoxiously elitist attitude about "real roleplaying", and how other people aren't doing it right if they're not immersed in character.

Anyone engaging in the act of playing a roleplaying game is roleplaying, period. To attempt to declare one type of engagement roleplaying and another not-roleplaying is pointless semantic d*ck-waving.

Stephen_E
2007-08-14, 09:24 AM
Have read the 1st 3 pages before posting...

Regarding unbalanced PC from rolling dice for stats, I'd point out that the biggest difference in attributes between PCs is at most going to be worth a LA of +2 (and that's probably a difference of at least 8 in bonuses). So if you have players who're really upset at the advantage/disadvantage of varying stats just attach a LA bonus.
Set the worst stat bonus as Zero, +3 - +7 = LA+1, +8 - +17 = LA+2, +18 - +24 (max possible) = LA+3.
Allow LA buy off, taken as a starting XP penalty if the starting level is beyond a buy off level.

The simple truth is that superior stats become less relevant as you climb in levels.

That said, years ago I did DM when one player started whining because several players had rolled a 18 amongst their scores and he didn't (therefore he was much weaker in his eyes). At the time I just said everyone who doesn't have an 18 can increase their best stat to an 18. As much as anything because I've found having a 18 amongst your scores makes people much more likely to think of their PCs as "heroes". The funny thing is that player is now a big fan of point buy.

As the game in general goes IMO the biggest problem with point is the bordom of optimisation, it's that the character classes aren't designed for it.
Classes like the Monk, Paladin and, to a slightly lesser extent, Ranger hurt badly in MAD terms from point buy. Note that none of these are the power classes. Indeed the Power classes, Cleric, Druid and Wizard, are fine by point buy.

The problem with the variety of the the standard dice roll system outside of low level games (and I mean level 1-3) is not that the PC's are unbalanced, but that you get envy and perception difficulties. Players feel that they're inferior and disadvantaged compared to the better stated PCs, and occasionally you get players who're arrogant about be "better" because of their better stats. After level 3 the difference between having a single 18 in your prime stat and having a 18 in three stats becomes less and less relevant. Indeed even not having a 17/18 in your prime stat becomes less important except for a few specalist builds (Trip=Str, Non-ranger 2WF = Dex)

Stephen

TO_Incognito
2007-08-14, 09:30 AM
Generally speaking, I have a harder time roleplaying these supposedly "organically" made characters than one I had more control over. I'm generally used to point buy, and so my character creation method tends to be as follows:

Check and see what other people are playing.
Pick a role the group still needs.
Generate a character concept within that role. This sometimes involves browsing through prestige classes for inspiration.
Create a general background for why they are like this.
Do some stating on the character
Come up with more backstory
Do more stating
Repeat last two steps until done, inserting discussions with DM when possible.

If I roll to be 'organic', I could get either insanely high rolls, or insanely low rolls, and wind up having my character choices constrained by my stats, rather than working my stats around to match my character concept.

Character power usually winds up being even more unbalanced than normal.
And for all this, I have yet to roll below the average of the group I play with. Whenever we roll stats, I tend to roll one of the best arrays. I still don't like the 'organic' character generation.

And generally speaking, I have been respected by some of my DMs for being both a fluff and crunch monkey. In other words, I tend to build highly optimized characters, and then be one of the more skilled at roleplaying them. And this isn't for min-maxing.


If I make a character via rolling I have to look at what stats I get and then make a character based on those stats. The stats come first.

If I make a character via point buy I think up a character concept and set up stats that model that character concept. The character concept comes first.

For me being able to shape the stats around the character concept results in much better RPing than vice versa, for other people the situation might be the opposite.

I third this notion; the ability to build your stats around the character concept you're interested in makes for much better roleplaying than rolling for crunch stats first and then risking having to fundamentally alter or totally scrap your RP character because the stats just don't fit.

A rolling system does enforce a bit more mechanical variation on stats for players who would normally never buy odd stats with a point-buy, for instance, but that doesn't have much to do with roleplaying. If a player just optimizes whenever he uses a point-buy system and doesn't roleplay at all, that's a problem with the player, not with the system. That same player isn't suddenly going to start roleplaying his stats if he is forced to roll for them. Likewise, if a serious roleplayer always plays interesting characters with genuine flaws when using a rolling system, he is going to do the same when offered a point-buy. Which system you use has little effect on how interesting characters are, or even whether or not they have true flaws; that's all up to the player.

It's true that rolling adds an interesting degree of randomness mechanics-wise, and if a player genuinely enjoys roleplaying characters which were partially randomly determined for him, he's certainly entitled to that. However, the assertion that more randomness or less control always means better roleplaying is completely false. Better roleplaying means better playing of roles, not less control over what roles are being played. I'm willing to bet that most roleplayers are at their best when they can roleplay the exact character they've envisioned, and it's a point-buy, not a rolling system, which allows that.

ravenkith
2007-08-14, 09:38 AM
If I've reached one conclusion from this thread, it's that nagora has a lot of opinion, and not a lot of facts. :smallamused:

Seriously: Point buy is just flat out more fair than rolling.

No-one walks away from the table feeling cheated by the dice. Everyone is on an even keel.

If you feel that point buy is just too powerful, or too munchkinny, drop it from 32 to 28. I guarantee that'll bring out some 'more interesting' (read: weaker) characters.

When people roll dice at a table to generate characters, someone's going to have an off day. Statistically, not everyone is going to get good scores.

Someone will be left sucking hind tit.

This automatically means added frustration for both the unlucky player, and his compatriots, who keep having to bail the weak sister of the group out of trouble.

Just look at Raistlin Majere: he spent most of his life being 'saved' by others, in one way or another, and eventually formed a power-seeking complex because of it, slid into evil, became a god, destroyed the universe...and then rewound everything so it didn't happen that way.

"Fistandantilus says whut?"

Unfortunately, as interesting as that character was, it was a book. It happened that way because the writer wanted it to. In a game, your character's survival is determined solely by statistics and the kindness and willingness to fudge of your DM.

Barmaids do not normally become warriors and go around killing people with frying pans.

My point is this: unless the DM is actively willing to conspire to keep you alive at low levels (or the author, as the case may be), someone with low rolls is more likely to end up having to make up a new character than someone without.

In a world where it's hard to find time to game IRL, why waste time on a character who, if he really lived in a world full of gnolls, goblins, orcs and dragons, would never have survived through childhood anyways.

Dausuul
2007-08-14, 09:52 AM
Feinting.

Then again that system probably doesn't have the exact same six stats that D&D does. But yeah, I can think of several stats for which this "swap" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Such as appearance, if you play White Wolf.

Iron Heroes is d20, and designed to mesh well with D&D sourcebooks. Same six ability scores as D&D.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-14, 10:00 AM
I'm so.. tough that... I hit... harder?

My mighty life-force empowers my attacks with overwhelming might! My incredible stoicism deals crushing blows to my opponent's morale! I can just keep attacking with powerful swings, because I have the endurance to do so without falling over, exhausted!

Kiero
2007-08-14, 10:09 AM
Seriously: Point buy is just flat out more fair than rolling.

No-one walks away from the table feeling cheated by the dice. Everyone is on an even keel.

Not quite. Certainly everyone is on the same level as far as resources to create their character is concerned. However those with a better understanding of how to best optimise those resources will be at an advantage compared to those who don't. Thus someone who is more experienced with the game in question can come up with a more effective character even though they have the same constraints at work as someone less experienced. It rewards those who know the system.

Dhavaer
2007-08-14, 10:12 AM
Not quite. Certainly everyone is on the same level as far as resources to create their character is concerned. However those with a better understanding of how to best optimise those resources will be at an advantage compared to those who don't. Thus someone who is more experienced with the game in question can come up with a more effective character even though they have the same constraints at work as someone less experienced. It rewards those who know the system.

How is that different from every other part of the system? Or any system?

ravenkith
2007-08-14, 10:15 AM
Not quite. Certainly everyone is on the same level as far as resources to create their character is concerned. However those with a better understanding of how to best optimise those resources will be at an advantage compared to those who don't. Thus someone who is more experienced with the game in question can come up with a more effective character even though they have the same constraints at work as someone less experienced. It rewards those who know the system.

Uh...yeah....

so ask for help.

You know, theoretically, the guys you're playing with are your buddies....if one of my buddies aske for help making a character, I know I'd do it.

Then as you play more and more: guess what?

You get to know the system.

Sleet
2007-08-14, 10:19 AM
How is that different from every other part of the system? Or any system?

I think his point is that removing chance from a certain aspect of the game doesn't necessarily guarantee an equal outcome from it.

Tormsskull
2007-08-14, 10:22 AM
Anyone engaging in the act of playing a roleplaying game is roleplaying, period. To attempt to declare one type of engagement roleplaying and another not-roleplaying is pointless semantic d*ck-waving.


I'd highly disagree with you. Making the difference down to "semantic" means that they are the same by a different name. I've been in campaigns where the level/quality of role-playing was so bad that I know I wouldn't compare it to the type of role-playing I usually do. To say they are both the same would lend to a lot of confusion if someone shows up expecting heavy RP and gets the other.



Seriously: Point buy is just flat out more fair than rolling.


I'd agree with that. I personally don't have a problem if a fellow player of mine has better scores than me, and frankly after the inital rolling of the scores I don't even remember what scores the other players have.



If you feel that point buy is just too powerful, or too munchkinny, drop it from 32 to 28. I guarantee that'll bring out some 'more interesting' (read: weaker) characters.


First off, you don't "drop it down" to 28. If I'm not mistaken, the standard point-buy is 25 points. If you play with 32 it is supposed to be in order to handle a higher-powered campaign.



Someone will be left sucking hind tit.

This automatically means added frustration for both the unlucky player, and his compatriots, who keep having to bail the weak sister of the group out of trouble.


I'd disagree here. I have yet to see a group of actually rolled characters varying as much as people who point to inequality as one of the most horrible things ever of rolling dice claim.

Is is possible that the dice can prevent you from having the stats that you want? Of course. Is that fair? I come from the school of thought that the dice are unbiased, and as such, they are fair. But if you come from the angle of "I should be able to make whatever character I want to make and he/she should be balanced against the other players in my group" then no, the dice are not fair.



My point is this: unless the DM is actively willing to conspire to keep you alive at low levels (or the author, as the case may be), someone with low rolls is more likely to end up having to make up a new character than someone without.


This is true, but I don't think it is to such a degree as a lot of people want to claim.



In a world where it's hard to find time to game IRL, why waste time on a character who, if he really lived in a world full of gnolls, goblins, orcs and dragons, would never have survived through childhood anyways.

I'm actually kind of surprised with you being a writer and all that you'd say that. I guess it all depends on why you play the game.

Kiero
2007-08-14, 10:22 AM
I think his point is that removing chance from a certain aspect of the game doesn't necessarily guarantee an equal outcome from it.

Take a Bingo! point. :smallsmile:

Dhavaer
2007-08-14, 10:24 AM
I think his point is that removing chance from a certain aspect of the game doesn't necessarily guarantee an equal outcome from it.

No, but it does mean that the inequity is minimised, which is about as much as can be hoped for in any aspect.

nagora
2007-08-14, 10:47 AM
I couldn't care less whether someone at my table is playing their character as nothing more than an avatar of their own wants ("my guy") or their so deeply into the character that they exist as almost a facet of their own personality, or indeed anywhere in between those points. Long as they're enjoying what they'e doing.

What roleplaying was "intended to get away from" is totally irrelevant. What matters is whether those people are enjoying what they're doing. That's the only thing that matters at my table.


Okay, that establishes that you have no interest in what role-playing is and therefore are not really qualified to discuss what helps role-playing or constitutes good or bad role-playing.

"Whatever we're doing, it better be fun" is a perfectly fair stance but the topic of this tangent was what is good role-playing. If you don't even care what role-playing is, then there seems little point in you posting objections to other people's ideas on the subject.

UserClone
2007-08-14, 11:42 AM
It isn't fair to say that point-buy is unfair to noobs. Playing D&D AT ALL is unfair to noobs. It has a lot of complicated rules (looking at you, grapple) that raise the learning curve. The only objective way to look at point-buy vs. rolling stats is one in which all other things are equal. Otherwise, it isn't science. In this case, the constant is going to be familiarity with the game. Assuming a given person is either familiar with the game, or someone in his group is (who can then help him optimise) or NO ONE in the group is, then point buy is either the most fair, the most fair, or irrelevant, respectively.

nagora
2007-08-14, 11:58 AM
It isn't fair to say that point-buy is unfair to noobs. Playing D&D AT ALL is unfair to noobs. It has a lot of complicated rules (looking at you, grapple) that raise the learning curve.

But most of the time the DM can shield the players by just telling them when to roll the dice and what they need to get (if even that). Unless the DM or another player practically generates the characters for them, it is hard to shield noobs from the details of why certain combinations are good or bad or inefficient.

I really don't think it's a big deal, though. Dice work fine most of the time; points work fine most of the time. I prefer a surprise for long-term characters, and a designed build for short term games.

I currently have three main characters on the go in three long-running campaigns and have neither built or rolled any of them; they're just characters I was given to play. If some of them are less capable than other characters in the group then that's life - they all have enough appeal to them in other ways to make up for it.

Regardless of how you generate the character the important point - far more important than ability scores - is how playable they are. That actually has a lot more to do with the group dynamics than the numbers on the sheet. One player can play a "double 18" character in a way that fits in with the other characters while another player might use it to dominate the game and ruin the enjoyment for others.

The play's the thing.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-14, 12:17 PM
I would say "generally unrelated". "Mutually exclusive" suggests that something prevents something else. Law and Chaos alignments are mutually exclusive, for example. Height and hair colour are generally unrelated.
I seem to recall in my classes that two mutually exclusive events were events that did not impact each other, but I can't find any source for this, so you may be correct. The two are independent of each other if you prefer.


However, role-playing ability may affect which system works best for an individual. My experience is that points systems are troublesome for beginners who might not really understand why points should be distributed in certain ways and can become distracted by the system from the already tricky (to them) question of what makes an RPG different from a board game.

That sounds pretty far fetched to me. It can be a pain to keep track of the points when distributing them if you haven't done it before, but I doubt that's going to make it seem any more or less like a board game.

Jayabalard
2007-08-14, 12:34 PM
In a world where it's hard to find time to game IRL, why waste spend time on a character who, if he really lived in a world full of gnolls, goblins, orcs and dragons, would might never have survived through childhood anyways.Fixed that for you.

People spend time on those sort of characters because they enjoy playing them.... it's as simple as that. I know it's hard for some people to understand... but playing a weak character isn't a waste of time for everyone just because you consider it a waste of time.


Anyone engaging in the act of playing a roleplaying game is roleplaying, period. To attempt to declare one type of engagement roleplaying and another not-roleplaying is pointless semantic d*ck-waving.Totally false; it's possible to play any game that markets itself as a roleplaying game without actually doing any role playing at all. The game that I'm playing when I play D&D is not the same as the one that the people who play D&D as a tactical battlegame, and the differences are certainly not semantic.

after reading the rest of your posts, you don't know what role playing is, you don't care what roleplaying is, and you have nothing meaningful to offer to that discussion... I'm not sure why you even bother posting about it.

nagora
2007-08-14, 01:05 PM
That sounds pretty far fetched to me. It can be a pain to keep track of the points when distributing them if you haven't done it before, but I doubt that's going to make it seem any more or less like a board game.

Maybe you've been hanging around role-players too long - people who have never heard of role-playing games before do struggle sometimes with things we don't even think about anymore.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-14, 01:08 PM
Okay, now I'm afraid one of my pet peeve buttons has been hit.

Far to often people use the phrase "now you're just arguing semantics" to mean that you are arguing inconsequential minutia.

Semantics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantic):
1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.

The meanings of the words are actually quite important. If we don't have a common framework for language, how are we to communicate?

Further, in any discussion about what X really is, or what X really means, the entire discussion is semantic, as it is pertaining to to the definition or meaning of a word, or set of words. To dismiss a sub-discussion of this as 'mere semantics' is just plain being ignorant of what the word "semantic" actually means.

And yes, this entier post has been about semantics in more ways than one.

AlterForm
2007-08-14, 01:28 PM
Well, I stepped out for a few hours, and you guys blasted in 2 more pages. :smalleek: Got a couple things from back there though.


I think part of our difference is that I'm purely a 1e player and, with no skills or feats, there's less advantage or disadvantage in ability scores outside of the average range.

I haven't played 1e, but if in a game of 3.5e we went without feats or skills, better ability scores would be crucial in combat/social situations, since that's all you'd have. Is 1e seriously that different? And if it is, can you really make a valid argument about 3/3.5e?



That's very slippery semantics. If an actor walks on stage to play Henry V and preceeds all his lines with "And then Henry says..." you would not say he was playing the part but describing it; similarly if an RPGer speaks his character's words and describes actions in the first person then they're playing the role more closely than one who never does so.


Hypothetical situation: two players, two fighters. Jim and Jon, Tordek and Tardek.

Jim: (speaking about what Tordek does) I bow to the king and ask him for supplies, because my village needs them

Jon: (speaking about what Tardek does) Tardek walks proudly to stand before the king and bows, making the proper niceties before addressing His Highness. He then asks the king "M'lord, my village is dire trouble, and would be most grateful if you could spare supplies to aid in our fight against the Orc tribes. We would gladly swear loyalty to you if you help us through this troubled time." He then bows and awaits an answer from the king.

Which is the better RPer?

Tormsskull
2007-08-14, 01:36 PM
Which is the better RPer?

That depends on how you define RPer. I'll need more information. Which player moves his mini in on flanks?

AlterForm
2007-08-14, 01:38 PM
That depends on how you define RPer. I'll need more information. Which player moves his mini in on flanks?

They both do, that's the idea. They're both fighters, they're effectively identical in combat. Their difference is in social situations.

And I was meaning it more as a rhetorical for Nagora, but it makes a statement for the rest of the tangent I guess. :smallbiggrin:

tainsouvra
2007-08-14, 01:59 PM
Okay, now I'm afraid one of my pet peeve buttons has been hit.
[snip] Thank you for posting what I have to bite my tongue about daily :smallbiggrin:

Dausuul
2007-08-14, 02:05 PM
I haven't played 1e, but if in a game of 3.5e we went without feats or skills, better ability scores would be crucial in combat/social situations, since that's all you'd have. Is 1e seriously that different? And if it is, can you really make a valid argument about 3/3.5e?

It's important to bear in mind that in 1E/2E, ability scores had much less impact overall. Taking Constitution as an example, I don't think it had any impact whatsoever (aside from system shock rolls) unless you had at least a 15, and then it was only +1 hit point per die. Unless you were a fighter, +2 hp/die was the most you could ever get out of Constitution, and you needed a 17 to get that much. (Or maybe it was 14 and 16, I don't remember. Anyway, it was substantially higher than 12 and 14.)

For social situations, that was pretty much up to the DM. There was a "reaction roll" mechanic to see how random NPCs reacted to the party upon first meeting, but you were on your own as far as persuasion, deception, and negotiation went. Most DMs tried to keep your Charisma in mind when assessing how an NPC would react, but there was nothing even remotely resembling a coherent system for it.

1E/2E really was a whole different world. The rules were far less extensive, leaving huge swaths of uncharted territory where the DM's on-the-fly judgement was the only law, and your choice of class dictated virtually everything about your character's capabilities.

nagora
2007-08-14, 02:35 PM
Hypothetical situation: two players, two fighters. Jim and Jon, Tordek and Tardek.

Jim: (speaking about what Tordek does) I bow to the king and ask him for supplies, because my village needs them

Jon: (speaking about what Tardek does) Tardek walks proudly to stand before the king and bows, making the proper niceties before addressing His Highness. He then asks the king "M'lord, my village is dire trouble, and would be most grateful if you could spare supplies to aid in our fight against the Orc tribes. We would gladly swear loyalty to you if you help us through this troubled time." He then bows and awaits an answer from the king.

Which is the better RPer?

Depends on the characters; if Tordek has been established to be taciturn and Tardek florid then they're both doing well. If the other way around, then they're both doing badly.

Here's doing really badly:

Don: (speaking about Tindek the paladin): My character uses his high CHA to persuade the King to give us magic and stuff to kill the orcs. If he objects I'll try an intimidation roll. We can come back later and use the gear on him. Is his daughter got good stats? My character will flirt with her while the old git is getting the stuff organised.

Do you disagree that this is a poor piece of playing (and not the worst I've ever seen)? "Good" role-playing is subjective and depends on style and taste, but that doesn't mean you can never say when someone's making a hash of it.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-14, 02:45 PM
Depends on the characters; if Tordek has been established to be taciturn and Tardek florid then they're both doing well. If the other way around, then they're both doing badly.
Tordek isn't being terse. Or maybe he is. You can't tell...all you know is that he asked for supplies, somehow or other. (And the presumably intended point that his player used first person, where Tardek's used third)

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-14, 03:00 PM
Depends on the characters; if Tordek has been established to be taciturn and Tardek florid then they're both doing well. If the other way around, then they're both doing badly.

Here's doing really badly:

Don: (speaking about Tindek the paladin): My character uses his high CHA to persuade the King to give us magic and stuff to kill the orcs. If he objects I'll try an intimidation roll. We can come back later and use the gear on him. Is his daughter got good stats? My character will flirt with her while the old git is getting the stuff organised.

Do you disagree that this is a poor piece of playing (and not the worst I've ever seen)? "Good" role-playing is subjective and depends on style and taste, but that doesn't mean you can never say when someone's making a hash of it.This is a poor example, but also a poor argument; but it's a complete myth that if you don't imagine your character as a psuedo-real being that the only alternative is blatant and unimaginative metagaming. Here's my example

Don: (speaking about Tindek the paladin): My character uses his high CHA to Tindek asks the King to give us magic and stuff to kill the orcs "could you please help us in our quest, we can't do it without your aid" (Rolls diplomacy). If he objects I'll try an intimidation roll tell him "We are helping you, you have a duty to help us, and if you want our protection you will!" We can come back later and use the gear on him. Is his daughter got good stats? My character will flirt with her while the old git is getting the stuff organised. While he's helping us, Tindek smiles and walks near his attractive daughter. He smiles and says "Hey, how's it going?"


Frankly, the biggest thing that bugs me about Method Roleplayers is that they, as a group, seems to think nobody else is even trying.

P.S. The Great Gatsby is an amazing novel.

UserClone
2007-08-14, 04:14 PM
I know it's hard for some people to understand... but playing a weak character isn't a waste of time for everyone just because you consider it a waste of time.
after reading the rest of your posts, you don't know what role playing is, you don't care what roleplaying is, and you have nothing meaningful to offer to that discussion... I'm not sure why you even bother posting about it.
Independent of the fact that I agree with the gist of what Kiero was saying, insofar as it's not up to you to summarily decide that all in column A are bad RPers and all in column B are good RPers, and that what he considers role-playing is decidedly different from yours:
You make it nearly impossible to respect you or your position on the topic when you claim that not only is another poster's opinion not a valid one (not possible), you claim that he doesn't care, when if he doesn't care, he wouldn't post. You then claim not to know why he posts. The answer is simple: he has an opinion, much like you do, and wishes to express it. "You don't know what you're talking about" is hardly an argument.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-14, 04:20 PM
Maybe you've been hanging around role-players too long - people who have never heard of role-playing games before do struggle sometimes with things we don't even think about anymore.

You've missed my point again. I've introduced new players to roleplaying. What I'm saying is far fetched is that rolling dice and distributing points would have any effect in the process of introducing new players, or separating D&D from any other board game.

nagora
2007-08-14, 04:45 PM
You've missed my point again. I've introduced new players to roleplaying. What I'm saying is far fetched is that rolling dice and distributing points would have any effect in the process of introducing new players, or separating D&D from any other board game.

Just what is your problem, really? I've told you my experience several times. I've explained it to you several times. I have talked to the people involved and made an effort to find out their problem with the mechanics of character generation and I have simply related what conclusions I have made from this.

If you don't want to believe it then don't, but I think we can all live without yet another "I don't believe you" post.

Edit: "separating D&D from any other board game."? Ohh, what a giveaway!

Tormsskull
2007-08-14, 04:47 PM
If you don't want to believe it then don't, but I think we can all live without yet another "I don't believe you" post.

No, you missed his point. He's trying to get you to say you know you're wrong.

nagora
2007-08-14, 04:56 PM
This is a poor example, but also a poor argument; but it's a complete myth that if you don't imagine your character as a psuedo-real being that the only alternative is blatant and unimaginative metagaming. Here's my example

Don: (speaking about Tindek the paladin): My character uses his high CHA to Tindek asks the King to give us magic and stuff to kill the orcs "could you please help us in our quest, we can't do it without your aid" (Rolls diplomacy). If he objects I'll try an intimidation roll tell him "We are helping you, you have a duty to help us, and if you want our protection you will!" We can come back later and use the gear on him. Is his daughter got good stats? My character will flirt with her while the old git is getting the stuff organised. While he's helping us, Tindek smiles and walks near his attractive daughter. He smiles and says "Hey, how's it going?"

Yes, those far-reaching changes make it a much better example of role-playing. Gee! You mean that a different example is, like, different? Who'd have thought it? That's a great way to make an argument: "If you had said something else, then you would have been wrong." :smallconfused:


Frankly, the biggest thing that bugs me about Method Roleplayers is that they, as a group, seems to think nobody else is even trying.

Right. If you've not grasped that "method" isn't what I've advocating by now there's no point flogging the horse any further.



P.S. The Great Gatsby is an amazing novel.

Amazingly dull about amazingly dull characters. Read "Harpo Speaks!" for a much better, more insightful, more entertaining, and less fictional book on the same society.

UserClone
2007-08-14, 05:04 PM
I think the point he was trying to make was that it doesn't mean a person is not "good at" playing D&D if he is Tindek's player in the original version. The strikes and corrections, if I'm not mistaken, are his way of saying, "You can choose to interpret Don's role-playing in this way, even if it's not exactly what Don said, it may in fact be what he intended for Tindek to do/say."
What I'm getting out of this is that Don may not be able to express his role-playing in eloquent, flowery, imaginative prose the way that you can. Don just knows what he wants Tindek to do, and says as much. It does not make you a better role-player than Don, and it doesn't mean Don is not role-playing.

Edit: Also, The Great Gatsby sucks, in my opinion. I got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out of it. However, that doesn't make it a bad book. It may be someone else's favorite. That person is a bad roleplayer.:wink: And probably thinks Don is a tool.

AlterForm
2007-08-14, 05:15 PM
Depends on the characters; if Tordek has been established to be taciturn and Tardek florid then they're both doing well. If the other way around, then they're both doing badly.

Here's doing really badly:

Don: (speaking about Tindek the paladin): My character uses his high CHA to persuade the King to give us magic and stuff to kill the orcs. If he objects I'll try an intimidation roll. We can come back later and use the gear on him. Is his daughter got good stats? My character will flirt with her while the old git is getting the stuff organised.

Do you disagree that this is a poor piece of playing (and not the worst I've ever seen)? "Good" role-playing is subjective and depends on style and taste, but that doesn't mean you can never say when someone's making a hash of it.

You've missed the point

Howabout I make it even more obvious what I'm getting at, in relation to your claim that those who speak in first person will always and forever be better than those who don't. (<-- HINT HINT)


Jim: (speaking about what Tardek does) I bow to the king and ask him for supplies, because my village needs them


Jim: (speaking about what Tardek does) Tardek walks proudly to stand before the king and bows, making the proper niceties before addressing His Highness. He then asks the king "M'lord, my village is dire trouble, and would be most grateful if you could spare supplies to aid in our fight against the Orc tribes. We would gladly swear loyalty to you if you help us through this troubled time." He then bows and awaits an answer from the king.

There, now they're the exact same player, with the exact character, with two different examples of RP. Which is the better example of RP?

Unless you saw exactly what my point was and decided to dodge around it?


EDIT:

"Good" role-playing is subjective and depends on style and taste, but that doesn't mean you can never say when someone's making a hash of it.

I'm sorry, can you say that again please? I'm not sure if I really heard you say that just now.

Matthew
2007-08-14, 05:20 PM
It's important to bear in mind that in 1E/2E, ability scores had much less impact overall. Taking Constitution as an example, I don't think it had any impact whatsoever (aside from system shock rolls) unless you had at least a 15, and then it was only +1 hit point per die. Unless you were a fighter, +2 hp/die was the most you could ever get out of Constitution, and you needed a 17 to get that much. (Or maybe it was 14 and 16, I don't remember. Anyway, it was substantially higher than 12 and 14.)

More or less true.


For social situations, that was pretty much up to the DM. There was a "reaction roll" mechanic to see how random NPCs reacted to the party upon first meeting, but you were on your own as far as persuasion, deception, and negotiation went. Most DMs tried to keep your Charisma in mind when assessing how an NPC would react, but there was nothing even remotely resembling a coherent system for it.

Not quite true. Encounter Reactions were mechanically influenced by Charisma and Attribute Checks would take the place of Bluff or Diplomacy.


1E/2E really was a whole different world. The rules were far less extensive, leaving huge swaths of uncharted territory where the DM's on-the-fly judgement was the only law, and your choice of class dictated virtually everything about your character's capabilities.

Not as different as people make out, but certainly less was legislated for in advance.

UserClone
2007-08-14, 05:22 PM
Neither. Both are valid RP. See my post about Don/Tindek.

Yeril
2007-08-14, 05:25 PM
I prefer point by for 3 reasons

1) if you get bad stats, your ruined.
2) if you get the wrong stats, your character concept is ruined. Sure a 18 and some 11's is good for say a wizard, but for the barbarian who needs a high dex, str and con, your spooned.
3) balance issues

I once played a game, we were using 1d20 reroll 5's to get our stats so a equal chance to get 6-20.

One guy was playing with a 8, 6, 10, 11, 14, 10,
while another had 20, 20, 19, 18, 17, 11

AlterForm
2007-08-14, 05:25 PM
Neither. Both are valid RP. See my post about Don/Tindek.

See, now this man gets it.

Have a cookie, man.
http://forums.gleemax.com/images/smilies/cookie.gif

Matthew
2007-08-14, 05:42 PM
Thought I might as well repost this here, since the subject is the same:


I think that there are many varying expectations of Dungeons & Dragons and that these inform our perception of what is 'good' when it comes to randomisation within the game. Here are some tenative categories, a particular player might be a mixture of several:

1) Character before Dice. This sort of player wants to be able to make a Character he has imagined and wants that Character to mechanically conform to the idea he has.

2) Dice define Character. This kind of player rolls the dice and then uses the results as inspiration to create his Character. He expects the dice to continue to define his Character during the course of play.

3) Fair's fair. This kind of player wants to have a Character equal to those of his fellow players and does not trust the dice to be fair.

4) Story before Game. The game is secondary to the story being told. To this player the death or defeat of the party is a failure on the part of the game, players or Dungeon Master.

5) Game defines Story. To this kind of player the results of the game are the story, regardless of outcome. The potential for failure through mischance is part and parcel of the challenge.

6) Tactical War Game. To this sort of player, Dungeons & Dragons is like a War Game and should be balanced with that in mind. All participants should be able to contribute a similar amount to every challenge at every level and every challenge should be calibrated to be defeatable, given that X number of resources are intelligently expended.

Just some thoughts.

Kiero
2007-08-14, 06:12 PM
As both player and GM, I'm definitely all about 1) and 4). To a much lesser degree 3) as well, though that comes fairly automatically with Wushu.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-14, 07:01 PM
Just what is your problem, really? I've told you my experience several times. I've explained it to you several times. I have talked to the people involved and made an effort to find out their problem with the mechanics of character generation and I have simply related what conclusions I have made from this.

If you don't want to believe it then don't, but I think we can all live without yet another "I don't believe you" post.

Edit: "separating D&D from any other board game."? Ohh, what a giveaway!

:confused: I don't know what you think you've figured out, but the one who has is this guy

EDIT: I got it, I said other and unintentionally implied that D&D is a board game. A mistake on my part, but also a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections) on yours.


No, you missed his point. He's trying to get you to say you know you're wrong.

I narrowed this down to a single point at which we disagree. When the premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example) is diproven, the entire argument is lost. You seem to be trying rather hard to move the subject away (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_objections) from the original point and topic. I have had new players who struggled with roleplaying and designing their character who used dice for generation. To say that the cause of the trouble was the fact that dice were used is basing a conclusion after a very small sample of people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) would be incorrect.

Corolinth
2007-08-14, 07:35 PM
Rolling your stats, and your hit points, is a staple of the game. The game mechanics play a huge role in defining a game, and its setting, but players overlook this a lot. D&D is designed as a game where you roll your character first, and then decide what you're going to play around that. That is part of the challenge of the game in itself, which often goes overlooked when people discuss class balance. You don't know what you're going to get, and end up having a character grow on you that you never thought you'd play, let alone enjoy.

The Player's Handbook is written to allow you to shuffle your die rolls around to offer some customization in an attempt to appeal to players of other games that functioned primarily on some form of point-buy (Shadowrun, Legend of Five Rings, numerous White Wolf games, etc.) and attract them to buy WoTC products. Max hit points is given at level one to counteract the problem (pointed out in another thread) of the level 1 fighter with 1 hit point. Also, because wizards are fragile enough at level 1, they could stand to have a bone thrown there way. Online campaigns notwithstanding (where point-buy is popular because the DM can't physically watch you roll), I wouldn't be surprised to find that more campaigns roll 3d6 straight down the page than use point-buy.

tannish2
2007-08-14, 07:44 PM
what about some combination of rolling and point buy? maybe 3d6 per stat with a 20 point point point buy, would prevent terrible characters, or figure out the average of rolls in the party and anyone below that get point buy points to push them up to that.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-14, 07:45 PM
Rolling your stats, and your hit points, is a staple of the game. The game mechanics play a huge role in defining a game, and its setting, but players overlook this a lot. D&D is designed as a game where you roll your character first, and then decide what you're going to play around that. That is part of the challenge of the game in itself, which often goes overlooked when people discuss class balance. You don't know what you're going to get, and end up having a character grow on you that you never thought you'd play, let alone enjoy.

The Player's Handbook is written to allow you to shuffle your die rolls around to offer some customization in an attempt to appeal to players of other games that functioned primarily on some form of point-buy (Shadowrun, Legend of Five Rings, numerous White Wolf games, etc.) and attract them to buy WoTC products. Max hit points is given at level one to counteract the problem (pointed out in another thread) of the level 1 fighter with 1 hit point. Also, because wizards are fragile enough at level 1, they could stand to have a bone thrown there way. Online campaigns notwithstanding (where point-buy is popular because the DM can't physically watch you roll), I wouldn't be surprised to find that more campaigns roll 3d6 straight down the page than use point-buy.

WotC and the RPGA use point buy in all official or "Living" games.

I know that certain low-stat characters have grown on me, but it had nothing to do with low-stats. There's no guarantee that you'll have exceptional low stats, or anything. You can roll 16, 12, 11, 12 10, 13; those are good stats but they hardly create anything exceptional. That's my problem with rolling: No guarantees.

I prefer point-buy because I like characters, not stat sheets. I'd rather just choose some stats that are workable, and not have to worry about it. I usually end up with a low stat or two, but if I want to have a charismatic character I'll buy better Cha.

Either way, a character, for me, exists outside of his stat block; so I'd rather just not worry about it.

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-14, 07:54 PM
Rolling your stats, and your hit points, is a staple of the game. The game mechanics play a huge role in defining a game, and its setting, but players overlook this a lot. D&D is designed as a game where you roll your character first, and then decide what you're going to play around that. That is part of the challenge of the game in itself, which often goes overlooked when people discuss class balance. You don't know what you're going to get, and end up having a character grow on you that you never thought you'd play, let alone enjoy.

The Player's Handbook is written to allow you to shuffle your die rolls around to offer some customization in an attempt to appeal to players of other games that functioned primarily on some form of point-buy (Shadowrun, Legend of Five Rings, numerous White Wolf games, etc.) and attract them to buy WoTC products. Max hit points is given at level one to counteract the problem (pointed out in another thread) of the level 1 fighter with 1 hit point. Also, because wizards are fragile enough at level 1, they could stand to have a bone thrown there way. Online campaigns notwithstanding (where point-buy is popular because the DM can't physically watch you roll), I wouldn't be surprised to find that more campaigns roll 3d6 straight down the page than use point-buy.

str 13
dex 9
con 14
int 11
wis 13
cha 11

I just rolled those stats straight down the line. Those are high rolls mind you. With a rolling system like that, you have about a 50% chance that the caster you want to be will know what a 1st level spell is. The dungeon master's guide itself says that that form of stat generation frequently produces unplayable characters. Point buy exists to allow people to play the characters they want to. It is a game after all. I don't think D&D was intended to be a game where you are given a random character and hope you like it. Of course, to each his/her own, but don't say that your way is the way it's suppose to be played.

Serenity
2007-08-14, 09:37 PM
Every D&D campaign I've played, character generation has been done by rolling. 4d6 six times, dropping the lowest dice each time. Asssign the scores as you wish. Rerolls at DM discretion--anyone who felt their stats put them well behind the power curve of the rest of the party could appeal for a reroll, and rolls with two or three 18s would probably be forced to roll again.

I've no beef with point-buy (I'm rapidly falling in love with cinematic Unisystem, for example), but the claims that standard dice rolling inflicts massive power imbalance, character restrictions, et al are, I think, exaggeration.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-14, 09:46 PM
Every D&D campaign I've played, character generation has been done by rolling. 4d6 six times, dropping the lowest dice each time. Asssign the scores as you wish. Rerolls at DM discretion--anyone who felt their stats put them well behind the power curve of the rest of the party could appeal for a reroll, and rolls with two or three 18s would probably be forced to roll again.

I've no beef with point-buy (I'm rapidly falling in love with cinematic Unisystem, for example), but the claims that standard dice rolling inflicts massive power imbalance, character restrictions, et al are, I think, exaggeration.

Of course it is; the claim isn't that they inflict those things so much as they allow those things, and have no inherent way of stopping them. They're luck. Even if it's usually around the medium, it still is beholden to randomness.

ImperiousLeader
2007-08-14, 09:56 PM
I prefer Point Buy for fairness sake, but I do like the thrill of rolling a stat array. That and I generally roll better than even 36 point buy. I don't understand organic rolling, I'd rather not have to develop some twisty pretzel-logic backstory to explain why my stats and choice of class make sense.

UserClone
2007-08-14, 10:04 PM
Just so we're on the same page here, I am to assume that by "organic rolling" you mean 4d6k3 for Str, Dex, et al, in order, then switch any two?

Bosh
2007-08-14, 10:06 PM
They both do, that's the idea. They're both fighters, they're effectively identical in combat. Their difference is in social situations.
You mean you have two fighters with the same stats but wildly different personalities and you'd have them be "identical in combat?" How? Wouldn't their personalities affect how they act in combat? For me at least if I can't think of how a personality I think up would make them act in a combat situation that's different from how I'd have other characters act I'd scrap the character concept and start over.

ImperiousLeader
2007-08-14, 10:06 PM
I wasn't aware that any switching was allowed, but yes.

AlterForm
2007-08-14, 10:12 PM
You mean you have two fighters with the same stats but wildly different personalities and you'd have them be "identical in combat?" How? Wouldn't their personalities affect how they act in combat? For me at least if I can't think of how a personality I think up would make them act in a combat situation that's different from how I'd have other characters act I'd scrap the character concept and start over.

I think you missed two things:

1) My point
2) My revised counterexample, wherein it's no longer "two identical fighters," but rather "the same fighter, but RPed in two different ways."

BTW, the point is that no matter which one Nagora had picked, he would've contradicted himself or seemed like an idiot, since picking number 1 (the one most people would call the "inferior RPer" would concur with his "those who speak in the 1st person as their characters will always be better RPers than those who don't" statement, however, picking the number 2 would've been what most would do but would conflict with his aforementioned statment.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-14, 10:37 PM
Thought I might as well repost this here, since the subject is the same:

I've got to say that at least some part of each of those "types" applies to me.

I prefer to be able to build any kind of character I want, (1) but I constrain my choice of character to what types are needed by the group. (6) I then iteratively design my stats around background, personality, and history, and adjust history, background and personality around what I can actually pull off and want to be able to pull off with my stats. (1 & 2)

If someone decides to have their character be incompetent on purpose, this annoys me and I think they are missing a huge portion of what playing a cooperative game is all about (6), but if they decide to have a flaw for roleplaying reasons, this is fine with me, as long as they back it up. I.e. If you're slow and have poor far vision in a campaign with flaws allowed, back it up by taking those flaws, so that the stats reflect the character (4), especially as this gives you other benefits you can capitalize on in exchange for those roleplaying flaws (6).

Because of my approach to wanting to create characters (1), and the fact that I expect everyone to at least attempt to contribute IC, even if you're a noble by birth, and we're currently digging a ditch (6), I believe that everyone should be given a good chance to create a character that can contribute. (3) I also want people to be able to create characters they will enjoy playing. Someone may be sick of playing casters and want to play a rogue, or may be new, so playing a fighter would be the easiest way into playing the system, so helping them create this type of character using point buy, in my opinion, makes for an easier entry into the game (1).

At the same time, even if I create a character to be good at something, it's possible that my character will simply roll poorly the first several times I try it, and so ever after, I will have a reputation at being piss poor at it, despite my statistical superiority at it (2).

Also, if my group manages to TPK the enemy hoard, it really, seriously cheeses me off if the DM yanks one out and 'saves' them just because he feels he 'needs' it to railroad us through his predefined plot. That's not roleplaying, that's us playing a choose your own adventure game where the choices are "you die" or "you win" and our characters have no chance of determining their own fate through the choices they make, and the way they interact with the world. (5)

At the same time, if I wind up being cursed in character, or wind up putting myself in a spot where my gear gets taken, that's definitely going to have a statistical effect on my character (4).

And in the end, if we are in a plot arc where we're fighting ice monsters, and I'm playing a wizard, I'm far more likely to have him or her learn more fire spells and prepare more fire scrolls, for the simple reason that that's what my character would expect to need. Now, the character may be more interested in abjuration, so if that's the case, he may wind up learning or creating a spell that protects him, but does fire damage to physical attackers. Thus, both the story/plot and my characters interests dictate his actions, which then dictate in what directions his stats grow. (4) And thus, we have more success against the ice creatures, and they are more likely to target my wizard. (5)

horseboy
2007-08-14, 10:44 PM
Rolling your stats, and your hit points, is a staple of the game. The game mechanics play a huge role in defining a game, and its setting, but players overlook this a lot. D&D is designed as a game where you roll your character first, and then decide what you're going to play around that. That is part of the challenge of the game in itself, which often goes overlooked when people discuss class balance. You don't know what you're going to get, and end up having a character grow on you that you never thought you'd play, let alone enjoy.

The Player's Handbook is written to allow you to shuffle your die rolls around to offer some customization in an attempt to appeal to players of other games that functioned primarily on some form of point-buy (Shadowrun, Legend of Five Rings, numerous White Wolf games, etc.) and attract them to buy WoTC products. Max hit points is given at level one to counteract the problem (pointed out in another thread) of the level 1 fighter with 1 hit point. Also, because wizards are fragile enough at level 1, they could stand to have a bone thrown there way. Online campaigns notwithstanding (where point-buy is popular because the DM can't physically watch you roll), I wouldn't be surprised to find that more campaigns roll 3d6 straight down the page than use point-buy.

Alright, first off, point buy has been around since 1st edition. If you kept reading you'll find that if you have a mage with a st12, Con 14 and Int 16. All you'd have to do was drop your st and con by two each and adding two to Int. That is the primitive version of point buy.

Second, "organic" didn't come out until like 2nd. I also have yet to find anyone who used it IRL.

Third: THIS IS D&D! THERE IS NO "WRONG" WAY TO PLAY IT!! Get over yourselves!





Oh, and Candide>Gatsby

Mighty_Draco
2007-08-14, 11:04 PM
Every D&D campaign I've played, character generation has been done by rolling. 4d6 six times, dropping the lowest dice each time. Asssign the scores as you wish. Rerolls at DM discretion--anyone who felt their stats put them well behind the power curve of the rest of the party could appeal for a reroll, and rolls with two or three 18s would probably be forced to roll again.

I've no beef with point-buy (I'm rapidly falling in love with cinematic Unisystem, for example), but the claims that standard dice rolling inflicts massive power imbalance, character restrictions, et al are, I think, exaggeration.

Just to be clear, what I was referring to wasn't the standard system. I like the system and I've used both point buy and rolling dice plenty times. I was commenting on the "3d6 down the line" system.

skywalker
2007-08-14, 11:14 PM
I like 4d6 drop the lowest because I roll the equivalent of somewhere between 40 and 60 point buy. 4 times out of 5. I think point buy sucks because it forces you to min-max. I despise min-maxing. Especially since if you min-max anything besides a sorcerer, you MUST dump charisma(see sig). I guess you can toss me in with Heinlein and his competent man.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-14, 11:32 PM
I think point buy sucks because it forces you to min-max.

Holds a gun to your head, does it?

Bosh
2007-08-14, 11:47 PM
I think you missed two things:

1) My point
2) My revised counterexample, wherein it's no longer "two identical fighters," but rather "the same fighter, but RPed in two different ways."

BTW, the point is that no matter which one Nagora had picked, he would've contradicted himself or seemed like an idiot, since picking number 1 (the one most people would call the "inferior RPer" would concur with his "those who speak in the 1st person as their characters will always be better RPers than those who don't" statement, however, picking the number 2 would've been what most would do but would conflict with his aforementioned statment.

1. I wasn't replying to your main point, but something tangential to your main point.
2. Why would the same fighter RPed in two different ways be indentical in combat either way?

skywalker
2007-08-15, 12:03 AM
Holds a gun to your head, does it?


Excuse me, it forces you to min-max to get a good stat. You have to deprecate one stat to make another one higher.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-15, 12:10 AM
Before joining these forums a few months ago, I had never built a character, or played in a campaign, using Point Buy. Here, using Point Buy seems to be the norm, or at least thats my perspective of it, from the registration threads I've seen. Hopefully I'm wrong on that note.

The first chapter of the Player's Handbook explains that the attributes of characters are determined by rolling four (4) six-sided dice (d6s), and removing the lowest roll. It does not say that rolling is one of the ways to do it, it says that rolling is the way to do it. No other ways of determining ability scores are mentioned in the PHB.

The DMG has a whole host of variants availible to be used, some of which most people probably don't even know/remember. Many variants see use in a few games, perhaps even in half or so. Some of the very popular ones, possibly even the most popular ones, are the alternative systems for determining the six (6) ability scores.

I don't have an issue with variants being used in the game. I personally use a handful of those presented in the Unearthed Arcana in the games I run. I don't even care all that much that there is a variant on one of the basic principles of the game. No, what I dislike about Point Buy is I feel it is becoming the standard. I'm worried that people are seeing Point Buy as the normal way of doing it, being surprised, or even upset, at a DM that uses rolling.

To me, rolling is the best way of determining ability scores. Since joining this forum, I have made more than a few characters with the Point Buy method, due in large part to the huge number of DMs that use it. What I have found is that the characters are way too customizable. Primary spellcasters can sacrifice their Strength score to put their casting ability through the roof. Melee builds (well, alot more than just Melee builds, but they're the most common offenders) can completely ignore Charisma. And that's not even going into the complete exclusion of odd scores. Your character will be tuned to perfection. No more having moderate scores where you don't need them to be that good. Make the scores you need amazing, and the rest horrible. Someone trying to succeed as an Archer in the real world can't become dumber to make them stronger. They can't remove every bit of social grace from their body to improve their agility. No, sometimes in life you have to make due with what life gives you.

With rolling, you get some of that variety back in the game. You still get the choice to decide what you are best at. Is that not enough? Is it that horrible that your character doesn't have the maximum natural Intelligence for his race? Or that he isn't as strong as some of the world's strongest men? Is him being stronger, faster, smarter and wiser that the vast majority of people will ever be not good enough for you? Enough of this nonsense. Point Buy is akin to making people robots, as far as I can see. Fine tuning them to to what they want to do as well as they can, with no regard to doing much else.

Maybe some of you want impecably-tuned robots. Me? I'd rather play with a character that has to make due with his shortcomings, not eliminate them.

To further handicap players, do you force them to roll their stats in order, and also make them choose their class BEFORE they roll? You know, to make sure things aren't fair.

Stephen_E
2007-08-15, 12:55 AM
Seriously: Point buy is just flat out more fair than rolling.

No-one walks away from the table feeling cheated by the dice. Everyone is on an even keel.

Point buy isn't more fair than rolling, it merely appears to be more fair. Point buy favours certain classes over other classes. In particular it favours the power builds (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) over the other classes which are all more MAD dependant.

And no, people don't walk away feeling cheated by the dice, they feel cheated by the point creation system. They don't always feel so (it depends on what class they wanted to take, and whether they realise how much point buy favours some classes over others) but neither do people who roll dice always feel cheated.




This automatically means added frustration for both the unlucky player, and his compatriots, who keep having to bail the weak sister of the group out of trouble.

<snipped>

Unfortunately, as interesting as that character was, it was a book. It happened that way because the writer wanted it to. In a game, your character's survival is determined solely by statistics and the kindness and willingness to fudge of your DM.

<snipped>

My point is this: unless the DM is actively willing to conspire to keep you alive at low levels (or the author, as the case may be), someone with low rolls is more likely to end up having to make up a new character than someone without.


Interestingly enough as a couple of posters have commented, and as I have observed over 20+ years of gaming, poor stats aren't actually more inclined to die. The major factor on PC death is how you play your PC. Players with superior stats often tend to overestimate the advantage that those superior stats give them, and get themselves, and consequently their parties, in trouble.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-08-15, 01:07 AM
Thought I might as well repost this here, since the subject is the same:

Quote:Originally Posted by Matthew
I think that there are many varying expectations of Dungeons & Dragons and that these inform our perception of what is 'good' when it comes to randomisation within the game. Here are some tenative categories, a particular player might be a mixture of several:

1) Character before Dice. This sort of player wants to be able to make a Character he has imagined and wants that Character to mechanically conform to the idea he has.

2) Dice define Character. This kind of player rolls the dice and then uses the results as inspiration to create his Character. He expects the dice to continue to define his Character during the course of play.

3) Fair's fair. This kind of player wants to have a Character equal to those of his fellow players and does not trust the dice to be fair.

4) Story before Game. The game is secondary to the story being told. To this player the death or defeat of the party is a failure on the part of the game, players or Dungeon Master.

5) Game defines Story. To this kind of player the results of the game are the story, regardless of outcome. The potential for failure through mischance is part and parcel of the challenge.

6) Tactical War Game. To this sort of player, Dungeons & Dragons is like a War Game and should be balanced with that in mind. All participants should be able to contribute a similar amount to every challenge at every level and every challenge should be calibrated to be defeatable, given that X number of resources are intelligently expended.

Just some thoughts.

Hear, hear.
I've not only seen all these types, I've been most of them at some time or another.:smallsmile:

Stephen

Damionte
2007-08-15, 01:10 AM
This seems like such a simple topic at first glance, can anyone sum up the discusion at this point. Why has this gone over 250 posts? What's the point of contention?

Dhavaer
2007-08-15, 01:12 AM
Point buy isn't more fair than rolling, it merely appears to be more fair. Pont but favours certain classes over other classes. In particular it favours the power builds (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) over the other classes which are all more MAD dependant.

Eh? You do know that the point buy system gives diminishing returns, right? Increasing multiple abilities to more moderate levels (12-14) is more efficient than increasing one to higher levels (16-18), making MAD classes feasible.

Stephen_E
2007-08-15, 01:27 AM
:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Point buy isn't more fair than rolling, it merely appears to be more fair. Pont but favours certain classes over other classes. In particular it favours the power builds (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) over the other classes which are all more MAD dependant.


Eh? You do know that the point buy system gives diminishing returns, right? Increasing multiple abilities to more moderate levels (12-14) is more efficient than increasing one to higher levels (16-18), making MAD classes feasible.

You show the effect of perception. You talk of 12-14 been "more moderate", most people I know consider 12-14 for prime stats been "weak".
A Paladin with 12-14 in Str, Con, Wis and Cha is seen as pretty crap for a Paladin, and this gets added on to the fact that Paladins aren't a uber class in the 1st place. Even the low powered campaign (15 pts) gets you a 17 Int and a 10 Con for the Wizard (substitute Wis for Int for Clerics and Druids). The Paladin can manage 3 12's and an 11 for his 4 prime stats. The simple truth is that under point buy the power clsses run on the smell of an oily rag, the other classes are much more demanding.

This doesn't mean point buy is bad ecetre, but is does illustrate that it isn't inherently "fairer" as many like to claim.

Stephen

Dhavaer
2007-08-15, 01:33 AM
You show the effect of perception. You talk of 12-14 been "more moderate", most people I know consider 12-14 for prime stats been "weak".
A Paladin with 12-14 in Str, Con, Wis and Cha is seen as pretty crap for a Paladin, and this gets added on to the fact that Paladins aren't a uber class in the 1st place. Even the low powered campaign (15 pts) gets you a 17 Int and a 10 Con for the Wizard (substitute Wis for Int for Clerics and Druids). The Paladin can manage 3 12's and an 11 for his 4 prime stats. The simple truth is that under point buy the power clsses run on the smell of an oily rag, the other classes are much more demanding.

This doesn't mean point buy is bad ecetre, but is does illustrate that it isn't inherently "fairer" as many like to claim.

Stephen

Str 14, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14 does pretty well as a paladin, and it doesn't seem that much weaker than Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 10 for a Wizard.
Of course, at higher levels the wizard doesn't need the Dex or Con, but that's a problem of high level wizards, not of ability generation.

I'd also like to enquire as to what kind of rolling you do that lets you reliably get 3-4 scores of over 14.

horseboy
2007-08-15, 01:47 AM
Str 14, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14 does pretty well as a paladin, and it doesn't seem that much weaker than Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 10 for a Wizard.
Of course, at higher levels the wizard doesn't need the Dex or Con, but that's a problem of high level wizards, not of ability generation.

I'd also like to enquire as to what kind of rolling you do that lets you reliably get 3-4 scores of over 14.

The paladin I built was str14, Dex11, Con10, Int 12, Wis13, Cha 15. Course he's a centaur, so stat mods mess it up a little. Ya Gotta remember in the edition of Magic Mart, you don't need "awesome" stats, just solid stats, backed up with magic items.

Corolinth
2007-08-15, 03:27 AM
WotC and the RPGA use point buy in all official or "Living" games.And there's a reason for that. It's the same reason that point buy is popular in online games. Point buy eliminates the capacity to cheat at character creation. All you have to do is add up the points to determine if the character is legit or not. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are the six most important die rolls that a player makes for a character. The inevitability of fudged stat rolls is a concern for any "Living" setting. Without a standardized point buy, someone is going to cheat.

This is a situation where using a point buy provides a clear advantage outside of any matter of personal preference. The RPGA staff can't supervise every single player making their character, and WotC can't send someone to your house to make sure your DM is making you roll it by the book. I don't really like using a point buy for D&D, but I used one for my online game exactly because it provides a standard.


str 13
dex 9
con 14
int 11
wis 13
cha 11

I just rolled those stats straight down the line. Those are high rolls mind you. With a rolling system like that, you have about a 50% chance that the caster you want to be will know what a 1st level spell is. The dungeon master's guide itself says that that form of stat generation frequently produces unplayable characters. Point buy exists to allow people to play the characters they want to. It is a game after all. I don't think D&D was intended to be a game where you are given a random character and hope you like it. Of course, to each his/her own, but don't say that your way is the way it's suppose to be played.Yes, 3d6 straight down the page produces lower rolls than 4d6 drop lowest. That's patently obvious. I suspect, however, that a lot of gaming groups still use that method. There are quite a number of old fossils who prefer 1st and 2nd edition to 3.5 (where "average" is more like 8-10 than 10-11), and I can't exactly say I blame them. It took me a while to warm up to 3.0.

You will, of course, note the wording of "I wouldn't be surprised..." in the post you were responding to? Rather than "I've conducted some surveys and can conclude..." I'm aware that I have no such hard evidence to base such a conclusion, nor am I even making such a conclusion. Rather, were I to read such a survey, it would not shock me as being strange and odd. What I am certain of is that the point buy is nowhere near as popular as the original poster seems to think, save of course for online games where the point buy is clearly preferable to eliminate cheating at character creation. (And the Living settings can be construed as to fall into the category of online games, as the worlds are updated online).

Anyhow, the point of my post wasn't an inherent superiority to either style. Randomly rolling your stats is simply the way the game was designed, and is a staple of D&D. Sitting around at the table rolling up level one characters as a group is part and parcel of the game experience. That doesn't mean all groups are going to do that. Then again, exploring dungeons and fighting dragons is a staple of Dungeons and Dragons, and not all groups do that, either.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-15, 03:39 AM
Holds a gun to your head, does it?

Yup, it is not only evil, it is also threatening and violent. :smallwink:

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-15, 04:03 AM
Actually, point-buy is really only good with classes that give you multiple attributes to the same stat. Eg. When you can add Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha to damage/saves/AC/whatever, you don't really worry so much about lacking the 18 Strength.

nagora
2007-08-15, 04:07 AM
You've missed the point

Howabout I make it even more obvious what I'm getting at, in relation to your claim that those who speak in first person will always and forever be better than those who don't. (<-- HINT HINT)


I never said that, nor do I think it.

Really, the question of whether the players are good role-players or not is tangental to the tangent. My original point really was that it's the DM's job to make the world believable/real/whatever enough to facilitate role-playing. Players have lots of styles and all of them are valid. We got side-tracked by the claim that there is no such thing as role-playing badly, which I don't believe at all. I did mention some things (first person speech etc.) which are likely to indicate that a player is into their role, but some good players never speak in-character, for example.

So I'll summarise my position one last time:

1 Role-playing in a game where the DM can not or has not attempted to make the world and characters seem more than a bunch of numbers is virtually impossible; the better the DM is at making a world come alive, the better the role-playing and enjoyment is likely to be for those players who want to role-play. Those that don't want to role-play are clearly in the wrong room.

2 There is such a thing as being a crap role-player but it's not really anything to do with a specific style.

3 The statement "I am a better player now than I was 10 years ago" is probably valid for any given player.

4 Point-buy systems are not any better or worse than dice-rolling systems, but either might not suit a particular player or group for various reasons. Use whatever works.

Kiero
2007-08-15, 04:35 AM
THIS IS D&D! THERE IS NO "WRONG" WAY TO PLAY IT!! Get over yourselves!

Because it really does bear repeating. The only "wrong" way is if the people around the table aren't enjoying what they're doing.


1 Role-playing in a game where the DM can not or has not attempted to make the world and characters seem more than a bunch of numbers is virtually impossible; the better the DM is at making a world come alive, the better the role-playing and enjoyment is likely to be for those players who want to role-play. Those that don't want to role-play are clearly in the wrong room.

Sez you. Immersion isn't a goal for everyone.


2 There is such a thing as being a crap role-player but it's not really anything to do with a specific style.

Nope. There might be styles inappropriate for what certain groups expect, but that's about as far as you can meaningfully go.


3 The statement "I am a better player now than I was 10 years ago" is probably valid for any given player.

Maybe, maybe not. Some people get stuck in a rut or stick to familiar territory which can inhibit how they play and their enjoyment.


4 Point-buy systems are not any better or worse than dice-rolling systems, but either might not suit a particular player or group for various reasons. Use whatever works.

Unsuitable sounds like "better or worse" for that specific group. Because it is. Each method is better and worse at achieving particular goals and meeting particular expectations. What matters is how they are prioritised by the group in question.

Dausuul
2007-08-15, 05:25 AM
You show the effect of perception. You talk of 12-14 been "more moderate", most people I know consider 12-14 for prime stats been "weak".

And how does dice rolling help with this? I just ran the numbers; if you're using 4d6 drop lowest, you have only an 18% chance to get two or more 16s, and the odds of getting three are less than 4%. So four-fifths of the time, you'll be stuck with "weak" values in most of those prime stats anyway.

On the other hand, your odds of getting at least one 16 are 57%. Sounds to me like SAD still has the edge.

Now compare to 25 point buy (which is the only reasonable comparison, since 25 point buy is intended to match 4d6 drop lowest). Under 25 point buy, if you really want those two 16s, you can have them, 100% of the time--your stats will look something like:

16 16 12 9 8 8

Sorry, but if fairness is your main criterion, point buy absolutely wins. If you're rolling stats, then some people will have the option to play whatever they want and be good at it; some people will have the option to be good at a SAD class, but not a MAD one; and some people won't have the option to be good at any class at all. How is this more fair than giving everyone the same options?

Matthew
2007-08-15, 05:40 AM
I think the idea is that Point Buy isn't particularly fair on every Base Class equally, because some Classes benefit to a greater degree proportionally from one Attribute, not that Rolling is 'more fair'.

nagora
2007-08-15, 05:46 AM
Because it really does bear repeating. The only "wrong" way is if the people around the table aren't enjoying what they're doing.

Sez you. Immersion isn't a goal for everyone.



This bears repeating too: you think "role-playing" is a meaningless phrase, therefore your opinion on what makes a good role-playing game is obviously also meaningless. As is your insistance that the goals of game designers are irrelevant.

Clearly "players are enjoying themselves" is a measure of quality for any game of any type or genre. But I think the rest of us were discussing issues specific to role-playing games.

Since you insist that there is nothing other than the label on the box that distinguishes role-playing games from other games, the implication is that you do not think there ARE any issues specific to them to discuss.

Kiero
2007-08-15, 05:49 AM
This bears repeating too: you think "role-playing" is a meaningless phrase, therefore your opinion on what makes a good role-playing game is obviously also meaningless. As is your insistance that the goals of game designers are irrelevant.

Clearly "players are enjoying themselves" is a measure of quality for any game of any type or genre. But I think the rest of us were discussing issues specific to role-playing games.

Since you insist that there is nothing other than the label on the box that distinguishes role-playing games from other games, the implication is that you do not think there ARE any issues specific to them to discuss.

For someone who gets so precious about people putting words into your mouth, you seem to have little compunction about doing the same thing to others.

Dausuul
2007-08-15, 05:56 AM
I think the idea is that Point Buy isn't particularly fair on every Base Class equally, because some Classes benefit to a greater degree proportionally from one Attribute, not that Rolling is 'more fair'.

The original claim was "Point buy isn't more fair than rolling, it merely appears to be more fair."

I'll agree that some classes are stronger than others in D&D, and that MAD/SAD is part of the reason for that. But that's a problem with class balance, and rolling for stats doesn't help. With point buy, everyone has the same options to make a strong character, which is more fair than some people getting lots of options, some people getting a few options, and some people getting no options.

Matthew
2007-08-15, 05:58 AM
I don't think that was Stephen's original claim, check Post #229.

SensFan
2007-08-15, 06:07 AM
Your early reply was vague and for me to assert that you agreed could have been a false assumption. So I further inquired to reach a more certain assumption. Now that we are in accordance it seems we can agree to two conclusions.

A. Roleplaying and the method used to generate your character are mutually exclusive
B. The better system used for determining abilities scores is purely preferential.
b1. Using dice creates variability.
b2. Point buy allows more customization.
That sums up my opinion very well. The point of the thread was not to say "people who use Point Buy are stupid", but "I don't understand why so many people use Point Buy".


Generally, I characterize any post that is by intent insulting to others, even if those people feel differently from you, to be a flame... and the way I read the origonal post, the poster meant to insult anyone who preferred point buy.
While you may obviously get a differant feel from a post that was indented, I assure you that insulting anyone was not my goal. See above.


To further handicap players, do you force them to roll their stats in order, and also make them choose their class BEFORE they roll? You know, to make sure things aren't fair.
You have your opinion, I have mine. For what its worth, my current plan for an organic campaign would be race, ability scores, everything else; in that order. Also keep in mind that if I were to use the organic character variant, it would most likely be 5d6b3, not 4d6b3.

nagora
2007-08-15, 06:12 AM
For someone who gets so precious about people putting words into your mouth, you seem to have little compunction about doing the same thing to others.

Well, you said, when asked to explain what you thought role-playing meant:


What matters is whether those people are enjoying what they're doing. That's the only thing that matters at my table.

which is true of any game of any sort, and


Anyone engaging in the act of playing a roleplaying game is roleplaying, period. To attempt to declare one type of engagement roleplaying and another not-roleplaying is pointless semantic d*ck-waving.

This amount to saying that "role-playing" is whatever you say it is, in other words it has no intrinsic meaning of its own - a meaningless phrase. You classify trying to use it in any meaningful way as semantic d*ick-waving.

How can anyone discuss role-playing with someone who refuses to accept that there is anything the makes role-playing different from any other game?

Tormsskull
2007-08-15, 06:13 AM
BTW, the point is that no matter which one Nagora had picked, he would've contradicted himself or seemed like an idiot, since picking number 1 (the one most people would call the "inferior RPer" would concur with his "those who speak in the 1st person as their characters will always be better RPers than those who don't" statement, however, picking the number 2 would've been what most would do but would conflict with his aforementioned statment.

So since you set up a logical trap (that I am sure you thought was pretty clever) and he picked neither, does that mean you look like an idiot?



Because it really does bear repeating. The only "wrong" way is if the people around the table aren't enjoying what they're doing.


If you started a D&D group (or any RPG group) for the sole and only purpose of having fun, then you'd be right. If any rules are established for the game, they are meaningless because breaking the rules would be acceptable as long as everyone enjoys it. I think in truth the system that you normally play (Wushu) is far different from a structured, rules-heavy game like D&D, and you simply don't like that.

If a DM starts a game, advertises it as RP-heavy, and then accepts people looking to play, you better believe it that they are playing the game "wrong" if they choose not to role-play.


Also, when it comes to the stat rolls:

The difference between point-buy and rolling stats on the different classes is significant. If two players rolled multiple high scores, f/x: (16, 16, 14, 14, 13, 11) and (17, 16, 15, 13, 12, 10), the additional higher stats would benefit a MAD class much more than a SAD class. Taken to the extreme, a wizard with 3 18s isn't a head and shoulders above a wizard with 1 18, but a ranger/paladin/monk with 3 18s is WAY better than a ranger/paladin/monk with 1 18.

Dausuul
2007-08-15, 06:59 AM
Also, when it comes to the stat rolls:

The difference between point-buy and rolling stats on the different classes is significant. If two players rolled multiple high scores, f/x: (16, 16, 14, 14, 13, 11) and (17, 16, 15, 13, 12, 10), the additional higher stats would benefit a MAD class much more than a SAD class. Taken to the extreme, a wizard with 3 18s isn't a head and shoulders above a wizard with 1 18, but a ranger/paladin/monk with 3 18s is WAY better than a ranger/paladin/monk with 1 18.

On the other hand, if a player rolled a single very high score and a bunch of average-to-below-average ones (say, 18 11 10 9 9 8), the lack of any high stats except for one would hurt a SAD class much less than a MAD class. And if a player rolled a bunch of mediocre scores (say, 13 12 11 10 10 8), the lack of any high stats would suck for all classes.

That's the thing; you can't just assume everyone's going to roll lots of high stats all the time. You also have to look at the 80% of cases where people don't roll two stats at 16+.

Matthew
2007-08-15, 07:05 AM
I think the 'rolled up' characters are better suited for people who decide on their Character concept after seeing what they rolled, which may be the source of the confusion here.

nagora
2007-08-15, 07:11 AM
On the other hand, if a player rolled a single very high score and a bunch of average-to-below-average ones (say, 18 11 10 9 9 8), the lack of any high stats except for one would hurt a SAD class much less than a MAD class. And if a player rolled a bunch of mediocre scores (say, 13 12 11 10 10 8), the lack of any high stats would suck for all classes.

That's the thing; you can't just assume everyone's going to roll lots of high stats all the time. You also have to look at the 80% of cases where people don't roll two stats at 16+.

Obviously if you have a specific idea about the character you want to play then points build is the way to go, and if you just want to see some numbers and get an idea from what they throw up then rolling is best.

The real problem is that you can only really use one or the other for the whole group or you risk unfairness because the guy that wants to roll dice might roll a couple of 18s.

Just get the DM to design the characters; it's a lot easier! Bloody DMs sitting there while we do all the work of generating the characters. And they expect us to bring all the food and drink...

Tormsskull
2007-08-15, 07:13 AM
That's the thing; you can't just assume everyone's going to roll lots of high stats all the time. You also have to look at the 80% of cases where people don't roll two stats at 16+.

I'm not assuming that, I'm just giving an example of how rolling is more likely to be beneficial towards MAD classes than SAD classes.


I'm completely happy with rolling, but for the die-hard PBers, what about setting each class with a Primary Stat (like 2nd edition) and then assigning MAD classes with Secondary stats. Then, for every 3 points a player buys up his classes' primary stat, each of his secondary stats gets a free 1 point boost.

So as an example, a Wizard's Primary stat would be Intelligence, and would have no secondary stats. a Paladin's Primary stat would be (arguably) Charisma, and seconday stats would be Wisdom and Strength. So a Paladin player buys his Charisma up to 17 (using 13 points), which it turn gets him 3 free points to both Wisdom and Strength. Those free points would be exactly like additional point-buy points, except they can only be used on Wisdom and Strength (3 to each) respectively. Thoughts?

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-15, 07:20 AM
This seems like such a simple topic at first glance, can anyone sum up the discusion at this point. Why has this gone over 250 posts? What's the point of contention?

Short Summary:

Pro Dice: Point Buy Sux0rz
Pro Point-buy: Point Buy R0x0rz

Slightly more detailed summary:

This thread has generated several tangents of discussion, with multiple points of contention, which is one reason it is so long. It hasn't been distilled into a single point of contention yet.

On the pro-dice side some people contend that Rolling is easier, some contend rolling produces better stats, some people contend that rolling produces more 'organic' characters that have flaws and strengths.

On the pro-pointbuy side some people contend that point buy is easier, produces more regular stats, allow you to choose what type of character you want to play, or that it is a more equitable system for creating characters.


That sums up my opinion very well. The point of the thread was not to say "people who use Point Buy are stupid", but "I don't understand why so many people use Point Buy".

While you may obviously get a differant feel from a post that was indented, I assure you that insulting anyone was not my goal. See above.

Well that's one of the problems of the internet. I've been accused of being hostile before when I was definitely not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. ^_^



You have your opinion, I have mine. For what its worth, my current plan for an organic campaign would be race, ability scores, everything else; in that order. Also keep in mind that if I were to use the organic character variant, it would most likely be 5d6b3, not 4d6b3.

And... I doubt I would play in such a campaign. Race before stats being the reason.