Quote from: Certified;1030863Since we've established that you only pick what you can choice in real life, but we don't want to break immersion that leads us to the only clear option that allows a qualified player to immerse themselves, and that is free or greatly inexpensive gender reassignment in a world with no social stigma attached. I mean, since you can't pick this before birth, it has to be possible to change genders after birth. This seems to be a clear, logical progression of these statements.

Oh christ, you ridiculous cunt, I've already explained this: most players are SHIT at playing the opposite gender. They usually have no problem handling being of a different social class, or playing a character who's way stronger than they are, or dumber than they are, or even wiser than they are to a certain extent. But most players will fuck up playing outside their sex. I'll let anyone who wants to try the chance to do it, but making people do it is a stupid idea.

And no, you ridiculous little shit, that doesn't prove anything about anything else. It's a hangup of the interpretive limitations of most gamers, especially male gamers (I'll note that usually in my experience women are somewhat better at playing men than vice versa; though even then, it's only in the sense that they play their characters as women with a penis, but that's still better than making your character some kind of comedy relief or fantasy-fulfillment). It's a product of cultural conditioning. It doesn't mean anything regarding the larger point that RANDOMIZING EVERYTHING ELSE MAKES PEOPLE ROLEPLAY BETTER.

In fact, it's an extension of the point, because the REASONS why many people tend to be shit roleplayers when they try to play a woman is the same reason why many people tend to be shit roleplayers when they get to pick every tiny detail about their character thanks to shitty point-buy systems.  Because these same people default into the most facile option possible of roleplaying if allowed to. Given total freedom to choose, they will rely on their very limited imagination to create a caricature.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1030883And I am saying, isn't it a more... I don't know... 'relevant to anything other than pedantry' to say that he is making an exception (which he explained), perhaps opening up his model to the critique that it conveniently is 'no choices, except this one choice, because I don't want to deal with that,' rather than say that he has, against any and all knowledge he has about what he has done, secretly made a society with presto magic sex changes.

This entire argument seems like something off a bad media fansite where someone opines that there must have been, let's say, a 900 year long puritanical government pogram which disallowed the creation of new art in the universe of Futurama, because how else do you explain why everyone is so knowledgeable about late 20th century pop culture? And that's the only possible explanation, because it being because it is a sitcom written by 20th/21st century writers couldn't possibly be the explanation.

yeah, it was such a sloppy and idiotic attempt to create a completely ABSURD rhetorical framework in order to then try to spring the cheapest, saddest most pathetic of 'gotchas' I'd seen in years, that was so badly constructed that I couldn't even understand what he was trying to get to.

It was the rhetorical-combat version of intentionally shitting your own pants in the middle of a knife-fight in a pathetic attempt at distracting your opponent into letting his guard down.

Quote from: CarlD.;1030946BTW: I assume by choosing your name it means as far titles, inheritance and other legal matters. You can have your character call themselves whatever you wish?

Regarding names: In my first Dark Albion game, my players had no idea what to call themselves.  In Arrows of Indra, they wouldn't have had the slightest chance of figuring it out. So for campaigns where the setting really matters, and isn't just Fantasy Setting #689, you want the characters to have names that fit the setting correctly.  And some players really want to be able to do that but need a way to know, while others are just morons who if allowed to do their own thing will fuck it up in a way that ruins everything.  In my second Dark Albion campaign I had to stop one guy (a fully adult person) from naming his magister PC "Gandalf", knowing full well this was meant to be a heavily immersive virtual recreation of 15th century England.

So, again, if you're playing the fucking forgotten realms or some meaningless fantasy setting, there may be no real need to have names be randomly determined. Though even then, if you have some guy insist that he wants his character to be named 'Conan the Barbarian', or "Fuckface Groinstabber" or whatever, it could really damage the immersive credibility of the campaign.
But if you're playing a game that's in a historical or quasi-historical setting, it can be much more useful to have random name tables based on actual research of credible names for the setting.

Quote from: Chris24601;1030998Some aren't playing to for the opportunity to explore what the random dice rolls tell them to... some are there because they like solving the puzzles/problems the GM throws at them.

That's fucking hilarious, given how in a lot of these other games where you're allowed to pick down to the last 0.25th of a point exactly every detail about your character with total control and zero randomization of what your character is, you then have a bunch of die rolls in actual play that control how your social interactions go.

In my games, you randomize character creation, forcing you to be better than yourself, and then in ACTUAL PLAY you have to FUCKING ROLEPLAY IT, rather than rely on the 260 points you invested in "intimidate" to get around having to actually RP your character.

QuoteOr you can play with adults instead of man-children. Its amazing how all the crap you say you need random rolls to prevent just drops away when you do.

There are some hopeless cases of man-children out there. None of those are in my groups. They don't get into my groups, they never get past the waiting list. If they somehow bluff the way through, they don't last, because in my games they never get their way.

On the other hand, I have a lot of people who are very good at being players, doing what players are meant to do, which is to maximize their own personal advantage as a player.
For some people, that will mean, entirely without going to the extremes of breaking the rules, trying to get away with everything they can get away with using the rules.  If the rules are badly designed so that the "smart" player is actually the one gaming-the-system, it means that smart players will game the system.  There's even a whole school of thought in RPG design (which took over D&D in 3e) where "Character Optimization" that rewards players who've carefully studied how to manipulate the rules to get the most powerful or capable possible player is somehow a laudable model to be based on. And you see this in virtually EVERY major point-buy system. You see it in GURPS, in Shadowrun, in Champions, etc, where players who have carefully read and studied every detail of the game system (especially character creation) will have a definable advantage over players who don't know the system and that's thought of as perfectly fine.

QuoteAlso, from my experience the people who's primary concern is how absolutely "optimal" their character is using point-buy are actually pretty freaking bad at it. The one man-child we had like that always built cripplingly overspecialized builds that were extremely easy to put down the moment you figured out their one trick and what they had to tank to get it. If you looked at their sheet in some games everything was right out of the gold/sky-blue lists of some easy to find charops guide and those almost never take into account actual table play (where you need to be able to do more than just one thing), just theoretical white-room 'how to get the most X' crap.

This is often true. There are a lot of point-buy players who end up creating these 'one hit wonders'.  But first off, it's a PROBLEM that you'd need to then be having to think that way in terms of how to beat him. Where you end up with a player who has that one attack that he'll always use because if he pulls it off he ends the fight every time in seconds, and then you as a GM have to invent ridiculous scenarios where he isn't able to do that one move, or where opponents who shouldn't necessarily be able to figure out that one move can always end up getting around it, or whatever. It's like how in badly-written Superman stories you end up  having Kryptonite just conveniently end up being around just to stop Superman from wiping the floor with everyone.

That's bad design.

Second, though, there's a lot of more experienced point-buy-abusers who will not end up doing that. They'll instead end up very carefully crafting characters that have a generally superior character to people who haven't carefully read all the character creation rules in order to optimize themselves, who have made good rather than bad bets about just how many points of disadvantages they can take that won't actually disadvantage them in terms of what they want their character to be able to do well (versus what they have no interest in their character doing well), and who will thus end up creating a character of a certain model (the fighter, the skill-master, whatever) who is just heads and tails above everyone else in the group at that model to the point that they'll feel utterly inferior in comparison.
This ends up being much WORSE than what you and others here were complaining about, the mythical nightmare scenario of one character having ended up with no random stat lower than 15 while some other guy has no ability score higher than 10.  The difference in those character is much, much less of a disparity than that between a carefully-purchased character in point buy by a Character Optimization Expert compared to a character created by someone who has not spent hundreds of hours carefully studying the character-creation system.

QuoteMy advice... play with more married couples, preferably ones with kids. There is nothing like having kids to make you grow up and kill the man-child behavior.

Well, this is utter and total nonsense. Some of the worst fuckups as players I've had in this regard have been adult players with kids. The guy I mentioned above, who demanded he get to play a middle-earth-type wizard named Gandalf in a historical-themed Medieval-Authentic campaign, was a 50 year old man with 3 children. The player in my regular group who would be most prone to try to engage in any Character Optimization he can get away with is a married man with a daughter.

Having popped out a baby can sometimes change some people's lives, particularly if they were already looking for an excuse to sort themselves out, but for the most part the notion that it magically turns you into a mature human being is complete drivel.

Case in point: adult men with wives and children being terrified of having to play a character that isn't created by their TOTAL CONTROL.

Quote from: Certified;1031153So there seems to be a lot of confusion around how I was able to so clearly deduce the abundance of gender reassignment magic in the worlds of Punditry. The answer is simple, when you make sweeping statements about how games should be played and if you don't play them just like me then you are less of a person then it's time to start doling out some fun. Part of the definition of the word game is a form of play and playing means to engage in an activity for recreation or enjoyment.

Yeah, like I said, we get it now. You shit your own pants in the middle of a fight in a sad, desperate attempt at causing a distraction.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031375That's fucking hilarious, given how in a lot of these other games where you're allowed to pick down to the last 0.25th of a point exactly every detail about your character with total control and zero randomization of what your character is, you then have a bunch of die rolls in actual play that control how your social interactions go.

Or, you know, they're guidelines. They're also for people who really suck at interaction and don't want to go deep into their character's psyche... not everyone who plays is a massive extrovert who has no trouble thinking up what to say. Some people don't get much into their character's head beyond "I try to persuade the guard to help us." Their character is an avatar they use to interact with the game world just like they would in say "Dragon Age" or "Legend of Zelda."

That is perfectly acceptable if that's how you enjoy yourself.

QuoteIn my games, you randomize character creation, forcing you to be better than yourself, and then in ACTUAL PLAY you have to FUCKING ROLEPLAY IT, rather than rely on the 260 points you invested in "intimidate" to get around having to actually RP your character.  

Good for you.

Not everyone plays games to better themselves. Sometimes they're just playing to have fun after a long day at work.

That you crap on anyone who doesn't play like you do is once again why I say you're just like the Storygamers you so despise. You've got your "One-True-Wayism" on and are accusing anyone who doesn't play your way of not being a real role-player.

I guess you really DO become what you hate.

QuoteOn the other hand, I have a lot of people who are very good at being players, doing what players are meant to do, which is to maximize their own personal advantage as a player...  You see it in GURPS, in Shadowrun, in Champions, etc, where players who have carefully read and studied every detail of the game system (especially character creation) will have a definable advantage over players who don't know the system and that's thought of as perfectly fine.

And I have players who, if they're good at something, help the rest of the players to get better at it and deliberately don't take the best options so they don't outshine newer players. Its called being an adult and realizing that you have more fun when EVERYONE is having fun.

Also I am well aware of CharOps... I even mentioned it in the text you're quoting. Its not all its cracked up to be in actual play because it is such a white room endevour that focus on combat performance it ends up usually crippling them in games where you might have one combat a night and spend the rest of the time exploring or interacting.

On the other hand, I pretty easily stole the night in the 5e game we just started (with random rolls for ability score generation... *gasp*) where I finally get to play for once with just three lines of backstory;

- Jack Knave is almost certainly not his real name.
- His most prized possession is an item (for the DM to determine -he chose a pendent) that was left with him at the orphanage bearing a sigil no one recognizes (for the DM to determine -he hasn't said one way or the other).
- His best friend is a tiny invisible dragon named Pidge (who may or may not be imaginary).

He's a Human Bard with the Magic Initiate feat (sidebar, it was a real struggle whether to take the standard or variant human because every score I rolled except one was odd; +1 to all would have been amazing). I picked Create Bonfire and Mage Hand cantrips from the Sorcerer list (both VS spells) so sometimes when I shout "Pidge! Pidge! Get that thing!" or "Pidge, blast him!" objects get picked up by invisible forces or people get doused in lingering fire.

Clearly that is the work of a tiny invisible dragon... or my character is insane and talking to himself (this is also left for the DM to determine). Regardless, there are some very un-bard-y things going on around him that reply to being called Pidge (and his bard magic is very much on the subtle side).

QuoteSecond, though, there's a lot of more experienced point-buy-abusers who will not end up doing that. They'll instead end up very carefully crafting characters that have a generally superior character to people who haven't carefully read all the character creation rules in order to optimize themselves, who have made good rather than bad bets about just how many points of disadvantages they can take that won't actually disadvantage them in terms of what they want their character to be able to do well (versus what they have no interest in their character doing well), and who will thus end up creating a character of a certain model (the fighter, the skill-master, whatever) who is just heads and tails above everyone else in the group at that model to the point that they'll feel utterly inferior in comparison.

The one player we have who's really good at that actually helps everyone else when we sit down to make characters in a point-buy game and self-limits himself a lot (he's the one who didn't take carpet of adhesion as a mage in Rifts).

We also use Mutants & Masterminds for our Superhero game of choice since you only get "flaw" points for actual physical handicaps (like having to spend actions to physically transform before you can use your powers or not being able to use your legs) and any sort of social or personality flaw is labeled a "Complication" that awards you Hero Points (basically action points) in play if that complication comes up in a session. You can dump all the complications you want on yourself, but the GM only awards Hero Points if the GM invokes the complication and the player roleplays in line with the complication.

QuoteCase in point: adult men with wives and children being terrified of having to play a character that isn't created by their TOTAL CONTROL.

You REALLY can't leave things without insulting people who play in a different way than you, can you?

As I noted above, I do play in games with random generation (the 5e game I just mentioned above and the Rifts campaign for just two examples), but this isn't a thread about what we PLAY... its about which option we PREFER.

And the funny thing is that, for all your railing at strawmen, I didn't even vote for Point-Buy as my preferred method (I think I mentioned it in my first post in the thread), but for Allocation. My preferred method for games is Ability Score Arrays (ex. 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, since it forces you to make choices about priorities for your character concept and gives them a weakness (or as I like to call them, a heroic flaw) that can be played with.

If someone else perfers Point Buy or Random Rolls... those are perfectly valid ways to play too; just not my preferred methods. I'll defend the right of people to play those ways though from One-True-Wayers though.

And that's what you're coming off as here. The exact same thing you claim to hate just with OSR held up as the "One True Way" instead of Storygames. You're THAT GUY who has to insult and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you. You can't abide someone out there even defending a preference that is different than yours and invent reasons why their opinions are invalid; they're insane, they're stupid, they're unimaginative and now "they're terrified of trying anything outside their comfort zone."

You're actually quite a pathetic creature if you can't admit that its okay for other people to prefer different things than you.

I find it amusing that there is some pretense that character optimization only exists in point buy generation. Unless everything, literally everything is determined randomly, the system can be gamed. Some of the biggest most dedicated min maxer and power gamers I've had seen where in D and D and other random generation based systems.

IAs "real roleplayer" bullshit except say its oddly similar to "role play" vs "roll play" arguments I've seen so called story gamers toss out. And most of the "real role players" I've seen aren't role playing at all. At best, they're playing themselves, at best at worst their character's are depicted as iron will automatons with no emotions, drives or weaknesses that are completely immune to any persuasion aside from being convinced to do what they were going to do anyway.  GM's of that stripe let any social actions succeed at their whim, the dread "Mother May I" applied to interaction.

Everyone that doesn't like social mechanics is like that, far from it but claiming one way is the true way and everyone that does it differently is lacking or not a true gamer or whatever is elitist crap. Taking the worst examples of the other POV and posturing like its the general case. Posturing like a preference is Let's Pretend makes your dick bigger or small is inane and juvenile.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031372... most players are SHIT at playing the opposite gender. They usually have no problem handling being of a different social class, or playing a character who's way stronger than they are, or dumber than they are, or even wiser than they are to a certain extent. But most players will fuck up playing outside their sex. I'll let anyone who wants to try the chance to do it, but making people do it is a stupid idea...

Let me try to sum this up succinctly.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2361[/ATTACH]

Quote from: RPGPundit;1026640Random, no choices.

Clearly, you are just trying to distract people form the magical gender reassignment fairies that live in your game worlds.

I picked random lifepath, but my Lifepaths include choices as well.

If the game setting has cultures with names other than modern, I'll give the characters their names. "You can call yourself whatever you want, but this is what your parents (or whoever) named you."

Gender and Sexuality is too personal to make someone play an identity they don't feel comfortable playing.  I did have one player who wanted to roll that though.

For things like Species, Race and Culture I'll usually have one or two default options you can take based on setting and location if you don't want to roll.  Social Class you roll for. (One guy in the current campaign rolled a minor Corinthian noble).

Roll stats randomly and allocate them.

I'm currently running Mythras, which is a skill system that has character creation broken down into phases of the character's life prior to starting the campaign, so it makes it easy for me to add little things here and there in a combination of random rolls and 'choose your own adventure' type events.

Quote from: Certified;1031395Clearly, you are just trying to distract people form the magical gender reassignment fairies that live in your game worlds.

  No, it's just Pundit's condescension to mortal weakness for those who, though trying, have not yet achieved to True Roleplaying, the Transvaluation of All Values, the Triumph of the Will, and the Embrace of the All-Powerful, All-Determining Self.

I might be odd but I'd feel more uncomfortable with the GM choosing my character's name than rolling their gender but my groups cross gender play pretty frequently.

Quote from: Bren;1031141That meaning was not clear to me. Thanks for clarifying.

No problem.  You may now reward me with a beer.  No, no need to thank me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031372Oh christ, you ridiculous cunt,

Now hold on.  Don't use "cunt" as a bad word.  Cunts are friendly, warm, fuzzy, smell good, taste good, and feel good.

(Note for the fussy:  Pundy did NOT blaspheme by using "christ," because non-capitalized it is just a descriptive noun meaning "anointed one."  So Pundy is calling him a cunt slathered with fragrant oil.  Which is one of the nicest things you could call somebody!)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031374Regarding names: In my first Dark Albion game, my players had no idea what to call themselves.  In Arrows of Indra, they wouldn't have had the slightest chance of figuring it out.

Phil Barker ran into this on Tekumel.  Early players had names like "Xerox," "Abilene," and "Hashish."

And you're also right about some worlds are more tolerant.  "Gronan of Simmerya" worked fine in Greyhawk, but "Hlych'ptu" didn't work well in Tekumel.  So after a couple of years my character adopted a Tsolyani name.  Fortunately, Tsolyanu had a bureaucracy perfectly capable of registering a name change to "Korunme."

Long story short, after the first six months or so, people just asked Phil for help.

Quote from: CarlD.;1031427I might be odd but I'd feel more uncomfortable with the GM choosing my character's name than rolling their gender but my groups cross gender play pretty frequently.

I don't find that odd at all. Everyone in our group (men and women) has played cross gender at some point or another (the latest game where I'm actually getting to play has a guy playing the half-elf grandmother of another PC and a gal playing a male bounty hunter). To be fair a lot of us are also GM's and so have to play all manner of NPCs of every gender so its just not as big an issue for us.

I find much more discomfort with having my name picked for me; particularly when in many settings anyone with the courage to go be an adventurer would have no problems changing to a name they're more comfortable with as soon as they hit the first town they'd never been to in their life (which even makes sense if your new life could run afoul of the law and don't want any repercussions to fall on any family you left behind... there's a reason my new character's name is etymologically "Young Man (Jack) Young Man (Knave)" and comes from elsewhere... its practically like saying his name is "John Doe").