Quote from: AsenRG;1035864No, Pundit, I can. Maybe you can't, but that's not my problem. I have two different ways of doing that, for different goals;)!
1) I can estimate the odds of the dice rolling this way, and thus derive what's the likelihood of a merchant being ex-marine. The reasons why I'd do that should be obvious. Again: I'm talking worldbuilding, not making an NPC.
2) I can just generate 1001 characters automatically, prioritizing Marine and Merchant careers, and pick one of the 50-years-old ones who passed through both careers, if I need an NPC.
And before you say there's no way you should generate 1001 NPCs, I present to you the 1001 characters automated generator:D! Takes me all of a few clicks, and gives me whole organisations with NPCs.
Here's your Marine-gone-Merchant, I generated 100 characters.
Crewman Chua-guo Roshan (Male Human) 977365 Age 50
Marine(3), Physician(0), Merchant(3)   Cr11000
Admin-0 Battle Dress-0 Bay Weapons-0 Comms-0 Demolitions-0 Electronics-1 Energy Rifle-0 Jack o' Trades-1 Medicine-1 Piercing Weapons-2 Shotgun-1 Social Sciences-0 Spinal Mounts-1 Steward-1 Zero-G-1

So what you're saying is:

a) You could do this if you were allowed to make unlimited numbers of characters and pick one; instead of the standard method of making only one character.
b) You would accomplish this by using a randomizer

Oh yeah, you really got me there.

QuoteFrom your rules, I can only make the conclusion "circa 30% of all Cimri and Scots Men aren't really Cimri and Scots Men, because they got 8- in the controlling attribute". Not a really useful conclusion, I'm telling you, unless I'm running "Medieval Authentic Discworld-style"!

No, actually, 90% of all Cymri and Scotsmen are 0-level characters, just like 90% of everyone in the setting.

QuoteAre you, like, serious?
I give you an example where I say I'm deliberately giving an extreme example, and you try to discard it because the differences are too extreme?
...well, that's the fucking point of the example, duh!
If you're not aware why, when discussing a principle (like "rules mastery will have an impact regardless of how much customisation the rules allow") it's useful to check the extremums...well, you should go back to 8th grade and learn the damn reason!

You should go back to take Rhetoric 101. The extreme difference between your example of the potential abuse of old-school D&D rules and mine of the potential abuse of point-buy only serves to prove my point about how point-buy is much more problematic.
If I'm trying to argue that coffee is just as dangerous as cyanide, and I say "well, if you have someone who is deathly allergic to coffee beans, that person would die if he drank it", it just makes me look like a moron.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037000Yes. That's because the Player agenda and the GM agenda are different. The GM (unless he's a shit GM) isn't making an NPC with min-maxing in mind, it's not in his best interest; while it is a part of the player's own best interest to make the most effective character the rules will allow him to get away with.

Shouldn't the agenda of both sides be to have fun?

I know most Rpg's are just miniature combat games with extra steps, but surely you can see why this doesn't always hold true, especially in other point buy systems, especially when more social elements are added and available for purchase, like ranks of mobility or military command.

QuoteYes. That's because the Player agenda and the GM agenda are different. The GM (unless he's a shit GM) isn't making an NPC with min-maxing in mind, it's not in his best interest; while it is a part of the player's own best interest to make the most effective character the rules will allow him to get away with.

If that's how you play that's your choice but don't generalize that to everyone. I've had some players with similar ideas but they didn't last long in groups I've been over the years; their goals, their agenda weren't compatible. People came for many different reaons. There isn't winning an rpg as I like to play, or losing. Trying to 'beat" the game or the gm or the other characters isn't the focus I play for.

My agenda as you to put it is to have fun playing a role playing game and facilitate my players having an enjyable time. Their agenda is have fun and facilitate my and there follow players enjoyment of the game, not to make the 'best' character. Which is extremely difficult to impossible in anything but narrowst premise since there will always been some area where a character is not optimized in a game setting that has more than a very few activities.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1037133I know most Rpg's are just miniature combat games with extra steps, but surely you can see why this doesn't always hold true, especially in other point buy systems, especially when more social elements are added and available for purchase, like ranks of mobility or military command.

It hasn't been my preferred mode of play, but I know some that look at rpgs in that (more in depth miniatures combat games) manner. I don't get them, but don't begrudge their enjoyment we just mostly wouldn't enjoy gaming with each other. There's many styles and ways to play, but not a One True Way, IMO.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037000Yes. That's because the Player agenda and the GM agenda are different. The GM (unless he's a shit GM) isn't making an NPC with min-maxing in mind, it's not in his best interest; while it is a part of the player's own best interest to make the most effective character the rules will allow him to get away with.

It sounds to me like you don't trust your players.  I find that very sad, if that's true.  Because for me, I know I can trust my friends with Point Buy systems.  After all, I run Mutants and Masterminds 3e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037200It sounds to me like you don't trust your players.  I find that very sad, if that's true.  Because for me, I know I can trust my friends with Point Buy systems.  After all, I run Mutants and Masterminds 3e.

I've always preferred M&M 2e myself, though I guess to be fair we did include some 3e-mails like tradeoffs for the saves (total modifiers for the three saves equal 3x Power Level) and the affliction levels. But I've never experienced any of the problems Pundit sees with point buy (which according to him is apparently so broad that it includes everything that isn't 100% random; picking feats as you level up is point but in his world).

As I said previously, Pundit is projecting his experiences onto all players and groups. He's a proven paranoid internet bully, projects that everyone else is just like him, and proclaims a One True Way that works for that worldview.

He apparently can't wrap his brain around the concept that people are different, like different things and that, especially when dealing with leisure activities, there actually isn't any one true way, just what works best for you.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037003So what you're saying is:

a) You could do this if you were allowed to make unlimited numbers of characters and pick one; instead of the standard method of making only one character.
b) You would accomplish this by using a randomizer

Oh yeah, you really got me there.



No, actually, 90% of all Cymri and Scotsmen are 0-level characters, just like 90% of everyone in the setting.



You should go back to take Rhetoric 101. The extreme difference between your example of the potential abuse of old-school D&D rules and mine of the potential abuse of point-buy only serves to prove my point about how point-buy is much more problematic.
If I'm trying to argue that coffee is just as dangerous as cyanide, and I say "well, if you have someone who is deathly allergic to coffee beans, that person would die if he drank it", it just makes me look like a moron.

Rhetoric is when I'm trying to persuade you of something. When I'm pointing out a problem with a game to the designer, I present the information, and let him deal with it, because it's in his interests:).

OK, you don't understand checking the extremums. Duly noted for eventual future conversations, however likely they might be;).
I'd advise you to take Logic 101 again to cover for not understanding that, but I know the odds of you listening. In fact, one might say that not listening is part of your public image:D!

Quote from: Chris24601;1037273He apparently can't wrap his brain around the concept that people are different, like different things and that, especially when dealing with leisure activities, there actually isn't any one true way, just what works best for you.

To be fair, Pundy is not the only one on this board.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1037133Shouldn't the agenda of both sides be to have fun?

Of course, but in practice their roles in having fun are different from each other. Part of a player's context of having fun involves their own character's success. This is not the case for the GM, who will in fact be a bad GM if he focused, say, on his NPCs being successful.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037200It sounds to me like you don't trust your players.  I find that very sad, if that's true.  Because for me, I know I can trust my friends with Point Buy systems.  After all, I run Mutants and Masterminds 3e.

It's not about a lack of trust. It's about players actually buying into what their part of the game is. Of course, there can be players who take this to an extreme that is harmful. But a player who truly doesn't care about his own character at all would be an unbelievably shitty player.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037635Of course, but in practice their roles in having fun are different from each other. Part of a player's context of having fun involves their own character's success. This is not the case for the GM, who will in fact be a bad GM if he focused, say, on his NPCs being successful.

Firstly, saying PCs try to make the best character the rules allow them "to get away with" implies they are creating their character in bad faith.

Secondly, it is the GMs job to challenge his players, so that they have to actually work to get that success they want. Usually, making a worthy challenge takes a degree of min-maxing.

Admittedly, in the game I run, PCs are nigh unkillable if they're at full strength, so I can make pretty much any ridiculously specialized enemy and, as long as I use roughly equivalent points values, they will most likely win, and only die if they are supremely incompetent or unlucky, though they are likely to get crippled in the process (but that's just because they lost their primary healer).

The villains that outsmarted them in games of politics, or intrigue where more memorable than the combat monsters anyway.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1037642Firstly, saying PCs try to make the best character the rules allow them "to get away with" implies they are creating their character in bad faith.

That's what I was thinking. It also puts things in more of competitive light than I want when I play. The 'best' character for the people I've game with is the character most like the one they want to play, not the one with the most mechanical edge(s). Having a powerful character can be fun. I've played and ran allot of high powered games. RPGs can be power fantasies; nothing wrong with that. Success is fun but 'beating' the setting isn't the end goal for every player or every group. Success might be measured in how enjoyable the session was.

If nothing else, experience from years of playing point buy games has not born out that players are going to driven inexorably to bend the rules over to make the best character they can get away with. Some will, just like some will ruthlessly work other chargen methods and other rule systems, other won't. Its not innate to any particular method, IME.

QuoteSecondly, it is the GMs job to challenge his players, so that they have to actually work to get that success they want. Usually, making a worthy challenge takes a degree of min-maxing.

Admittedly, in the game I run, PCs are nigh unkillable if they're at full strength, so I can make pretty much any ridiculously specialized enemy and, as long as I use roughly equivalent points values, they will most likely win, and only die if they are supremely incompetent or unlucky, though they are likely to get crippled in the process (but that's just because they lost their primary healer).

The villains that outsmarted them in games of politics, or intrigue where more memorable than the combat monsters anyway.

Just out of curiosity, what game do you run?

Quote from: CarlD.;1037643Just out of curiosity, what game do you run?

It's the one I mention in my Sig: Agone

It's a bit old and obscure, but it's a point buy system for a really cool fantasy book series.

Chargen wise, it's point buy, but it's not just one pool you use to buy everything, you have an attribute pool, a skill pool, an advantage/disadvantage pool, and if buy magic skills, a spell pool. I find it helps encourage players to make reasonably balanced characters (though I've had players make horribly under-powered characters by refusing to specialize).

Don't be fooled by the "nigh unkillable" though, there are much worse fates than death for a character in Agone... (It has a really fun set of corruption mechanics, a sort of cross between CoC sanity and first edition 7th sea reputation).

In my long experience, with point-buy and pick systems, there is a tendency for players to optimize upfront and then try to auto-play their way through to success. Of course, when they encounter hardship despite their preparations, those who are really egregious about it then to crow about the unfairness the loudest.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1037642Firstly, saying PCs try to make the best character the rules allow them "to get away with" implies they are creating their character in bad faith.

This is what I mean by lack of trust.  It's an assumption that they WILL try and screw the game over.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1037642Secondly, it is the GMs job to challenge his players, so that they have to actually work to get that success they want. Usually, making a worthy challenge takes a degree of min-maxing.

I have a love-hate relationship with Min-Maxing.  On one hand it's necessary to a certain degree in certain games, like D&D.  Which is a game of niches and specialists, which need to be good at their thing, and it's better if they're the BEST at their thing.  But it also tends to create one-note characters.  But if you don't make those one-notes, TPK's happen and that tends to kill enthusiasm for a lot players.

On the other hand, they're the bane of my existence because as a GM, you now have to create scenarios for said experts in a way that doesn't either bore the other players (see Cell Phone thread) or make it so easy that it doesn't matter which of the specialists take the challenge on.

Also, S&S heroes (my favourite type of Fantasy) are generalists, which require a broad spectrum of skill and ability.

Apart from some more time-consuming-but-still-cool character generation systems (like Artesia), I often like my quick house-ruled BRP system best.

Tell the players about the setting. Let the players roll their stats (or give them the option to buy stats, but the average will be somewhat lower), and ask them to come up with a character concept. Then give them a specific number of points to allocate to skills (number of points, and highest possible score depending on power level in the setting). Give them some items that suit their background, make sure the points are added up correctly, and you're done.