Quote from: Omega;1047371"Rifts characters are created on a level playing field." :rolleyes:

1. AD&D "Everyone has the same chance to roll well"
2. 3e D&D "Everyone has the same opportunity to build a great PC"
3. 4e D&D "Everyone can make a character who contributes equally in combat"

I guess I want to see PCs who can all contribute meaningfully to whatever the game is about. I like OD&D rolling stats in order, but I want everyone to have a viable PC (which rolling in order usually accomplishes - roll-then-arrange creates big disparities though). Point buy or default array work too, but I'm probably least keen on build-a-bear systems like 3e/PF where success is primarily dependent on character optimisation before play begins. I also dislike 4e style efforts to iron out all differences. Currently I'm most liking OD&D-based Swords & Wizardry where the stat bonuses are pretty limited, I'm also happy with 5e using point buy/array, and 5e with roll-in-order swap-one also works if bad characters can be rerolled.

I'm all for randomization of starting characters, but only if it doesn't cause massive disparities in a player's ability to succeed. In D&D attribute generation terms, I'm fine with rolling 2d6+4, but not 3d6.

As far as backstories go, I used to be a big fan of well written, elaborate backgrounds, but now I'm more in agreement with the idea of 100 words or less. I do love well done lifepath systems, be they random like Traveller or chosen like Burning Wheel. Instead of requesting backgrounds, I've started instead asking the players to define one connection they have with another member of the party. Helps solve my biggest reoccuring issue with the PCs, namely, "why the hell are we sticking together instead of going our separate ways at the nearest convenient location?" Backstories are great, but they rarely provide that sort of connection. If anything, they frequently make it worse.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1047403I'm all for randomization of starting characters, but only if it doesn't cause massive disparities in a player's ability to succeed. In D&D attribute generation terms, I'm fine with rolling 2d6+4, but not 3d6.

As far as backstories go, I used to be a big fan of well written, elaborate backgrounds, but now I'm more in agreement with the idea of 100 words or less. I do love well done lifepath systems, be they random like Traveller or chosen like Burning Wheel. Instead of requesting backgrounds, I've started instead asking the players to define one connection they have with another member of the party. Helps solve my biggest reoccuring issue with the PCs, namely, "why the hell are we sticking together instead of going our separate ways at the nearest convenient location?" Backstories are great, but they rarely provide that sort of connection. If anything, they frequently make it worse.

This was a great innovation in Mongoose Traveller 1e.

Quote from: Heavy Josh;1047408This was a great innovation in Mongoose Traveller 1e.

And in Spirit of the Century before that;).

We seem to have tangented pretty thoroughly to random stats. I'll try to address both subjects a bit.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1047358My players and I prefer all of the randomness to come after play starts. We like balanced characters at character creation as this creates equality of opportunity in play by providing equality of results before play begins. We also know that not everyone goes with this, and we are even willing to forgo it for one-shots, but we all stick with it for any long-term (multiple months or longer) gaming venture.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1047403I'm all for randomization of starting characters, but only if it doesn't cause massive disparities in a player's ability to succeed. In D&D attribute generation terms, I'm fine with rolling 2d6+4, but not 3d6.

Well, in D&D attribute generation terms, it is going to depend on which D&D. oD&D (w/o GH) specifically, and B/X or BECMI to a significant degree, everyone rolling 3d6 in order tends to give a relatively decent character to everyone because the stats (or the stats you are likely to get in BX/BECMI with 3d6 and the given swap rules) just aren't going to be that important -- 75-90% of your character's power is determined by things other than your stats, and (barring a ridiculously improbably character with multiple 3-5s or 16-18s) your overall success rate is not going to be dictated by your stats.

On some level, though, I think the before/after play starts distinction is a somewhat arbitrary line. Your character success is going to be dictated by dice rolls (along with, of course, player decisions), regardless of whether initial stats are included in that list of random rolls. Sometimes, it will be the in-play roll that is more important (sure the difference between rolling an 8 and 13 for Con seems more important because you are aware of it every time your hp total becomes situation-relevant, but the save made while dangling over a lava pit in no-resurrection or needs-body-resurrection play is just as character-career-success determining). Again, depends how important stats are in a given edition.

Quote from: Omega;10473711: Its a different definition of level playing field I think. Not one of characters being all one for one. But rather everyone has the same chances of getting good or bad results and making of it what they will. Similar to how say any RPG where you roll your stats. you are at the whims of the RMG gods. Its not my definition of a level playing field but at this point Im used to terms in gaming no longer having any meaning. "Rifts characters are created on a level playing field." :rolleyes:

There are indeed multiple definitions or frameworks for terms like 'fair' or 'level playing field.' I agree that their in-gaming use can get pretty far afield of any other framework. I certainly don't like or dislike a specific stat generation or character creation model based on whether it fits my personally preferred definition of 'fair' -- frankly going more towards Chris's question of are the players at the table having fun (and being challenged, and getting to make meaningful decisions, etc.).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046905You just validated my very argument.  Because very early D&D was very lethal, no one cared about their characters beyond what happened at the table.  Why bother with even a single sentence of a character's history when Bargle could be around the corner?  And let's not forget that this originally based off a War Game, with miniatures and terrain, and small bands of skirmishers with Hero units.  Again, playing pieces like Chess or Monopoly.  I probably should use Chess more, because like in Chess D&D characters all have specific 'moves' that only they can do (typically) like Combat, Magic, Healing and Traps.  At least since the 80's.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046927But this really isn't how it was, sure many PCs started the game off after materializing in the back corner of a smokey bar, but the back story developed as the game went along. If a PC died in the first session, yeah they were pretty insignificant just like the dozens of redshirts in Star Trek. If they survived for a bit they usually developed, as the player got a feel for the character, or the GM wanted to use something from their background (made up in the present) to provide a way to introduce the PCs to something important.

This is my point, and Toadmaster showcased it well. We all know that 'no one cared about their characters beyond what happened at the table' isn't the case because we were there, at our tables, when it was busy not going down like that. Thus no one is ever convinced by this. We know that what did happen was that we started with simple-to-no backgrounded characters, sent them into the meat-grinder (and yes, each of us had different preferred rules on how lethal we set the meat grinder, no argument that we didn't always use that full on lethal rules in the book), and those that came out at the more survivable levels 3-whatever we did care enough to care about their personalities, hopes, dreams, whatever quirks we gave them, etc.

I will not argue that it is a be all, end all, or a playstyle someone is supposed to want or anything. It is simply a style that is emergent from the ruleset of the first quarter century of the game (I guess one can argue if post-UA 1e and 2e fit the model, but I'd still include them) that has some interesting benefits and reasons to try it (two important ones being an emphasis on in-play developments and avoiding the 'I want to play an heir, where's my bennies?' issues). It's a valid, decent playstyle, superior or inferior to others only as a matter of taste, plus how much one values what each different style incentivizes.

Quote from: AsenRG;1047382You do realize that Cupcake would simply fudge the dice that removed too much choice, right?

Okay, here I'm going to say can we quit doing this? Not to speak ill of the gone-from-here, but that moniker was coined in a fit of curmudgeon-ly frustration, and should have died with the rant/tirade it was imbedded in. We're supposed to be better than that, and use coherent arguments to refute people, not pointless name-calling.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1047403As far as backstories go, I used to be a big fan of well written, elaborate backgrounds, but now I'm more in agreement with the idea of 100 words or less. I do love well done lifepath systems, be they random like Traveller or chosen like Burning Wheel. Instead of requesting backgrounds, I've started instead asking the players to define one connection they have with another member of the party. Helps solve my biggest reoccuring issue with the PCs, namely, "why the hell are we sticking together instead of going our separate ways at the nearest convenient location?" Backstories are great, but they rarely provide that sort of connection. If anything, they frequently make it worse.

And this is why I'm of two minds on backgrounds. Where the promote the ongoing, on-game-session play I like them. Knowing why Fighter Joe sticks with Rogue Jim even after he saw Jim that put everyone's life in jeopardy is useful. Knowing that Fighter Joe is heir to the throne of Flandor and anything the DM hooks to try adventure X from noble Y because they might get a knighthood out of the deal... that's the opposite of useful. Like everything else, there are good things and bad things about backgrounds, and I guess the most useful (useless?) advice is just be really competent in the use thereof.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047416And this is why I'm of two minds on backgrounds. Where the promote the ongoing, on-game-session play I like them. Knowing why Fighter Joe sticks with Rogue Jim even after he saw Jim that put everyone's life in jeopardy is useful. Knowing that Fighter Joe is heir to the throne of Flandor and anything the DM hooks to try adventure X from noble Y because they might get a knighthood out of the deal... that's the opposite of useful. Like everything else, there are good things and bad things about backgrounds, and I guess the most useful (useless?) advice is just be really competent in the use thereof.

And there's nothing wrong with combining the two. Rogue Jim could be Fighter Joe's trusted vassal. Or Fighter Joe could be Rogue Jim's double, and it's Jim who's the  actual heir to Flandor. The problem with Fighter Joe being the heir to Flandor in isolation is that the rest of the group has zero reason to care. Especially when they're all heirs/chosen-ones/whatever in their own backstories. I've got little problem with running a game for a cast of snowflakes, as long as there's a good reason they stick together.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046464If this is 'Doing it wrong' (But, but, but I thought we didn't do that here...) then fuck you, and I'll keep having my 'BadWrongFun'.

Right On! You are such an illiberal Bad Wrong Fun dude Pundy, back off..

That's why I think if you want people to play a game your way, cough up the cash and pay for their game materials. Sure, run your game how you want, but who cares what other groups decide to do? If people want to play story games that's their own business.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047416Okay, here I'm going to say can we quit doing this?

That would require a total change of forum culture, WtD:).
And until and unless I leave Rome for greener pastures, I'm going to do as the Romans;).

QuoteNot to speak ill of the gone-from-here, but that moniker was coined in a fit of curmudgeon-ly frustration, and should have died with the rant/tirade it was imbedded in. We're supposed to be better than that,

Really? Are we?
I haven't got the memo:D!

Quoteand use coherent arguments to refute people, not pointless name-calling.

The post I quoted had an argument, WtD. How I call Chris Brady is totally irrelevant to that, but as I happen to think that "Cupcake" fits him quite well, I plan to keep using it:p.
Of course, my argument is "Cupcake, a.k.a. Chris is playing the game in such a manner that contradicts most notions that most of us hold as natural and self-evident (or, in my case, the notions that I think would make your game better if you tried to incorporate them)". One of them is that dice are meant to limit the player's and Referee's freedom, or why the hell are you using them?
You know, the argument that I had quoted...
But Cupcake is probably just going to fudge things if they get too hard on the players. In fact, I seem to remember him saying that, but it might have been on TBP and frankly, I can't be bothered to search his post history:D!

So, if you want my full argument*, it is: there's no point bothering to argue with Cupcake. He starts from such a different group of basic notions, comparing your games to his games is like comparing Euclidean to Non-Euclidean Geometry.
Also, he's not going to stop trying to argue with you, because he seems to suffer from a chronic inability to see another approach to gaming as anything other than "inherently unfun", or possibly "morally deficient". Cue: Cupcake talking about Random Chargen/Death During Random Encounters.
Conclusion: unless you're playing in the same way as him, it's best just to treat anything he writes as "irrelevant to my gaming". Just let him try and prove his thesis that "Dragonlance-style Dramatist play is Old-School, too, 'cause we played that way"!
But unless this argument provokes strong feelings within you, don't engage him;)!


*I admit it, I've started to shorten it, because I thought everyone already knows what I'm saying:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1047439The post I quoted had an argument, WtD. How I call Chris Brady is totally irrelevant to that, but as I happen to think that "Cupcake" fits him quite well, I plan to keep using it:p.

Which is your right, as is mine to plead otherwise. I was asking, not demanding.

And you are right, you did have an argument. I wasn't referencing it because I found nothing objectionable in it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047260Yes, because someone with a couple of 18s in the right stats they wanted, is going to have EXACTLY the same amount of fun as someone whose highest stat is an 8, maybe 9, and in Charisma, in an edition with no Bard class.  Somehow, magically, they're both going to have the same amount of fun!  Because the Dice said so.

Really?  You honestly believe this?  In all my 33 years of gaming and with the small number of people I've gamed with (I've worked it out to about 57, but I may be off as I've forgotten a couple of games, I'm sure of it) they answer is no, they're not.  

Really? Because in roughly the same number of years of gaming, it absolutely makes no fucking difference to fun.  Lots of characters with an 18 or two have died in stupid ways, and lots of characters with 1hp at level 1 have turned out to be long-running super-successful characters.

Maybe if you played Old School D&D you'd get that.

I recall arguments back in the day on how long it was ok for players to spend on the "Will" section of the character sheet.  I definitely recall it turning into a whole background, with as much as thirty minutes on just that.  Ha  Better to let the players that like full background to do their statistical character development first.  So, they have time to think about that part of their character, while those that spend less time on post statistical development in like order.  That's how I handle this type of thing in any game, really.  Everyone usually gets to spend time upon such things as they prefer.  The artists that make sketches usually go first, though, being the most in-depth of the background developers, but they are a rare breed. Some of this approach follows from players never having the game books, requiring player with ref guidance character development.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047467Really? Because in roughly the same number of years of gaming, it absolutely makes no fucking difference to fun.

You don't strike me as someone self-aware enough actually see this.  It's what makes you an excellent game writer.  You don't care about what others say or think, you just do and successfully sell.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047467Lots of characters with an 18 or two have died in stupid ways, and lots of characters with 1hp at level 1 have turned out to be long-running super-successful characters.

Random chance works, who knew?  I've seen it happen too, I've also seen players look at their stats and wonder why they bother, because another player gets to do it all, because random chance allows them to.  And the thing is, they're not angry at someone else, they're sad, frustrated, or just bored, because they don't get to do anything.  And looking back on the years of my gaming...  Boredom is the number one killers of random rolls for stats or backgrounds.  The fact that you're the odd man out, and sitting at the table, and flipping through the books because there's really nothing you can do to contribute, because the guy with the high stat is better and to choose someone else would just get the rest of the party killed.

You go to the best tool for the job, otherwise you might get hurt.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047467Maybe if you played Old School D&D you'd get that.

Why?  Why should I limit myself to a single style of game, when I can buy more, and support the hobby and experience new things with it?

I've played a little of Rules Cyclopedia, I remember a game of White Box, my first DM's used AD&D 1e and my longest D&D campaign is a toss up between 2 and 3e.  I've even tried 4e and now I'm part of the 5e Adventure League.  And between those, I've had the immeasurable good luck to try FATE, Amber, Palladium Games, some White Wolf ones, Traveler and many, many others.

Why must I go with a supposed style that from what I can tell, never existed?  Tropes of it did, and a lot of stories, but 'The One True Way' doesn't.  No matter how much you seem to think it does.

I have a player that often loses his character sheets, but he never loses his sketch book (should just keep them together....).  As long as he has his character sketch, he isn't concerned.  So, we just write it up again based on the drawing, and his character is back gaming.  Too much worry over stats in your write-up above Chris. Just not that big of a deal.  Maybe look how you're reffing that brings players to approach games as you describe.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047466Which is your right, as is mine to plead otherwise. I was asking, not demanding.

Sure, and in different circumstances, I might have joined your call. I just don't see it working.

QuoteAnd you are right, you did have an argument. I wasn't referencing it because I found nothing objectionable in it.

Then why did you say outright that I am not "us[ing] coherent arguments to refute people, [but] pointless name-calling"?

Quote from: Kuroth;1047473I have a player that often loses his character sheets, but he never loses his sketch book (should just keep them together....).  As long as he has his character sketch, he isn't concerned.  So, we just write it up again based on the drawing, and his character is back gaming.  Too much worry over stats in your write-up above Chris. Just not that big of a deal.  Maybe look how you're reffing that brings players to approach games as you describe.

We need a "like" button;).
Also, I wondered briefly what kind of game he is playing that players with low stats can never hope to do anything the high-stat isn't going to do better. Then I pieced together an answer, and if I'm right...Cupcake is right, his style of game does work better with point-buy, IME:D!
But hey, it's not like he doesn't have other systems to do it with. Why he insists on inserting that argument in threads about old-school D&D is beyond me;).