I'm a fan of the GURPS style point-buy character creation systems, at least as the core of how a character is generated - I don't mind a little randomness here and there, or if points map to some intermediate resource, like money that can be spent on toys, rather than to final character effectiveness (cf Shadowrun companion chargen)

Generally, I'm of the view that most attributes should be balanced so that there's no overwhelming incentive for a player to pick or not pick a certain item/ability in order to maximise their character's effectiveness - if something is being bought by almsot every player then it's probably either generic and should be automatic (native language) or unblanaced and it should cost more.

I'm also in favour of point-buy character development systems, where characters can advance in the areas they chose, rather than a level based system where a variety of abilities automatically improve.  In order to work properly this kind of system needs to have steeply diminishing marginal returns - improvements need to get smaller per "rank" or become more expensive or both.

Who agrees/who hates the point buy system?

Point-buy non-class non-level systems are my least favourite system of RPG.  I prefer something structured like D20, or something almost entirely random like WFRP2e, then a point-buy system.

In my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

RPGPundit

I know you've expressed that view before - and I don't necessarily think you're wrong about the temptation to min-max (which is why point buy systems ask a lot more of the designer in terms of ensuring game balance).  

I do, however, think there's a real cost in reducing min-maxing by bundling certain attributes together, either at character creation or during advancement.  Sure, you can make sure your monks have knowledge of theology and know how to meditate by making those skills part of the "monk" class package, and you'll solve the problem of combat monsters putting their meditiation points in chop-socky, but you also ensure that you'll never have a monk who skipped theology class, or who finds the meditation bits of his profession profoundly boring.  Or one who allows the more spiritual aspects of the class to slip away as he focuses more on adventure.  

That's a real loss of flexibility, and much better dealt with, IMO, by making the non-combat (or otherwise hard to sell) skills competitively priced, rather than bundling them with the "good stuff".  A player who choses an apparently useless skill is going to make much better and more creative use of it than one who go handed it automatically as part of the definition of their chosen class.

I generally prefer a mix.  Some elements should be random, some should be "resource allocation," and some should be "point purchase."

I have always considered the level-based systems to be annoying, unrealistic and completely arbitrary.  I thought Reboot had a great commentary on it during one episode when the young boy suddenly became one level better and, in an instant, grew a little and fleshed out a little.  It doesn't make sense.  I don't go to college for four years and suddenly become "college educated," it involves many small, elemental steps of slowly acquiring and practicing skills to reach the "college educated" point.  It doesn't happen all at once.

I do agree, however, that "point purchase" systems tend toward min/maxing.  I have also seen it go the other way, with players who decide they want to play a specific character with specific flaws and use their points to generate a "damaged" character.

Ultimately, I think the important thing is that the players and the GM have fun at whatever they're doing.  Thankfully, the marketplace is rife with different mechanics and settings to suit people's preferences and there isn't one, overarching mechanic that limits creativity.

Any RPG system will lead to min-maxing.  I remember funny (to me) articles in Dragon Magazine about "munchkins" who would only use Halberds and Two-Handed Swords because of their high damages, and discussions on how to force these players into using other weapons instead of "min-maxing."

D20 D&D was created with "mastery" in mind.  It acknowledged that people liked to min-max and it was a major part of RPGs.  Point based systems like Hero have simply had this innate trait of rewarding mastery of the rules for a longer period of time.

If you can't guess, I really like point based systems.  I think they're fantastic for when you have a firm, detailed character idea in mind and want to construct it from the ground up.  When you don't really have a preconception in mind, classes or pre-constructed templates are easier.

But, all point based systems are not the same.  There are some which are extremely ill balanced and the point totals end up meaning nothing.  I call these "Mathterbation Systems."  They're satisfying when playing with yourself, but the result is worthless.  Speaking for myself, I put BESM and BESM2 in this category.  The games are ridiculously easy to "munch" and instead of in game safeguards there's the typical weak advice for the GM to not let the players poke at the broken rules.

I'll throw in another issue - in systems with point buy based advancement-  where you pick what to improve rather than improving a pre-selected bundle of abilities - some games assume that point buy should continue to apply to advantages and disadvatages external to the character.  That is, if you kill of your enemy that you still need to pay points to buy off that enemy disadvantage, or that you can lay down point and buy a contact, or a piece of equipment betwene sessions the same way you would at chargen.

While your milage may vary depending on genre (supers games need to be much, much more careful about policing equipment to stay in-genre for instance) I'm opposed to this kind of thing.  If you gain a social advantage or disadvantage in-game then it stay with you without any expenditure or return of points - once you've paid for a buddy at chargen they're vulnearable ot the story, and you don't get any kind of automatic compensation just because someone kills them.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

I think that if there is one thing that can be taken away from 30 years of RPGs it is that gaming is an invitation to "min-max".

I certainly don't see a lack of min-maxing in D20. WFRP2e I'm not so sure about since I only played one full session, dropping out after I realized I was going to need to go on a Zoloft protocol to keep from hanging myself.

Also given that the negatives of min-maxing are largely subjective the solution lies largely in addressing it on the player motivation side rather than simply removing flexibility, the later I believe is what you really are talking about.

Personally, I like the systems that only let you advance the skills and abilities that you used.  Thus, if you want to be a kickass Ninja who can throw stars and kill someone at 150m, then you need to be doing a lot of star-throwing in the game instead of using the katanas all the time.

If you want your wizard to be really good at summoning spirits, then lay off the manabolt and perform more summoning in the game.

The idea that you suddenly, having never practiced or used the skills in question, advance in your ability to use them is fairly ludicrous on the face of it.

I like games that allow advancing your "abilities" over time, too.  GURPS doesn't have a very smoothe ability to gain Ads/Disads after chargen (at least in the 3rd Ed, I haven't read 4th yet).  Savage Worlds, on the other hand, expects you to advance your character's abilities (and the mechanic is completely focused in that direction).

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

I think that if there is one thing that can be taken away from 30 years of RPGs it is that gaming is an invitation to "min-max".

I certainly don't see a lack of min-maxing in D20 in practice. WFRP2e I'm not so sure about since I only played one full session, dropping out after I realized I was going to need to go on a Zoloft protocol to keep from hanging myself.

Also given that the negatives of min-maxing are largely subjective the solution lies largely in addressing it on the player motivation side rather than simply removing flexibility from character creation, the later I believe is what you really are talking about.

Quote from: VellorianPersonally, I like the systems that only let you advance the skills and abilities that you used.  

Oddly, I'd say quite a few GMs consider that "min/maxing."

If you think about it a bit, you realize that players are quickly going to focus on increasing skills which influence the game.  It's just the nature of things.  If it doesn't matter, you don't waste points on it.  Spend points on what you use most frequently.

If the GM role plays all encounters and ignores any social mechanics, then no one is going to invest in those skills.  If everything is about combat, then people are going to focus on improving their combat skills.  And, let's face it, many games are action/adventure extravaganzas, so there's a lot of incentive to pump those combat abilities as high as possible.

Then, even in a game where the GM is balanced in how he does things, specialists are going to evolve.  One player will become the combat monster.  One player will max out on the intelligence skills.  Another might become the character that always does the parleying because of his awesome diplomacy skill and charisma stat.

Min/ maxing is the failure of a gm to his or her job in any system.  I play and run HERO a lot.  I like how it leaves the options (mandatory flaws, point caps, build points, etc.) totally up to the gm so he or she can craft the adventure and setting to his or her likes.

QuoteThen, even in a game where the GM is balanced in how he does things, specialists are going to evolve. One player will become the combat monster. One player will max out on the intelligence skills. Another might become the character that always does the parleying because of his awesome diplomacy skill and charisma stat.

Not neccessarrily.  A balanced gm is going to put each character into a variety of situations, in which the specialist will only flounder.  The characters are not joined at the hip.  They will not be together all the time and not able to rely on the specialist.

Quote from: RPGPunditPoint-buy non-class non-level systems are my least favourite system of RPG.  I prefer something structured like D20, or something almost entirely random like WFRP2e, then a point-buy system.

In my experience, "point buy" is just an invitation to "min-max".

RPGPundit

Min maxing is a problem with the player, not the system.

I'm into one game that uses random character generation rather than points, it's called Battlelords of the 23rd century. I'm into one game that uses classes and levels, spacemaster by iron crown.

AFAIC, a classless, levelless points system is the best way to go.

Point buy character creation systems: I also find them kind of annoying. I'd much rather do the random rolls and let that 'suggest' a character kind of. But thats a purely personal preference. I don't see any superior advanatge to my way over a pure points-driven type system, I just like it better.

Point buy and min-maxing: I think there are two different issues here.

1) There's the purely points driven min-max (say, from a really experienced Champions or Gurps guy, who just knows where to put points). In general, the complete character is almost completely developed before play begins and only changes pointwise, somewhat from game to game. You put a few more points into Research or RKA or whatever. The bonus of this is you get the exact kind of character you want to play if you design it well.

2) The D&D type min-max guy (any level-based system, really) doesn't really use points to min-max, even if he has used points to generate stats. Instead, he makes strategic choices about classes, feats, extras, prestige classes and (especially) gear. This type of character changes in significant ways everytime he gets a level or adds gear. The bonus of this is that developing your character becomes a bit of a minigame in itself that you get to do after every level or so.

Two different styles. I think theyre are both cool, but I'm more of the second type.

This thread reminds me of an article over at RevolutionSF:

If This Be My Destiny... Then Roll a 14 or Better to Hit

QuoteSee, in V&V, character creation is simple. You stack up the powers you want (or roll, or whatever you're doing to assign powers), the GM looks the sheet over, and that's that. You want a character with ungodly strength? No problem. But know this: the GM will create a villain with ungodly strength +1, or in some other way make the villains you go up against tougher than you.

In Champions, everyone has the same number of points when they start out. Each power costs so many points when you're setting up your character. Sometimes, though, when you want a little extra power, you can take disads or negative modifiers on your existing powers. For example, you can shoot a lot of electricity, but you can buy the modifier "only when conscious" and get more points, and thus, manipulate the system. That's the trouble, right there. Gamers memorize the Champions system the way that accountants know tax loopholes, and they twist the system around to create these perfectly legal, yet insanely powerful, hundred point characters that were just absurd. What's wrong with that, you may ask? Well, if your GM is one of those players, that means his villains will always bring twice as much power to the table as your hero. And if that guy is a player, then the GM is constantly on the defensive. "But it's fair," they all say, waving their sheets around. "Look? See? It adds up perfectly."

Quote from: GabrielOddly, I'd say quite a few GMs consider that "min/maxing."

If you think about it a bit, you realize that players are quickly going to focus on increasing skills which influence the game.  It's just the nature of things.  If it doesn't matter, you don't waste points on it.  Spend points on what you use most frequently.

If the GM role plays all encounters and ignores any social mechanics, then no one is going to invest in those skills.  If everything is about combat, then people are going to focus on improving their combat skills.  And, let's face it, many games are action/adventure extravaganzas, so there's a lot of incentive to pump those combat abilities as high as possible.

Then, even in a game where the GM is balanced in how he does things, specialists are going to evolve.  One player will become the combat monster.  One player will max out on the intelligence skills.  Another might become the character that always does the parleying because of his awesome diplomacy skill and charisma stat.

I don't consider that min/maxing, and here's why:

If the player chooses to play a combat monster, then I would expect him to focus all his skills on developing his weapon skills, caring for his weapons, developing combat techniques and channeling all his energy into being an effective fighter.  This is to be expected.  when he levels up, why does his "Singing" skill suddenly get increased?  Has the player stated, "I'm going to sing the holy funeral dirges of the Denago people as I charge into battle!"?  Maybe.  Probably not.  

Skills should be harder and harder to increase as they get higher and higher.  It should be exponential, in fact.  Thus, if the Fighter wants to take a session or two and focus on his Stealth or Read Runes or Oratory skills, then let him do it, in play, and receive experience awards for those skills.

I don't consider it min/maxing to watch a fighter become a proficient warrior, or a mage to become a masterful wizard or a thief to become an accomplished footpad.  That's the normal course of specializing character talent.  No min/maxing there.

In addition, a wise GM will throw the "too-focused" warrior into situations where fighting will accomplish nothing.  Or the masterful wizard into a realm where magic doesn't exist (I always get the image of a frustrated mage-looking guy, in an ill-fitting McDonald's uniform standing at the register when the boy-scout bus unloads, creating mass chaos in the restaurant and him screaming, "Do you want fries with that?!").

I work in a project management environment at work where we do a lot of work with teams of specialists: DBAs, Software Engineers, Quality Assurance, Relationship Liaisons, Marketing Analysts, etc.  We're all working toward the common goal: develop software for the client.  But we all have separate and very specialized skills.  Keeping it all together is the job of the Project Manager.

In a real life situation, it is imperative that the DBA and Software Engineer attend regular classes on the latest developments in their fields.  The Marketing people are costantly studying new marketing techniques.  The relationship liaisons are honing up their golf games and generally goofing off. (Not really.)

My point is that it would be ludicrous to expect the Marketing gurus to suddenly start explaining how to conduct a specialized search routine of the database upon promotinog to Senior Analyst.  It would not, however, be a stretch for him to take a class in databases and begin to tailor his marketing approach to include specific search methodologies ("data mining").  

So, here we have a Marketing guru ("Fighter"), that has chosen to invest a few of his experience points ("taking a class") in a non-traditional area for him, Database Analysis ("Arcane Signs").  Next thing you know, he's able to perform some low level database manipulation ("Magic Missile").  

On the other hand, the DBA ("Mage"), has chosen to hone his abilities by studying Advanced SQL Server Management ("Hellblast 10"), though it will take him a full week of class and several months of practice to fully master it.  While he's doing that, he gets called into the super-secret management meetings ("social skill tests") to help resolve a high-profile customer issue.  He has to work closely with the marketing and liaison folks to negotiate the delicate ground, relying upon their skills to make the pitch ("get past the guards") so that he can define his search algorithm ("mage lock") to secure the account ("rescue the captured maiden").

Teamwork.  Specialization.  Point-buy skills.  It's all a veneer to show how things work in the real world, but with a "fantasy filter."