Quote from: Engine;280497One fix I can think of would be to randomly determine the number of points each player gets. This might seem ridiculous - why not just randomly assign the character's values, then?

Well, it gives you a measure of choice, the other driving philosophy of point build. We've done it before for DC Heroes. There was a chart that randomized your origin and gave you an attendant number of points.

Still, in many circles, the idea of some form of equalization is such a big driver, that'd be a hard sell. But in the right group, it's an interesting bit of genre emulation.

Quote from: CavScout;280659I would suggest you don't understand point-buy systems then. If there is no benefit to the "perk" then there really should be no cost. If something is nothing more than background fluff, it should not have had points in the first place.

I can turn that around: if you can mint points out of thin air, then does it really matter how much things cost?

That's the crux of the issue with John's idea #5 (which is where Engine branched off), which I'll repeat here:

Quote5) As GM, I can give extra points to the high-status PCs, without requiring anything in balance. This may cause issues with consideration of fairness. i.e. How does the group determine whose PC gets to be high status?

Where this leads is back to what I said earlier in the thread, which I'll repeat in more forceful terms here: the idea of a set of fixed costs for point-buy, which applies across all campaigns, where all elements of the character have a price--such that they're all interchangeable--is a chimera.

I believe point-buy does work (there are lots of happy GURPS and Hero players after all) but the reason it does is because groups have worked out some sort of framework that keeps characters from diverging too greatly in areas that affect their respective abilities to impact the game.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;280679I can turn that around: if you can mint points out of thin air, then does it really matter how much things cost?

Sure, you could "turn it around" if you want to change the direction of the conversation. Again, if the perk bestows no actual perk, then it shouldn't have a cost.

If it does bestow a perk, and hence does cost, then as long as the environment around the players is "balanced" accordingly, it doesn't matter.

If you have 100 point characters, play in a 100 point campaign. If they have 150, play in a 150 point campaign.

If a GM allows players to start at 10th level in D&D but runs them through 1st level modules, it's not an indication that the level system is broken in D&D. Same thing with point buys, keep the environment balanced and it doesn't matter what points they start with.

Quote from: CavScout;280606I'd guess along the same line as making all perks free would be. I suppose you could have a super ninja squad made up of all gernerals if you wanted....

That is an extreme position. That why Bob Bledsaw called his company Judges Guild you are supposed exercise some judgment while running a RPG.

Quote from: CavScout;280618If there is no game effect, why is there a cost in the first place?

Because points can represent things other than "balance".

Quote from: CavScout;280682Sure, you could "turn it around" if you want to change the direction of the conversation. Again, if the perk bestows no actual perk, then it shouldn't have a cost.

We seem to be posting at cross-purposes, and by that I don't mean we're disagreeing. Again, this entire line of argument forked off of a suggestion that a group might give some players "extra points" for character creation in order to overcome the "incompetents in charge" issue, such as it is. My feeling is that once you get to this point, you aren't really making use of the point system, so why bother accounting? But at the same time, in play, you're still presumably "balancing" the game in a way that works for the group, so the question of whether it's an advantage or not is moot.

That said, the problem of point balance can't just be distilled into "play 100 point characters in 100 point campaigns". What would work for a group of combat-optimized 100 point characters won't work for a group of characters whose abilities, skills, and advantages are chosen based on a game that would revolve around intrigue or investigation.

What I really think is that various dimensions of character ability are so incomparable, and so contextual, that they ought to be separated into separate budgets altogether with at most partial convertibility. Going back to what someone said earlier in the thread, the first point-balance games tended only to balance combat and adventuring abilities. In my opinion it was a bit of a mistake to then try to roll other aspects of character into the system, particularly social and economic ads/disads, without taking note of how the style of the campaign affects the "real value" of the stuff you spend your points on.

Why does it seem like we are cycling back to the "random=right way to play" and/or "point buy=wrong way to play"?

I don't know why you're reading that into what I'm writing.

There are other approaches, though, besides just those two. I mean if GURPS and Hero are the epitome of point buy you also have:

Non-random lifepath: Burning Wheel

Random lifepath: Classic Traveller

Segregated point-buy: JAGS (if I remember correctly), Barbarians of Lemuria 1e (effectively)

Multistage point-buy: TFT (first you assign points to characteristics, then your IQ determines how many points you get for skills & spells)

Limited point-buy: TFT, again. The game mechanics only address a very limited portion of character-definition, basically combat ability, magic, and "adventuring" skills. Other stuff is handled however the group wants; being of high social status can have an effect on play, but it isn't factored into point-calculation.

Template with limited nonrandom customization: Talislanta (also, I think, Star Wars d6 and Feng Shui)

Limited random: most versions of D&D, where (again) social status isn't handled by chargen at all.

Come to think of it I have trouble thinking of many games that fully dealt with character creation in a fully random manner. Harnmaster 1 might at least allow you to do everything randomly if you want, from characteristics to social status and profession, to appearance and personality quirks. But up until GURPS and Hero started doing it, almost no games tried to comprehensively point-balance nearly all aspects of characters. Waste World and a number of other games take a fairly GURPS-y approach, in fact it's become pretty standard, but those games usually have a more focused idea of what the game's about and what the characters are going to be doing, so advantages like "General" or "King of the country" don't get included.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;280702the first point-balance games tended only to balance combat and adventuring abilities. In my opinion it was a bit of a mistake to then try to roll other aspects of character into the system, particularly social and economic ads/disads, without taking note of how the style of the campaign affects the "real value" of the stuff you spend your points on.

Agree 100%.

In a purely political game, combat ability should be free.  If you're playing "The West Wing: The RPG" it really doesn't matter if the White House Chief of Staff is a tenth dan former Special Forces colonel.

Likewise, in a swords & sorcery game where the PCs are wanderers, social status should be free.  It really doesn't matter whether you're the Last Emperor of Melnibone or a barbarian from backwoods Cimmeria.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280674Well, it gives you a measure of choice, the other driving philosophy of point build. We've done it before for DC Heroes. There was a chart that randomized your origin and gave you an attendant number of points.

Still, in many circles, the idea of some form of equalization is such a big driver, that'd be a hard sell. But in the right group, it's an interesting bit of genre emulation.

I do find the idea of a random-point point-buy system interesting; you'd have to manage [and playtest the heck out of] the maximum distribution of points, but ultimately, I suspect it would be better to build a [highly condensed] version of this thread into the rules, and provide some basic guidelines for that maximum distribution: if you want all characters who are the same power level, then use non-random points; if you want people to be all just a little different power level, use 100+[2d6] points; if you want kings and peasants in the same group, use 1d100 points. [Numbers for example only!]

Neat idea, anyway.

My game Omnifray - http://www.omnifray.com - avoids the OP's problem despite having a points-buy system which covers hugely variable core stats, traits/skills, special powers ("feats" powered by "energy points"), social status and wealth. It avoids the OP's problem because social status and wealth in effect have their own separate points-buy pool. The lower your social status and starting wealth, the more "temporary fate points" you start with* which the referee can use to your benefit by invoking extraordinary luck ("feats of destiny") on your behalf during the adventure. If you have feats of destiny on your character's list of feats, you can use your temporary fate points for those if you want to.

Temporary fate points don't regenerate - they're a one-off leg-up to help you catch up with your more socio-economically advantaged fellow adventurers. They probably don't let you catch up completely in most cases, but they're a good leg-up, and they could save your life. They're justified in "simulationist" terms by the role of the Fates - if you've been chosen by destiny to adventure alongside much wealthier, snootier adventurers, that's because you have something special to offer - the blessings that Lady Luck has in store for you. And they're perfect for gamists, giving something to compensate for every disadvantage, and narrativist-friendly, potentially helping you to mould the storyline to your tastes.

They're just the all-round perfect solution!

Some people might rather have control of their temporary fate points themselves than let the ref spend them [the players' input is always valued of course], but that's easy - just pick feats of destiny for your character, and you can spend your TFPs yourself and have a modest measure of narrativist input into the plot.

Matt

* rules only in the Expert Manual

My understanding, being a GURPS player mind you... is that Status is only bought if it is relevant. Any player can chose to be a 'former general wandering the woods' to no effect for no points (or a one point quirk, what have you)...

And like anything else in gaming it isn't perfect.  One thing that came up recently was that in GURPS traveller you could get extra pay for certain ship duties (such as... Captain!), but you needed to have the right skills... and for captain Status.

We had a WTF! moment from that.  We, the crew, had picked our captain (the Vargyr), who had all the required skills but wasn't, somehow, qualified to be the captain because he lacked 10 points worth of Status/Rank...

Then again, our ships doctor was trying to cheat the system by convincing the GM that since he could be licensed from another culture, he really didn't need 14's in EVERY skill on the surgeon list...


The idea that a general needs to spend 40 points to be a general isn't broken. It may be a sign that your game concept needs some work (why exactly is the general hob knobbing with the private-slash-ninja again?). Those 40 points represent, among other things, time spent in the administration of a large body of troops, time spent hobknobbing with politicians, sitting in senate sessions explaining this or that. They represent time NOT spent out at the range, or driving a tank or practicing silent takedowns with a knife made from his own femur.

Someone who ISN"T a general has time to learn that shit, and reason to.  Maybe the points are a bit high, maybe they are just right (the problem is more visible at the lower levels, actually... the Sergeant of a squad should be more competent than his men for the MOST part, yet 5-10 points of rank can be brutal in the lower point total games where you are likely to see him... though of course, a good NCO is probably sacrificing social life (not as much time spent at bars or whatever. There went that carousing skill!)...

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;280674Well, it gives you a measure of choice, the other driving philosophy of point build. We've done it before for DC Heroes. There was a chart that randomized your origin and gave you an attendant number of points.

Still, in many circles, the idea of some form of equalization is such a big driver, that'd be a hard sell. But in the right group, it's an interesting bit of genre emulation.

My Iridium system is similar to this. Stats are random but then development points are derived from those. Perhaps more like a variation mentioned before but close. Essentially, I wanted to combine random with point buy. This is probably my preferred method...until I think of another.

Quote from: CavScout;280707Why does it seem like we are cycling back to the "random=right way to play" and/or "point buy=wrong way to play"?

Because of the toolkit nature of RPGs particularly with the two most popular point buy system (GURPS, HERO) . There is no right answer. Most referees campaigns are a combination of different elements and rule subsystems.

As a generalization you start out by the book and then evolve your style. At best you can give suggestions along the lines of "This is what I did, why, and how it worked out."  Then referees and players can decide whether it is useful for their circumstances.

For example I run GURPS mostly "by the book" when it comes to combat. My reasons is that I want players to be able to figure out what the options are for themselves by looking at the situation. GURPS Advanced Combat is comprehensive enough and grounded in reality enough that there are only a few edge cases that players can't work out for themselves. I create individual cheat sheets listing the maneuvers and modifiers that indivicharacters will typically use. This is primarily for the less experienced GURPS player in my group.

Another example, For GURPS I have a list of allowed advantage and disadvantages for my campaign. I expect the players to talk to me about what they want their character to be like. I will in turn will help them use the system to make what they want, awarding freebies for really good ideas. Sometimes we will think up a theme that we want to try for this particular campaign and come up with restrictions and freebies to reinforce that theme. (Everybody plays a City Guard)

I like to use Point based system like GURPS and HERO in that they allow me to tell players to make what they want within a broad list of possibilities. Players are happy because they have the freedom to mix and match.  This used to be a big deal back in the day but D&D 3.X offers enough flexibility that this is no longer a compelling draw of GURPS and HERO. Although with 4th edition this advantage may return to a lesser degree.

What I don't do is claim these is the "right" way to run GURPS. Or the only way. Just some things I did that you may or may not find useful.

I just wanted to place my real answer to the question.

I don't like player characters being able to purchase rank and wealth with character points at all. I feel that those things should be assigned by the GM at the start of the game.

Character wealth, rank, and fame are all things that will have a dramatic impact on how the story is carried out. For example, if you are a fighter in dnd, the way you handle a group of orcs attacking your town is totally different if you are a prince. The GM should be the one to decide if you are a prince with men at arms. Giving up two of your feats for it is too much player control, and kinda lame.