Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955183Or maybe we've spent 44 years filtering out tempermental players.

Also, Certain Other Boards are full of this shit, don't take my word for it.

If you find yourself continually at odds with these so called temperamental players over these 44 years... the problem isn't them, it's you. Especially if it's more than 1 or 2 of them, then you are the common denominator of the problem at hand.

OK, I'll do Nexus' reply first...

Quote from: AsenRG;955061OK, it seems I'm not communicating my point well enough when I'm sick, so I'll excuse myself from the thread and come back to it when I feel better.

Because of this.

So, Nexus...you stated that you don't understand why some people think that point-buy is motivated by the desire for "power", if the GM is changing the challenge level to fit the party "anyway".
Simple answer: because with point-buy, you can optimise. As you stated in the follow-up reply, yes, you can't "beat the GM"...except when you pull some real good optimising in a system prone to it (ah, sweet memories:p)...but you can make stuff easier for you and reduce the need for improvising.
And that's not "beating the GM", but it is breaking the expectations that you hopefully discussed before the game - like the expectations about power level.

(Same thing for "special snoflakiness", BTW: you can create a one-trick or two-trick pony, and if X doesn't work, try Y...and take 95% of the campaign to the level of your X and Y. Did anyone say "paranoia comboes" already?)

And both of these usually lead to a game that sucks. (Did anyone miss the word "usually" already:)? I can totally think of examples where the one-trick pony would be appropriate).

As for your subsequent reply - I admit my follow-up comment was due to me forgetting what we were talking about. As I mentioned, I'm sick atm - hope you could forgive me:)!

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955127No doubt point buy doesn’t magically make everything in a game fair.

Then the argument about "fairness" rather falls flat.

QuoteWhat do you mean by striving to be fair to them despite unequal an starting point?

They're not unequal: they all had the same odds to roll or not to roll and the same odds of rolling above-average.
They start at an unequal place, but they had the same chances to start there, so it's fair to the players.

QuoteIt sounds like perhaps point buy simply introduces fairness a step earlier than you care for.

Than I care for? I actually tend to slightly prefer point-buy...
I just didn't see the need to defend it, to the Pundit or to anyone else, as you can see in my first comment in the thread.
(And I consider both to be inferior to lifepaths, as you can see in my second or third comment in the thread:p).

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955126Lol, perish the thought that gamers with different tastes get to have fun at the same table, right?

Told you it's crazy talk!

QuoteYou know, random chargen and point buy aren’t ‘natural enemies’ the way we tend to treat them in these online flame wars.

Yeah, but people are having so much fun treating them this way. Wouldn't it be cruel to take away their little pleasure?

Quote from: nDervish;955162How about point-buy Russian roulette?

I'd hate to be the one who sucked at optimising if we were to plat that:D!

Quote from: Omega;955140Hate to break it to you. But point buy can be just as un-fair in the wrong hands.

Yeah, this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955114Where the hell have you been for the last ten years?  Sadly, though his intent was sarcastic, he is indeed as serious as chest pains and tingling down your left arm.

I notice those who scream loudest about bad stats are those most ignorant of the difference between editions.

I haven't discussed point-buy with the Green One, or don't remember it:).
Scars, my ass.

Quote from: Omega;955072Oh theres been bitching about it for a long time. Pretty sure theres examples and "fixes" in Dragon somewhere.

OK, that actually makes sense. Thank you for the info-I haven't read Dragon;).

I'm with Skarg here.  It really depends on the game system.  In some versions of D&D, stats are little more than descriptors.  In other versions, stats matter more, but are still not the main measure of what you can do - so random is fine and probably preferable.  In all versions of D&D "power" is measured primarily by level, not by stats.  Some games like GURPs, that are stat driven, would be a mess with random roll chargen.  Random 3d6 roll stats in GURPS or TFT would be like playing d&d with each character's level in the party being generated on a d12 or there-abouts.  The point is, whether random or point buy is better is apples and oranges unless you are talking about a specific game.  

Similarly, the breadth of a character's abilities in D&D is determined primarily by class (race, stats and other factors contribute and modify).  A game like GURPS is designed to break down class like boundaries.  That doesn't make it better or worse, but point buy is a strong method for defining the breadth of character abilities where there are vast options, where options is part of the point of the design.  Point buy is a natural solution for GURPs' design goals, it isn't for D&D.  Asking which is better overall, is just inflammatory.

Is point buy better for D&D? Absolutely not. It's just a weird hybridization, or a stump for those obsessed with non-existent game balance.  Is it better for GURPs? Absolutely, it's practically essential.

Quote from: Skarg;955215Here's an (I think) interesting question for D&D players who like rolling for stats:

1. What if you also rolled for starting level? How much of a random level spread would seem good? Or does that seem like a non-starter?

It would feel weird, but (for OD&D the way I play it, at least), it would not break anything. Parties are soon full of characters of all different levels anyway. I tossed the "all characters should be about the same level" memo that came out later years in the trash after a few moments of thought. So rolling say 1d8 for level (max level in my current game is 10), would work -- and plays who rolled a 1 would be at 8th level about the same time players who rolled an 8 reached 9th level.

Quote2. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?

I actually do something like that for games set in Arn (one of my homebrew settings) but its based on the race players choose. Races with fewer/less powerful racial abilities start at a higher level. With attributes, I don't see much need for it as they have very little effect on the game (compared to later versions of D&D, at least), but I don't see any reason why it could not work. Again, PCs aren't all of the same level in my games anyway.

The big disconnect in this thread is the different in stat importance in OD&D vs. AD&D vs. 3e / 4e / 5e.

In OD&D, an average of 10 is perfectly playable and acceptable by players. But 12-14 is the new 10 for later editions due to how TNs are calculated for various things.

AKA, if the average monster AC is 14 vs. 12, then a +2 bonus is required to be "equal" to the previous edition.

During the 3e era, a friend of mine wanted to bring random chargen into their campaign so I suggested they do 2D6+6 for stats. His group liked it. The 13 in 3e = 10 in 0e seems workable.

BTW, ability checks in OD&D are homebrewed. Different groups did different things. Many rolled under on D20. Others rolled under 3D6 (or 4D6 for hard stuff). Others converted stats into percentiles for D100 (aka, stat x 5%, roll under).

FYI, my middle school nuked the whole point buy vs. random decades ago. You choose - roll 3D6 down the line or spread 63 points (min 3, max 18). The funny thing was how often players would go for the 3D6 like little gambling fiends. But as I've mentioned before, we quickly dropped the AD&D whack ass charts for the B/X chart.

Quote from: Omega;955073Gamma World, least the early versions, your characters start off fully fledged and, barring mutations, dont change.

GW1e had an XP chart for levels which gave you a random stat or ability bonus (a D10 chart).

Also, the radiation chart was usually deadly, but you could randomly gain new mutations too.

Quote from: Skarg;9552152. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?

In high school, our AD&D group had a stack of whacky chargen homebrew rules. Because demihumans were so much better than humans in AD&D and our crew would never use the level limits, it was my house rule that humans got +1 level. I did this because whole campaigns in high school didn't have any PC humans except the Cleric and Paladin. Human thief? LOL. Never gonna happen. But the +1 level thing actually got human PCs into play.

As for bad stats, we had various houserules:
1) roll 4D6, drop one, assign OR 3D6 down the line and get a free level.
2) everyone rolls 3D6 and you get +100 XP per stat point under 9 and -100 XP per stat point over 12. Then you could increase stats by taking -200 XP per point. It was crazy because we had all these guys with -2000 XP at 1st level. But the Champions players in our group loved this shit for whatever reason. I guess more math.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;955234This entire argument is just a distraction from the true choice separating REAL roleplayers from those whiny posers...

Solid polyhedral dice, which as everyone knows are fair, well-balanced, stalwart and the only choice for true old school players
 vs
those sinister clear polyhedral dice, the choice for hipsters and swine! Deceitful, childish, and a mockery of everything our hobby holds dear.

Agreed, the only real D&D ployhedrals are ugly, opaques with little stubs of sprues made of cheap high impact plastic by col. Z. I hate the number 14 and prefer that my dice bounce rather than roll.  Kids bring in these chessex lumps with swirly colors that roll and roll until they fall of the table... and don't even get started on those illegible rune-crusted QW monstrosities.  Fie on those so called "dice"!

Quote from: Madprofessor;955244The point is, whether random or point buy is better is apples and oranges unless you are talking about a specific game.  

I'm totally with you on that one, but the thread is so much fun;)!

Quote from: Tristram Evans;955234This entire argument is just a distraction from the true choice separating REAL roleplayers from those whiny posers...

Solid polyhedral dice, which as everyone knows are fair, well-balanced, stalwart and the only choice for true old school players
 vs
those sinister clear polyhedral dice, the choice for hipsters and swine! Deceitful, childish, and a mockery of everything our hobby holds dear.

hah! The answer is obviously those semi-transpatent dice with sparklies in them!

Quote from: Omega;955253hah! The answer is obviously those semi-transpatent dice with sparklies in them!

Blasphemy!

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955210contrary to what some interwebbers seem to believe, being a mature adult able to swallow your disappointment for a game session or three doesn't magically make a frustrating experience any less disappointing.

So if you roll crappy stats, you just sit around disappointed for 1-3 sessions? You don't... try to make the best of it?

Quote from: Skarg;9552151. What if you also rolled for starting level? How much of a random level spread would seem good? Or does that seem like a non-starter?

It's a non-starter because level has far more of an effect on gameplay than stats. In AD&D, for example, a 4th level fighter has in effect a +4 to hit, which is more than a 1st level fighter with 18/00 Strength (+3); the strong guy also has +6 damage, but it doesn't matter how much damage you can do if you can't hit. And obviously hit points and so on. In versions like D&D3.5 the difference in character ability will be even greater due to "feats" and similar shenanigans. So I wouldn't start them off that way.

They can however end up that way through play. A bunch of 1st level guys start, later they're 3rd level and one of them dies, now that player starts with a 1st level character. But this is more tenable, since the higher-level ones will tend to equip the newbie - a 1st level fighter with plate mail and a longsword +1 and a 3rd level cleric around to heal them up or a thief to toss them a haste potion can hold their own with the 3rd level guys.

Quote2. What if your starting level were determined by some calculation based on the opposite of your attribute rolls? So if you roll bad stats, you start at a higher level than the PCs who roll great stats?

Then someone would complain, "ah but your Fighter 4 with Strength 10 is actually better than my Fighter 1 with Strength 18/00", and then you'd have them reroll - and it'd be Point-Buy By Reroll.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;955182I think you are missing what I am saying (although it is really hard to tell, could you perhaps explain yourself better?). In the passage you are quoting, I am not saying that stats barely has any impact and/or are redundant. I am saying that (in B/X, BECMI, and 5e) the stat itself (say an 18), has very little relevance distinct from the bonus it informs (a +3 in B/X, or a +4 in 5e). Omega commenting with incredulity that people he knows dislike those "empty spaces" in attribute charts (where increasing the base attribute does nothing), and I'm pointing out that they are correct.

As to stats themselves being redundant or not mattering--well, Gronan is right. In OD&D w/o Greyhawk expansion, stats don't really do all that much. You can call it nonsense all you want, but that's the case.
As to 'So why have a game with stats that are redundant?' --that is a good question, and Omega already asked that. And Gronan answered:
------------------------------------------------------
Now, that only matters if you care what Gronan and EGG, etc. considered fun. You could reasonably argue that for your OD&D campaign, you don't even need stats. I doubt very many people will do that though.

For starters, I responded to you, not as criticism, but because your reply was the reply where I finally fully realized WTF I was reading!

After that, I went on to comment on said things in a manner that is slightly lacking in coherency, as it was my direct thoughts on the subject.

As for more thoughts:
* One could just as well roll 2D4 for the bonus.
* Also, the reason for point buy is because in systems where the Base Stats are important, random rolls are more like rolling your LEVEL with anything from 2D4 to 3D6, depending on the system!
* So, like Skarg, I DO wonder if the ones that seem to be so very much for random rolls and anti - point buy, would still like randomness in the starting levels.
Or skills, for that matter.

Quote from: Omega;955221I agree. But... I do believe even OD&D had stat checks. And aside from Strength and Wisdom the stats do actually grand some small bonus.

Think of it more like that roll to see if you get psionics or qualifying for a Paladin or one of the other high stat requirement classes in AD&D. Its a pretty low chance.

Its there to reward a lucky roll. You got a 17 DEX? Here, have a +1 to hit with bows.

Pretty much the same in BX but you got sometimes a slightly better bonus. up to +3. But those are still fairly rare.

And yet, one big recurring argument for randomness seem to be that those stats are not (very) important?

Quote from: AsenRG;955240OK, I'll do Nexus' reply first...


Because of this.

So, Nexus...you stated that you don't understand why some people think that point-buy is motivated by the desire for "power", if the GM is changing the challenge level to fit the party "anyway".

You misunderstood.

 I think the quest of "power" via optimization is a fool's errand because, outside of some games where the GM resources are limited, you can't outgun the GM or the game is such your "power" won't matter that much like the Virtual Reality Sandbox playstyle. If you violate the expectations of the game either the GM will adjuast or refuse your character, IME. Of course some novice gms will have issues but this isn't solely a problem with point buy.

Tequila Sunrise (I think) does point a potential issue when one person optimizes and others don't. "Main character and his team of Redshirts"

And you can optimize in random roll chargen schemes. It just take place at different times and places during the process. Unless every single step is random and even then there's brute force: keep rolling until you get something you like. Most of the complaints about power gaming and hyper optimization I've seen where about D and D. Random generation isn't a cure all for that.

And I get why some people think that preference for Point Buy is strictly motivated by the drive for power, desire to be "special" or whatever derogatory reason they want to attach to it. Because some people find it satisfying to shit on people with different preferences. It goes the other way as well. Its a big reason why this thread over a relatively trivial difference in opinion has been so contentious.

Quote from: Catelf;955259And yet, one big recurring argument for randomness seem to be that those stats are not (very) important?

As noted. dont know about OD&D. But BX stats could be used for stat checks for success of some action when in doubt.

Also stats can be useful to a DM as a guide for how to play a randomly rolled NPC. So while they might not do alot for the player. They are of use to the DM.

Quote from: Omega;955263As noted. dont know about OD&D. But BX stats could be used for stat checks for success of some action when in doubt.

Also stats can be useful to a DM as a guide for how to play a randomly rolled NPC. So while they might not do alot for the player. They are of use to the DM.

Of use to the DM, but not to the player?
Guide how to play it?
/EDIT: Here I missed that you were referring to NPCs, sorry, my mistake./

Even if that would be true, which it do not seem to be, as I see it, it is not an argument for Random over Point-buy.

There is also the matter that others have brought up, that there are clear differences between the different editions of D&D, concerning the effects that the stats have on the actual play, unless I have interpreted it wrong.

Some apparently used houserules to make attributes more important as well, but that is the well-known ingenuity of old-time roleplayers, and not the RAW or similar.
Also, if 3D6 were so good, then why add rules like "The Shopkeeper rule" or "roll 4 remove lowest"?
If it isn't broken, then it should not have to be fixed, right?
But a lot of those houserules and fixes lived on to later editions, so they must have improved at least something.