Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955364Well, yeah.  And every time somebody says "Different people like different stuff," somebody else chimes in with "Point buy/random roll molested my baby sister!" and the monkeys load up on shit and start flinging again.

Pretty much. As I said earlier, I'm skeptical that when someone says something in defense of themselves or their 'side' (in internet debates), it's really because there are slavering hordes out there waiting to take a swing at them. Instead it's little things like this where each side of this point-buy/random-roll can walk away telling themselves that this was a royal case of those unfair and ridiculous random-roll/point-buy people who absolutely are always attacking them and that's why they need to be so defensive (setting the stage for the next drama explosion next episode), and interpret the next time-waster discussion on the subject as proof that they and their side... ad naseum.

Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955332Did you really just use a "No, you" argument? I'd expect that from my three year old (well, maybe not my three year old, since he's got better reasoning skills than that), not from a grown ass man who has 44 years of role playing experience.

It's Gronan, you quickly learn that he claims all sorts of things, and then regresses to that particular style of argument when he realizes he's out of touch with other gamers.  You'll note that there are quite a few Tryhards here, they're quick to show up so it's easy to spot them.

Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955332If out of five hundred people, you have problems with say 2% of them, then yeah the issue is likely to be them. But Gronan is acting like he has such problems the majority of the time. If out of 500 people you only have a problem with 10 of them, that's such a small amount of people it's not even worth bringing up. There's no point to even mention it as part of an argument. Only an unreasonable person would bother stating something so statistically trivial.

Again, it's how he makes his play style seem more important than what it really is and feel like he's actually contributing.

As for the argument of min-maxers and power gamers abusing arrays or/point buys, I'm sure there are, but for me, I don't have to actually worry about them, because my friends (the people I run games for) would rather run a concept than be 'efficient' (As it's often euphemistically called) so I don't need to 'worry' about them.

Even then, if you know your table, what's the worry?

Quote from: AsenRG;955240Then the argument about "fairness" rather falls flat.

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.

For reasons already discussed, I find this argument no more compelling than "FITNESS TRAINERS DON'T WANT TO YOU KNOW, GET THE ABS OF YOUR DREAMS IN SIX WEEKS FLAT USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!!!"

Quote from: AsenRG;955240Than 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).

My bad, I at best skimmed everything after the first page.

Quote from: Tequila SunriseYou know, random chargen and point buy aren't 'natural enemies' the way we tend to treat them in these online flame wars.  

Quote from: AsenRG;955240Yeah, but people are having so much fun treating them this way. Wouldn't it be cruel to take away their little pleasure?

Indeed it would, let's pop some more corn!

Quote from: Skarg;955358Thanks for everyone's responses to my question about adding different starting levels.

One other comment on a slightly different idea:
Although I often don't use the points in GURPS in many ways (not for experience or strict balance), it seems to me that the weird apples & oranges variety of things with points does allow more room for PCs to be quite different in types and levels of abilities while still providing for some balance and fairness in many different ways. In this way, players can be allowed to play with the type of character they want even if those are different power levels, by balancing in other ways, such as starting in relatively (un)fortunate circumstances, such as patrons, enemies, reputation, legal problems, etc, which could even be just the starting conditions of the adventure and the reason to bring the PCs together for the starting adventure. Of course, you can use that to whatever degree you care or don't care about fairness and balance in starting conditions.

One problem as it were with some point buy and especially Gurps is that while its pretty even at the start. That all breaks down when someone starts to take on disadvantages to get more points. All of a sudden the character with no flaws may end up woefully underpowered compared to the character whos taken possibly several disads to garner alot of points.

Normally this isnt a problem when you have a competent GM. But seems way too often either the GM doesnt enforce those disads, or the player tries to rules lawyer the disads into a little corner where it can rarely show, or turn it into an ongoing advantage somehow. Which is why I warn players up front that if they take a disadvantage I am going to enforce it.

I had one player who was dismayed that their PC who flips out under stress was... flipping out under stress...

Normally nobody minds if the other guy is more powerful but also dealing with disads. Some may though resent the more problematic ones that interfere too much.

With random rolling normally no one cares there overall because the system tends to push you towards average and getting a high or low roll tends to be more a badge of luck, good or ill. They may grumble if someone gets really lucky. But even then there tends to be less trouble unless its the same player rolling suspiciously high again and again. And some are ok with being joe average or even less as it tends to mean the guy with the 18s is going to be drawing alot of fire and they wont.

In the end part of the roll vs something else problem comes from players simply not understanding the system or getting it in their head the system does some unfair thing when that is not the case. And the other part coming from bad first impressions leaving them SCARRED FOR LIFE!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955364Well, yeah.  And every time somebody says "Different people like different stuff," somebody else chimes in with "Point buy/random roll molested my baby sister!" and the monkeys load up on shit and start flinging again.

Yes, indeed, Glorious General - and would you want more popcorn:)?

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955385For reasons already discussed, I find this argument no more compelling than "FITNESS TRAINERS DON'T WANT TO YOU KNOW, GET THE ABS OF YOUR DREAMS IN SIX WEEKS FLAT USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!!!"

I don't care about the "weird tricks" people have been trying to sell me, because they never seem to work quite as advertised.
Both point-buy and random have worked for me, albeit not as well as lifepaths did and do;). So no, I don't find them to be in the same category.

QuoteMy bad, I at best skimmed everything after the first page.

It's understandable in this thread.

QuoteIndeed it would, let's pop some more corn!

Definitely sounds like a plan to me, with salt or without;)?

Quote from: Thegn Ansgar;955332There's hardly any relevance of all this to my quote which you were replying to, but none of what you say here is unreasonable, nor is it even bad form to have a list of what new players can expect. If they leave beforehand, that's one thing. If they're bummed because their character rolls are effectively useless....

I've had a few people over the years walk because they could not have their way (the character they want, the rules the want interpreted the way they want, etc.). This in spite of my warnings before they started play. I've never forced anyone to play a character that was truly useless -- for course, my opinion of what is truly useless is probably much different than that of most players of more modern editions of RPGs. But yes, I've had a player or three walk because actually making their less than stellar but more than useless character useful required player skill and thought and that apparently bummed them. I just shook my head and hoped they could find a campaign more like what they wanted.

Quote...and they feel that there's no point in even playing when their character is just going to drag the party down and make things worse... and then you project your own ideas and say that they want some kind of power fantasy, when they're likely just wanting a character that's not completely incompetent and can actively help the party, that's something entirely different.

I've never understood how a character who is less that "optimal" can somehow drag a party down to the point that the player feels useless -- let alone that the other players don't want the character to be in the group. As PCs always have the "mind" of their player, even the most useless mechanically can contribute in my games. If nothing else they can handle hirelings and the like which are pretty important in the games I run.  But then I come from a playstyle that stresses player skill over character skill, doesn't have a lot of mechanical rules widgets for any player to manipulate, and assumes that there may often be great differences in the abilities of characters (for example, if a PC dies, the replacement is either a lower level NPC from the party or a new first level character).

Quote from: Omega;955388One problem as it were with some point buy and especially Gurps is that while its pretty even at the start. That all breaks down when someone starts to take on disadvantages to get more points. All of a sudden the character with no flaws may end up woefully underpowered compared to the character whos taken possibly several disads to garner alot of points.

Normally this isnt a problem when you have a competent GM. But seems way too often either the GM doesnt enforce those disads, or the player tries to rules lawyer the disads into a little corner where it can rarely show, or turn it into an ongoing advantage somehow. Which is why I warn players up front that if they take a disadvantage I am going to enforce it.

I had one player who was dismayed that their PC who flips out under stress was... flipping out under stress...

Normally nobody minds if the other guy is more powerful but also dealing with disads. Some may though resent the more problematic ones that interfere too much.

With random rolling normally no one cares there overall because the system tends to push you towards average and getting a high or low roll tends to be more a badge of luck, good or ill. They may grumble if someone gets really lucky. But even then there tends to be less trouble unless its the same player rolling suspiciously high again and again. And some are ok with being joe average or even less as it tends to mean the guy with the 18s is going to be drawing alot of fire and they wont.

Any player who is going to be envious of another player's character power is not going to care if the character was point-bought or random rolled. It really seems disingenuous to imply that issues with character power imbalance is only an issue in one and not the other.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;955408Any player who is going to be envious of another player's character power is not going to care if the character was point-bought or random rolled. It really seems disingenuous to imply that issues with character power imbalance is only an issue in one and not the other.

Reading comprehension... you seem to lack.

Quote from: RandallS;955407I've had a few people over the years walk because they could not have their way (the character they want, the rules the want interpreted the way they want, etc.). This in spite of my warnings before they started play. I've never forced anyone to play a character that was truly useless -- for course, my opinion of what is truly useless is probably much different than that of most players of more modern editions of RPGs. But yes, I've had a player or three walk because actually making their less than stellar but more than useless character useful required player skill and thought and that apparently bummed them. I just shook my head and hoped they could find a campaign more like what they wanted.



I've never understood how a character who is less that "optimal" can somehow drag a party down to the point that the player feels useless -- let alone that the other players don't want the character to be in the group. As PCs always have the "mind" of their player, even the most useless mechanically can contribute in my games. If nothing else they can handle hirelings and the like which are pretty important in the games I run.  But then I come from a playstyle that stresses player skill over character skill, doesn't have a lot of mechanical rules widgets for any player to manipulate, and assumes that there may often be great differences in the abilities of characters (for example, if a PC dies, the replacement is either a lower level NPC from the party or a new first level character).

This?  Is a projection.  You use words that Thegn doesn't.  'Optimal'?  He never said this.  He said that a player doesn't want to play a character that will drag the party down.  Someone who can barely make the rolls needed to do something, like say pick a lock or disarm a trap, isn't complaining about 'optimal' characters, they're talking about feeling useful.  You could argue that if he kills himself by failing to disarm a trap he's actually hurt the party.  Less fire power/hp resource available for when the inevitability of combat comes up.

Here's a better analogy, who would you hire as a locksmith after having locked yourself out of your own car?  Some fumbled finger no name goon, or someone who can do the job and has all the tools, both physical and mental?

I can tell ya, most people, gamers or not, would rather be the guy who can do the job.  Which is why if they can, they will learn to do the job, or more likely get the one who can do it, and do it well.

Why the hell do RPGs have to force you, and I do mean FORCE, into choosing to have the idiot who can barely pick his own nose without drawing his own blood into a role he's not suited for?

It's not realistic in the least.  Hell, in older editions you could HIRE people who were good at the job you wanted for a decent amount of gold.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;955428This?  Is a projection.  You use words that Thegn doesn't.  'Optimal'?  He never said this.  He said that a player doesn't want to play a character that will drag the party down.  Someone who can barely make the rolls needed to do something, like say pick a lock or disarm a trap, isn't complaining about 'optimal' characters, they're talking about feeling useful.  You could argue that if he kills himself by failing to disarm a trap he's actually hurt the party.  Less fire power/hp resource available for when the inevitability of combat comes up.

Here's a better analogy, who would you hire as a locksmith after having locked yourself out of your own car?  Some fumbled finger no name goon, or someone who can do the job and has all the tools, both physical and mental?

I can tell ya, most people, gamers or not, would rather be the guy who can do the job.  Which is why if they can, they will learn to do the job, or more likely get the one who can do it, and do it well.

Why the hell do RPGs have to force you, and I do mean FORCE, into choosing to have the idiot who can barely pick his own nose without drawing his own blood into a role he's not suited for?

It's not realistic in the least.  Hell, in older editions you could HIRE people who were good at the job you wanted for a decent amount of gold.

Might be better to judge the quality of the game by the quality of the people playing it, not their characters.

Quote from: RandallS;955407I've never understood how a character who is less that "optimal" can somehow drag a party down to the point that the player feels useless -

I thought that too until I played PATHFINDER.  You're using your stats in everything you do, and if your prime requisite isn't at least a 16 all you're good for is absorbing hit points from bad guy attacks.  Sure, you can still use your brain, but at that point you can contribute and use your brain without a PC, too.  I would not dream of making people use 3d6 in order in PATHFINDER.

Quote from: cranebump;955430Might be better to judge the quality of the game by the quality of the people playing it, not their characters.

So you're saying you can pound a nail with a hammer with a wobbly, rusted pig iron head, just as well with a fully functional and capable steel claw hammer?

Because it's the same thing.  Why risk your hand with a substandard hammer, when you have a perfectly functional one.  And that's the thing, functional, NOT superiour.

A character is a tool, a tool to play make believe, to have fun dredging through dungeons and ruins, to explore mental landscapes, whether that involves a story or narrative or not.  And as long as the tool does the job it's often fun.  But if you have to find excuses and reasons as to why you must make a less capable (there's that word again!) tools with you, maybe you should consider what you're doing.

Here's the rub, if your beer and pretzel's game is all about running through various deathtrap laden mazes with the sole goal of seeing how far you can go, then hell yeah, a character with substandard abilities is just as good as a demigod.  Probably because both will have about the same rate of 'survival'.

But for those of us who like to stick with a character, hopefully (cuz you know, dice and all other randomizers), longer than a single session, something better than Louie The Loser might be in order.

And quite frankly, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick and tired of having the likes of Gronan and Black Vulmea throwing their e-peens around and yelling at 'those damn kids' when games have changed to reflect more modern sensibilities.  We get it, you're damn proud of the fact that you had to walk up hill, in the snow, in the dead of winter, both ways.  But there's a reason bus services got created.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;955210A character is a tool, a tool to play make believe, to have fun dredging through dungeons and ruins, to explore mental landscapes, whether that involves a story or narrative or not.  And as long as the tool does the job it's often fun.  But if you have to find excuses and reasons as to why you must make a less capable (there's that word again!) tools with you, maybe you should consider what you're doing.

It's a bad tradesman who blames his tools.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955468It's a bad tradesman who blames his tools.

A good tradesman wouldn't work with substandard ones in the first place, as if it was a point of pride.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955454I thought that too until I played PATHFINDER.  You're using your stats in everything you do, and if your prime requisite isn't at least a 16 all you're good for is absorbing hit points from bad guy attacks.  Sure, you can still use your brain, but at that point you can contribute and use your brain without a PC, too.  I would not dream of making people use 3d6 in order in PATHFINDER.

Yeah, I'm starting to wonder how many people arguing this have played WotC-era D&D or Pathfinder a whole lot. If you have 9/9/9/9/9/9 in your stats in AD&D, you can be a fighter with no penalties to anything. If you've got that in the modern iterations, you'll be rolling successfully about half as often, and if it's a weapon attack, doing about half the usual damage as well.  Since you roll for everything from disarming traps to convincing a bandit to free a hostage, you'll just be worthless.