Quote from: Benoist;685145This is my reaction as well. I sympathize with Sacrosanct, but what he identifies as "the problem" seems completely wrong to me. In OD&D (1974) you roll 3d6 in order, and that serves as the basis or springboard to your imagination from there. My wife found it very liberating actually, as opposed to assigning die results from a concept, because it encourages you to "play dice with the universe" and use characters you might not otherwise have come up with because they were outside what you perceived as a comfort zone.

So it's not a problem of rules v. Imagination at all, to me. The two ideally work with one another and basically create a synergy, a whole that is "the game", as opposed to the sole rules, that is greater than the sum of its parts.

The real problem becomes when the rules themselves become the game. I.e. the rules are not the game, nor the game the rules.

Hole in one, Ben.  +1.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;685142Roleplaying games were still using roll stats in order into the mid-Eighties, such as the one I'm playing right now.

That certainly wasn't common around here. We used the method (outlined in the AD&D DMG) of 4d6 drop lowest, x6, assign where you want. So you'd pick a class, pick a race, roll the stats, and assign. Other groups I was familiar with used the same method.

It's weird how old-school came to mean OD&D on these forums. Only a very small fraction of people playing D&D even as early as 1980 had ever played OD&D.

I like to have random and points buy options available because sometimes I know exactly what I want and sometimes I have no idea.  As is often the case the most obnoxious, noisy people are those who can only accept the binary, is too, is not positions.

Sometimes my sessions look like freeform storytelling and sometimes they look like an in depth hex and counter wargame and everything in between.  The "one true way" as far as I'm concerned is access to multiple functional tools and the liberty to apply them at need.  Much of the appeal of Rolemaster Standard System lies in the multitude of functions and methods it makes available.

Personally, as a player and as a DM, I'm comfortable with all methods, whether that's random stat gen then go for a concept, or create a concept then roll and assign scores, use points and assign, ... I'm cool with all of those. Sometimes I'll prefer one over the other, sometimes I'll give the choice to the players, it entirely depends on the game we're playing, the type of game play and campaign feel I have in mind, etc.

In my current Hobby Shop Dungeon 1st ed game I gave the choice to my wife, who generated the first character, to go for 3d6 in order, 4d6-drop-lowest in order, or 4d6-drop-lowest and assign. She chose 3d6 in order. That didn't happen some 30 years ago, by the way, but a month ago. At an actual game table, instead of some discussion on forums and vague memories of "what really was popular and what wasn't in my corner of the woods, instead of yours, back in the day." Go figure.

Quote from: Benoist;685155Personally, as a player and as a DM, I'm comfortable with all methods, whether that's random stat gen then go for a concept, or create a concept then roll and assign scores, use points and assign, ... I'm cool with all of those. Sometimes I'll prefer one over the other, sometimes I'll give the choice to the players, it entirely depends on the game we're playing, the type of game play and campaign feel I have in mind, etc.

In my current Hobby Shop Dungeon 1st ed game I gave the choice to my wife, who generated the first character, to go for 3d6 in order, 4d6-drop-lowest in order, or 4d6-drop-lowest and assign. She chose 3d6 in order. That didn't happen some 30 years ago, but a month ago, by the way.

Completely agree.  I have never understood why people get their nuts in a wad over generating ability scores.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;685142Roleplaying games were still using roll stats in order into the mid-Eighties, such as the one I'm playing right now.

Congrats, I guess.  But the other method, the one I've seen used almost exclusively since I started in 81, was roll 4d6.  A method that's been around, like I said, almost the very beginning minus a couple years.  It was a method before the 70s ended, that's for sure.

QuoteYes, and I call them 'minmaxers.'

Congratulations - you are what you hate.

Rolling 4d6 take lowest is a min maxer?

Yeah, ok.  Might want to tone down the hyperbole there a bit.

Quote from: One Horse Town;685073WFRP taught me this method.

As did Traveller for me

Quote from: Benoist;685155Personally, as a player and as a DM, I'm comfortable with all methods, whether that's random stat gen then go for a concept, or create a concept then roll and assign scores, use points and assign, ... I'm cool with all of those. Sometimes I'll prefer one over the other, sometimes I'll give the choice to the players, it entirely depends on the game we're playing, the type of game play and campaign feel I have in mind, etc.

In my current Hobby Shop Dungeon 1st ed game I gave the choice to my wife, who generated the first character, to go for 3d6 in order, 4d6-drop-lowest in order, or 4d6-drop-lowest and assign. She chose 3d6 in order. That didn't happen some 30 years ago, by the way, but a month ago. At an actual game table, instead of some discussion on forums and vague memories of "what really was popular and what wasn't in my corner of the woods, instead of yours, back in the day." Go figure.

Yeah, all the approaches provide different results, depending on what you feel like (which is why I like that D&D usually has several stat generation methods). Point buy gives you control if people want to tilor to concepts, while the more random methods can push you outside of your comfort zone in interesting ways. I like both extremes. I find it fun to be surprised by my stat rolls and build the character off that, but I can also enjoy coming up with a specific concept and customizing to fit it. I think it is usually helpful to agree on one method for a given game (if everyone is rolling 3d6 straigt down it is a bit more fair than one player doing so and others using different methods).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684975and perhaps I just need to accept that the hobby is moving past me.  For example, when I think of character generation, I approach it something like this:

However, it increasingly seems like, judging by many internet conversations with current players, that character generation is being approached like this nowadays

I don't have time to read the thread at the moment (sorry!) but your initial post caught my eye. I think the two approaches in character creation have always been around. I know that the games I've played in have always been filled with a mix of both types. For example, in my current D&D game one player effectively stats out his character ahead of time, planning every aspect of progression in advance and min-maxing to reach his goals. A fine strategy; it means he ends up with kickass characters. On the other hand, I prefer to think my character up as it goes along. I didn't decide to play a cleric, that is, I rolled the dice for stats and saw the numbers suggested it. Then based on the numbers I thought up other elements - church, proficiencies, spell style, eventually personality, etc.

One style isn't necessarily better than the other, I suspect. But they are two different methods of approaching the same game. I think the hyper-planned out style has seen a bit of an upswing what with the increased crossover between computer game players and p&p RPG players - the guy I spoke of above learned his character creation style from Diablo and various MMOs. But there's still plenty of us seat-of-the-pants style imaginative creators!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684975and perhaps I just need to accept that the hobby is moving past me.  For example, when I think of character generation, I approach it something like this:




However, it increasingly seems like, judging by many internet conversations with current players, that character generation is being approached like this nowadays

Where'd you find the WoW Theorycrafter pic?

Looks like Burning Crusade era, given the gear tiers and the Paladin Judgments.

Seriously, tho, that's stuff relegated to the min/max-ers, known as the Theorycrafters in MMO parlance.  There will always be Theorycrafters, but the trick is avoid them at all costs if you want to actually, you know ROLEPLAY.  Just like I'm trying to teach my kids that min-maxing isn't the point of playing an RPG, but it does seem that there are days when I take one step forward and two steps back.

But I do want to mention that the first pic is pure awesomeness.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685161But the other method, the one I've seen used almost exclusively since I started in 81, was roll 4d6.  A method that's been around, like I said, almost the very beginning minus a couple years.  It was a method before the 70s ended, that's for sure.

4d6 drop lowest wasn't a rules-as-written thing in 1e until the DMG was released in 1979, though it probably appeared in SR or TD as a variant rule before that.

That said, what you've seen doesn't describe the whole of what's available. Most of the games I was playing in the early and mid-Eighties - Boot Hill, Traveller, Flashing Blades, frex - used stats rolled in order.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685161Might want to tone down the hyperbole there a bit.

Right back at you.

There is no inherent superiority to having some sort of 'theme' when creating a character. Both you and Spreadsheet Guy are doing the same thing, massaging the numbers to reach your goals as a player, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;685133No, actually, for me the numbers come first, starting with 3d6 in order.

I do that as well, especially when I'm ambivalent on character concept. I like scrying the logic out of the randomized results.

However I do love making characters from concept and worrying about that over optimization. Selecting flavor appropriate options over "correct" choices is a style of play I enjoy.

I can, and have done, high optimization chargen, where you build almost backwards from final concept to starting choices. I don't enjoy it because it structures choices in some sort of contextless competitive arena, which I find RPGs tend to be terrible at. It also is a rather soulless tournament level of competition which is just exhausting. I find it a miserable mode to be in, regardless of how effective I can be in it. It's my last choice if I am to play an RPG -- and I'm getting to the point of where it brings the same feeling as bad gaming, in that no gaming is better than bad gaming.

Quote from: One Horse Town;685073WFRP taught me this method.

That was probably the best idea in WFRP. You had no control over your birth, hence no control over your initial job...but past that, it was up to you to become the hero you wanted to be.

Granted, it quickly devolved into min-maxing for SOME players (one guy I know invented a "fence" occupation. I had no idea fences were extraordinary fighters, as well as shrewd negotiators, tough, and with the full suite of thief sklls...).

Now, outside of new players, people come to my PF table with Lvl 1 sorc, when I hit level 2 I'm going to rogue, then 2 levels of that I'll get my l33t thieves tools, then 2 levels of assassin, then I'm getting my autopoisontrip blade, then I'll take another level of rogue...

I respect it as a style of play, but it sure ain't the RPG I grew up with.

I love randomness and being surprised. I love dice as a kind of macho toys and I hoard them and gleefully seek out odd new types of dice as I discover them. I like the weird Zen "Casting the bones" process of sitting down with a blank sheet and no idea of what I'm gonna play, and then interpreting the dice rolls to slowly build a picture that fits the results.

OP: I like that illustration very much, what's it from?

Yeah but character creation has been about numbers. No one uses a cup of coffee as a character sheet. I, myself, like creating characters that don't just focus on combat and I like have having lots abilities and skills.  "Old-Schoolers" though balk at this and believe that only combat abilities should be put down on paper.  Then they complain about the focus on combat numbers.