Quote from: hamstertamer;685206Yeah 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.

Here's your bag o'stats, now go roleplay it.

Obviously there's no need to get sucked into the whirlpool of ron's toilet flushing in order to expand a bit upon your character though, there is a better way.

I don't think that roleplaying as an optimization-numbers game is sustainable in the long run. Especially when video games can offer a better experience in that regard, and GMing seems more of a burden or service activity in that sort of game, but I dont know. Just seems that sort of experience could be served better by video games or board games. It removes what, from my PoV, is the unique experience that RPGs offer that no other form of entertainment does.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;684984Then I'm part of the same breed.

Hear, hear! You're not alone in feeling that way, Sacrosanct.

"Do not go gentle into that good night.
"Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
--Dylan Thomas, "Do not go gentle into that good night"

Quote from: Votan;684980I do not think that the two pieces are exclusive.  But I agree that an obsessive focus on the numbers can actually interfere with the quality of the imagination part of the game.

In my opinion, they're only exclusive if you make them exclusive. I can see what some individuals are saying with regard to creating the character concept first and then working out the character's stats to match the concept as close as possible.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684982It just seems that, especially recently with the announcement of Next, that everyone is about the numbers.  Almost to an obsessive level.  Nothing else matters, not the environment, not the game world, not the NPCs, not the stories, none of it matters anywhere near as much as making sure that DPR is calculated for each class/race combination and compared to monsters and each other so arena battle simulations can take place like some sort of RPG version of Deadliest Warrior.

This, a thousand, million times this. I can't count the hours I've wasted playing with such individuals or trying to run games for them. Always for them it will be about the buff, the build, having just the right feat without an in-story explanation of how their character acquired said ability... At the very least, it's confusing; at its worst, it's almost demoralizing, IMO, to see the hobby go this way.

Quote from: jedimastert;684992I think the spreadsheets, feats, daily powers, etc. in newer games are an over reaction to that lady in your picture being told "sorry you can't have that character you were dreaming of".

I am not hostile to older games or random character generation. I am merely pointing out that I think the emphasis on character customization in newer games is a reaction to the randomness in older games character generation systems.

Unfortunately with character customization comes the evils of character optimization and that spreadsheet example you gave.

I agree. For every paradise, there is a serpent. In the case of RPGs character customization is the double-headed amphisbaena... I think that's part of the reason Paizo went the direction it did with Pathfinder. I've heard countless whines from people about how X or Y got nerfed and that it "ruined D&D forever" for them... Whatever...

Quote from: jeff37923;685036When I was 12, back in 1981, and first began to GM games, I would tell my Players to put their rolls where they want them for characteristics. It was a simple, elegant, and common sense solution to this so-called "problem".

Exactly! Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684975[I think I'm a dying breed...] and perhaps I just need to accept that the hobby is moving past me.

Hardly. If anything, it's getting shallower and withering because of such "movement". What we need to do is continue to foster the imaginative aspects of gaming. The problem is how do we do it? So much of the time people gloss over it, resorting to (TV) tropes and console game concepts as a quick and easy fix rather than exercising their own imagination...

Later...

Harl Quinn

Quote from: Piestrio;685103I do believe my Pathfinder group were amused by the fact that I made all my character creation decisions based on the miniature I wanted to use.

Excellent method.

Welcome aboard Harl Quinn!

Good to see someone from the Regency making it over here!

Quote from: The Traveller;685208Here's your bag o'stats, now go roleplay it.

Obviously there's no need to get sucked into the whirlpool of ron's toilet flushing in order to expand a bit upon your character though, there is a better way.

a good chargen system encourages imagination and creation.  It prods and adds possibilities as well as eliminating some.

Quote from: jedimastert;684992Could this have been caused by the disparity between that picture you posted and how older games actually generated PCs?

I mean if the lady in the picture is dreaming up a butt-kicking warrior in shining armor, and then has to roll 3d6 for stats straight down the row (or even 4d6 drop the lowest), there is no guarantee that she will be able to play what she envisions.

I think the spreadsheet below the picture is an extreme case of ensuring the character you have envisioned, and desire to play, is what is actually represented on your character sheet.

Older D&D type games don't really allow you to ensure you get the character you want. If the lady in the picture sat down to a Basic or AD&D game and said she wanted to play a physically strong, wise, and attractive warrior before rolling her random ability scores she may be told she has to let the dice fall where they may.

"Sorry you rolled an 8 for strength so fighter is out. Maybe you could be a thief or magic user."

I think the spreadsheets, feats, daily powers, etc. in newer games are an over reaction to that lady in your picture being told "sorry you can't have that character you were dreaming of".

I am not hostile to older games or random character generation. I am merely pointing out that I think the emphasis on character customization in newer games is a reaction to the randomness in older games character generation systems.

Unfortunately with character customization comes the evils of character optimization and that spreadsheet example you gave.

THIS! All day long. The numbers should serve to realize the player's character concept in play, not obstruct it. (Or outright disqualify it!) The examples in the OP aren't two different methods of character creation, they're two stages of the process.

Quote from: LordVreeg;685216a good chargen system encourages imagination and creation.  It prods and adds possibilities as well as eliminating some.

Agreed. I have a thread on mine here.

I always start with a concept.

I've developed concepts from characters in movies, novels, my own imagination and miniatures.  Sometimes the source is inherently not 'optimized' - for example, in the Viking campaign (low-magic) we ran, my mini
(see image here: http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02295) had a warhammer and a sword.  Of course I chose to dual-wield, but this was 3.x, so that was really a bad choice.  A shield or a two-handed weapon were more optimal.  But in any case, my character (Ginther Gutherson) remains one of my favorite characters of all time.  

Sometimes the concept doesn't lend itself to true 'optimization', but I concur that one must ensure your character is effective in their chosen role.  Ginther Gutherson was the 'face' of the party, and he chose skills and abilities that supported that role.  For example, he took 'Aristocrat' as his first level before Fighter to gain the additional skill points and 'fit' into the game world better.  From an optimization point of view, rogue or even bard would have been better, but they didn't support the concept.  

Concept first - but then try to make sure your choices support that character, and assuming effectiveness is part of your vision - make sure you achieve it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685136I think you're the exception then.  I would say 95% of the games I played in, starting with AD&D (so pretty much the beginning of the game life cycle minus a couple years), players rolled 4d6 drop 1, assign in order.  I think way more players used that method than roll 3d6 straight down.  Why?  Because they had a visual concept in mind and that method allowed them to do it.

Whereas for my part, I've never seen a method like this used.  I won't question that 95% of the gamers in your area use it -- although that must be a pretty tiny, insular gaming circle for everyone to use one particular variant rule -- but I wouldn't have extrapolated use of that house rule to every gamer everywhere.

That being said, since I've worked with point-buy since 1981, I dodge the controversy altogether.

Quote from: Originally Posted by jedimastertI think the spreadsheets, feats, daily powers, etc. in newer games are an over reaction to that lady in your picture being told "sorry you can't have that character you were dreaming of".

I am not hostile to older games or random character generation. I am merely pointing out that I think the emphasis on character customization in newer games is a reaction to the randomness in older games character generation systems.

Unfortunately with character customization comes the evils of character optimization and that spreadsheet example you gave.

I am not saying you are wrong, but I also, unpopular as this view may be view this need to cusomize as being part of the attempt to attract the younger, less mature crowd that many games evince.  That reaction you talk about is also part of trying to attract more of a younger, less mature crowd to play.  

'Everyone gets to play the character they were dreaming of is' another side of trying to attract younger gamers.  there are positive sides, but negative ones as well.  I play with adults, so much of this whole conversation is alien to me.

I've always maintained that if you needed a computer to generate a character the rules are too complex.  But then we never used a computer to do RMSS characters

Quote from: Ravenswing;685265Whereas for my part, I've never seen a method like this used.  I won't question that 95% of the gamers in your area use it -- although that must be a pretty tiny, insular gaming circle for everyone to use one particular variant rule -- but I wouldn't have extrapolated use of that house rule to every gamer everywhere.

That being said, since I've worked with point-buy since 1981, I dodge the controversy altogether.

Seeing as how the method I described is method one in the DMG that's been around since 1979, and there is no point buy method, I would say it's you that is in some sort of tiny, insular gaming circle.

I do not find 5e caters to min/maxing at all.  In fact, I find they are taking great pains to get away from min/maxing, getting tons of shit from the min/maxers in the process. I don't know why you'd paint it with such a broad brush after a single conversation with someone about a mountain dwarf wizard (whatever the fuck that is), but I don't think your single conversation was representative of the game in general.

Quote from: Mistwell;685274I do not find 5e caters to min/maxing at all.  In fact, I find they are taking great pains to get away from min/maxing, getting tons of shit from the min/maxers in the process. I don't know why you'd paint it with such a broad brush after a single conversation with someone about a mountain dwarf wizard (whatever the fuck that is), but I don't think your single conversation was representative of the game in general.

My reading of it and subsequent exposure to it on forums, was that the game achieves 'balance' in that its possible to min-max every character to the exact same level of combat effectiveness through any class. This went along with players who did not invest into a detailed learning of the rules would not end up with a character at the same peak of effectiveness as those players who achieved (their words, by way of Gygax) "system mastery". Hence what was previously referred to as 'min-maxing' was no longer a breaking of the rules to create ridiculously more combat effective characters than the rules intended, it was using the same approach to achieve this maximum effectiveness allowed. Hence character optimization.

Its brilliant really, I have to say I've always been impressed with the system. Its just, .I don't really see what any of that has to do with role playing.