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.

I honestly don't know what you meant to say.

Quote from: hamstertamer;685291I honestly don't know what you meant to say.

Most games don't come up with much more than a list of stats and send you on your merry way, there's no effort to fill out a character with history and you know, character, and encourage roleplaying from that springboard, so players end up overly focused on mechanics, rules, and min-maxing.

Some games do try to go further but have no clear idea how to do that, and end up being very messy or requiring heavy suspension of disbelief. I include recent games in that category as well (although older games using things like CoC's insanity system obviously do write down more than the combat stats).

I subsequently linked to my own system under development which attempts to create a cohesive and compelling character as a fleshed out person, do go check it out.

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

I heartily agree. Plus it can make a more "crunchy" system go down much more easily, as you are having genuine fun while creating the 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.

It's one of the four standard methods given in the AD&D DMG. And it was norm among the half-dozen or groups I was familiar with in the 80s as well.

My theory is that the number-crunchers flooded into D&D when the historical wargaming hobby collapsed in the late 80s. There have always been geeks who love to optimize numbers and engage in games on a purely analytical level. At one time they played chess. Then they played wargames (Squad Leader sold something like 250,000 copies). But when interest in history and wargames declined in the 80s, and fantasy went mainstream, a new generation of analytic optimizers  sought out RPGs, and then Magic: the Gathering. By the time D&D 3e came out, it was seized on by this segment of the geek population. D&D lost widespread, casual appeal, but gained a more intense cadre of fans, who would also spend more money each.

I genuinely believe WotC is trying to pull D&D out of the clutches of this small, but dedicated group, and return D&D to being more of a casual game of generating fantasy adventure stories.

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.

Well, for what it's worth, assigning the scores to the abilities as you see fit, has been the default everywhere I have played as well. Of course anecdotal evidence isn't worth that much and your experience may vary, but I guess it makes sense that people would allow assigning, as roleplay is often sold on the idea of realising your dream/fantasy.

As a DM I often suggested the random attribution of scores as it promotes creative roleplay, but I never forced anyone down that path.

Quote from: johnnih;685373Well, for what it's worth, assigning the scores to the abilities as you see fit, has been the default everywhere I have played as well. Of course anecdotal evidence isn't worth that much and your experience may vary, but I guess it makes sense that people would allow assigning, as roleplay is often sold on the idea of realising your dream/fantasy.

Not to mention that D&D is a game that relies on class roles, and sometimes the party just needs another fighter (or cleric, etc.).

When the company that made Magic the Gathering decided to make a new edition of D&D, they carried over a lot of the same game design philosophies. In both games you choose from a huge list of specific mechanical options in an attempt to build an effective platform for strategic, competitive play at the table. Min-maxing is not only expected it is encouraged, and their publishing strategy (player-facing splatbooks) is designed to milk the maximum amount of money out of that situation. Maybe WotC didn't anticipate exactly how far the charop movement would go, but certainly they expected it to happen and encouraged it.

4d6 drop lowest and arrange to taste has been the expected method in all the AD&D games I've been involved in as well.

Quote from: johnnih;685373Well, for what it's worth, assigning the scores to the abilities as you see fit, has been the default everywhere I have played as well. Of course anecdotal evidence isn't worth that much and your experience may vary, but I guess it makes sense that people would allow assigning, as roleplay is often sold on the idea of realising your dream/fantasy.

I'd be willing to guess it was, and is, more common than not; the first point-buy games were published before 1980 as well, to serve that same impulse.

It was not, however, the only (way to play a roleplaying) game in town, with games like Traveller, Flashing Blades, and Warhemmer Fantasy Roleplay still rolling stats in order, nor was it only 'a couple of years' . . .

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685136. . . (so pretty much the beginning of the game life cycle minus a couple years) . . .

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685161A method that's been around, like I said, almost the very beginning minus a couple years.

. . . in which 3d6 in order was the norm in D&D - it was five years and three versions of the game later that it became rules-as-written with the 1e DMG in '79.

All of which misses the larger point that you can approach character creation a number of ways, and 'theme-first' isn't a hallmark of some sort of 'superior roleplayer.'

Quote from: johnnih;685373As a DM I often suggested the random attribution of scores as it promotes creative roleplay, but I never forced anyone down that path.

I do the same in my current campaign. While I prefer 3d6 in order for myself and encourage other players to give it a try, I intro'd 4d6 drop lowest and arrange to taste as a house rule for my campaign.

And welcome to the adult swim.

Quote from: soviet;685377When the company that made Magic the Gathering decided to make a new edition of D&D, they carried over a lot of the same game design philosophies. In both games you choose from a huge list of specific mechanical options in an attempt to build an effective platform for strategic, competitive play at the table. Min-maxing is not only expected it is encouraged, and their publishing strategy (player-facing splatbooks) is designed to milk the maximum amount of money out of that situation. Maybe WotC didn't anticipate exactly how far the charop movement would go, but certainly they expected it to happen and encouraged it.

This is bullshit.  

Magic: The Gathering is a competitive game - players play versus other players to 'win'.  

D&D is a cooperative game - players play with other players to overcome challenges introduced by the GM.  

Further, if you listen to the 'char-op' crowd, if you're not playing a cleric or druid, you're not fully optimized.  Since not everyone plays a cleric or druid, clearly people are not sacrificing everything to the alter of making the most 'uber' character.  Instead, players take a concept and try to make it as effective as possible.

Even outside of the 'extreme uber' characters, it is very possible to create characters that are the same with attributes and class and still end up with one character that is extremely effective and one that is not.  'Fiddly Bits' like Feats (and spell selection) can make one character 'average' and one character much better than average.  The possibility of making 'good choices'  also means that 'bad choices' can also exist.  Some of the 'bad choices' depend on your concept - so what might be a bad idea for one character might be a good idea for another character.  

By way of comparison, a Fighter (not considered an optimal class) with Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave using a two-handed weapon is probably going to be more combat effective than a Fighter with Alertness/Great Fortitude/Exotic Weapon Proficiency.  

Issues tend to crop up at the table when one of the following happens:
a) an ineffective character resents more effective characters that chose 'synergized' abilities to create highly effective characters
b) highly effective characters resent less effective characters for 'not pulling their weight'
c) the game presumes a certain level of optimization and challenges become either too easy or too difficult because the players are either far below or far above that level

All of these issues can be addressed by individual gaming groups, but using the rules as written, they tend to crop up quite a lot.  

Despite the problems that it can create, I prefer having options to customize my characters.  In 2nd edition, the characters I remember most fondly are the ones that used Kits; I don't know why customization appeals to me, but I can't deny that it does.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685131Now?  Now the focus seems to be on min/maxing first, and then theme later...

It's an attitude shifting away from thematic concept to maximum combat effectiveness.

Sacro, play different games.

Quote from: Haffrung;685372My theory is that the number-crunchers flooded into D&D when the historical wargaming hobby collapsed in the late 80s. There have always been geeks who love to optimize numbers and engage in games on a purely analytical level. At one time they played chess. Then they played wargames (Squad Leader sold something like 250,000 copies). But when interest in history and wargames declined in the 80s, and fantasy went mainstream, a new generation of analytic optimizers  sought out RPGs, and then Magic: the Gathering. By the time D&D 3e came out, it was seized on by this segment of the geek population. D&D lost widespread, casual appeal, but gained a more intense cadre of fans, who would also spend more money each.

I genuinely believe WotC is trying to pull D&D out of the clutches of this small, but dedicated group, and return D&D to being more of a casual game of generating fantasy adventure stories.

if your 30,000 foot view is correct, the hobby will be in a better place.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685393This is bullshit.  

Magic: The Gathering is a competitive game - players play versus other players to 'win'.  

D&D is a cooperative game - players play with other players to overcome challenges introduced by the GM.  

It isn't bullshit. The competition is between the DM's challenges (designed per RAW) against the player's builds (designed per RAW) with the rules in charge of the game itself.

The products & marketing all support that premise. The competion shifted from player vs player to players vs DM. The deck building aspect is otherwise the same.

The game could be played in other ways and most likely frequently was. It doesn't change the design and marketing aspects of the actual products though.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685406It isn't bullshit. The competition is between the DM's challenges (designed per RAW) against the player's builds (designed per RAW) with the rules in charge of the game itself.

And how is that different from any other edition of D&D?  Players create characters (using rules) and the DM populates the world with monsters (usually from books - sometimes their own unique creations) and the players try to overcome those challenges.  Even the most sand-box style game has 'overcome challenges' as part of the play.  

In 3.x and every other version of the game, competition against the world is an expected part of play.  In every other version of the game, there is an expectation that the rules will be followed.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be any rules.  

So, I don't know what bug you have up your butt, but if you think 3.x represents a massive shift in terms of the nature of competition at the table, I think you should either explain why or accept that your claim is bullshit.  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685406The products & marketing all support that premise. The competion shifted from player vs player to players vs DM. The deck building aspect is otherwise the same.

What you call deck-building, I call 'options'.  Options can make a game more interesting.  Everyone, including you, agrees with that.  The game wouldn't be as interesting if 'Fighter' were the only choice for class.  Having fighters and wizards and rogues and humans and elves and dwarves all make for more options and a more interesting game.  We might disagree on how many options is too many, and we might disagree when an option is inappropriate (can a ninja exist in a medieval Europe style game) - but to a point, options are good.  

As a company, WotC benefits when more people buy their products.  Just because someone buys something doesn't make it acceptable.  When I've run 3.x, I usually specify 'core only' with anything outside of core requiring specific DM approval.  Certainly there are times when a player disagrees with why I don't want a specific option in my game, but that's something I can handle when it comes up.  What I've found over time, though, is that most of the time, accommodating the player doesn't put as much strain on the game as I feared.  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;685406The game could be played in other ways and most likely frequently was. It doesn't change the design and marketing aspects of the actual products though.

If the game can be played 'lots of ways' and 'frequently is', then either the 'marketing' doesn't actually mean anything or you're mischaracterizing the marketing.  

I think it's both.  I don't see how the marketing cry "Back to the Dungeon" creates a competitive deck building mentality.