The last couple of games I've reviewed (Wayfarers, A/O) and the one I'm working on now (omnifray) have all been games that have a kind of rules-heavy vibe to them, and all three are entirely point-buy in character creation.
Especially with the two fantasy games, this just kills me. The whole idea of having to wheedle around beancounting to get your attributes rather than rolling them and taking your chances like a man instantly drops a game at least one or two points in my level of appreciation. I remember thinking with Wayfarers that I would have loved it if they hadn't sucked all the randomization out of it, which to me is like sucking the life out of it. Especially with a game that could almost, almost be called "old school" otherwise. Its like they're missing the point!
RPGPundit
Point buy has it's disadvantages true. But rolling dice for stats is Manly? '
If I'd only known I would never have joined the Foreign Legion, stayed at the Shaolin monastery for special training and worked my way across the US in a road gang.
I could have just stayed home and played that ugly, stupid, clumsy fighter.
That premise is dumb. With the correct amount of points, you can easily simulate the effect of dice rolls, except the player gets to play someone who is marginally competent.
The effects of stats were downplayed to the degree that they were nearly irrelevant in older editions of D&D, at the very least. You could easily have replaced Intelligence with Magical Aptitude, and nothing else really would have been affected. Wisdom with Mental Fortitude, and so on. The second or third edition of Gamma World clearly demonstrates this, as they nearly pulled the character rules straight over. but renamed some of the attributes.
The best compromise is to have a small pool of points to adjust the rolls. Mostly to bump a dismal score to something closer to average, rather than boost a good score over the top.
Older skill based games had a similar problem with abilities, in that skills were often much less expensive to upgrade, hence, the game supported nurture over nature, whether intentional or not.
So, give enough points to put the average score in each ability, and it's all good. Five abilities from 1-8, 4.5 average, 22 points. 20 points if you want gritty.
I agree with SB. Point buy isn't necessarily bad.
EDIT: A qualification. I prefer random roll in games where stats aren't uber. B/X D&D or classic Traveller, f'rinstance.
Yeah. Dice rolling generally leads to one PC who is shit hot, and a bunch of mediocre doofuses who then spend the campaign being browbeaten.
(Given the fact almost every RPG group has at least 1 member who plays the game like its Grand Theft Auto, this can be.. not so fun.)
Point buy has its munchy side, but everyone is at least relatively on par with one another.
Not that the odd ROLL AND GO thing can't be fun. In games where you can do either or in some things like Dark Heresy, I give XP bonuses to players who "Put their faith and trust in the Emperor's will" and roll everything.
I've come to dislike Point-Buy schemes like this because it might as well be Creation by Template. The honest thing to do is to let the munchkins at CharOp work it over and find the optimal configerations for each relevant combination, and then build the PC Templates from their findings. No gimped PCs, no players left unclear as to what they're supposed to do at any given point during play, and no downtime wasted on meaningless bullshit.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;301677I've come to dislike Point-Buy schemes like this because it might as well be Creation by Template. The honest thing to do is to let the munchkins at CharOp work it over and find the optimal configerations for each relevant combination, and then build the PC Templates from their findings. No gimped PCs, no players left unclear as to what they're supposed to do at any given point during play, and no downtime wasted on meaningless bullshit.
And that is a downside. If you are playing the Fightery guy, then you know you are going to dump your points into Strength and distribute the rest more or less evenly among the remaining scores.
In that case, rolling or randomizing the abilities with a small pool to improve some initially would likely work better.
Quote from: RPGPundit;301645The last couple of games I've reviewed (Wayfarers, A/O) and the one I'm working on now (omnifray) have all been games that have a kind of rules-heavy vibe to them, and all three are entirely point-buy in character creation.
Especially with the two fantasy games, this just kills me. The whole idea of having to wheedle around beancounting to get your attributes rather than rolling them and taking your chances like a man instantly drops a game at least one or two points in my level of appreciation. I remember thinking with Wayfarers that I would have loved it if they hadn't sucked all the randomization out of it, which to me is like sucking the life out of it. Especially with a game that could almost, almost be called "old school" otherwise. Its like they're missing the point!
RPGPundit
I don't like point-buy for D&D (bean counting for other games like WoD games is okay, since just a dot of discrepency between characters could make such a difference in game play). I like to take my chances with the dice, and all the players who played at my game table did as well (I actually proposed point-buy to the players of my Ptolus campaign. They had rolled for our previous Arcana Unearthed games, and actually vehemently opposed point-buy. I was surprised, to tell you the truth). I've never met the player who went "Aw FUCK. I want Point Buy to be fair!" I hope I don't.
Point buy can be okay. I do get a bit obsessed by fairness and whilst dice are fair from the off a bad set of numbers can ruin a game for someone and the idea is for everyone to have fun.
Also its all about roleplay for me and I will often have spent some time thinking about the character I want to play and if I end up with 3 7's a 9 an 11 and a 12 I will find it hard to play a fantasy version of Zorro. We will spend an entire 3 hour session making characters often as not. I have, of course done roll em and play em games and for single games they are fine but for a character you really buy into and want to play for years not so likely.
A variation, that comes from the original Barbarian, is to do point buy with the dice. 4d6 highest three and arrange as you like is really a pool of 24d6. So pick your class and then assign the dice to the stats. So you want to play a Dwarven Warrior might have 6d6 Str, 5d6 Con, 4d6 Dex and 3d6 in the rest. I would set a minimum of 3d for any stat but a DM might allow you to drop to 2d6 in one .
but no one will like that :-)
Quote from: Cognitive Dissident;301657Point buy has it's disadvantages true. But rolling dice for stats is Manly? '
If I'd only known I would never have joined the Foreign Legion, stayed at the Shaolin monastery for special training and worked my way across the US in a road gang.
I could have just stayed home and played that ugly, stupid, clumsy fighter.
:rotfl:
Cognitive Dissident has the right idea.
Sometimes I like point-buy, and sometimes I like rolling randomly. I guess it depends on my mood. We're using 30 point-buy in our D&D 3.5 campaign, and it works fine. On the other hand, if I were playing WFRP 2e again, I'd probably stick with rolling randomly, because for that game, it just feels right. It has nothing to do with "manliness" for me. :)
Quote from: KenHR;301673EDIT: A qualification. I prefer random roll in games where stats aren't uber. B/X D&D or classic Traveller, f'rinstance.
That's about where I'm sitting. For supers, going gonzo like MSH FASERIP or V&V isn't my cuppa anymore, and powers tend to be pointed enough that I don't experience the same sort of toe-stomping and pattern builds I do in modern and fantasy.
But boy howdy... get it away from me in Fantasy, SF, and Modern.
I don't believe in the whole "take your chances" thing. I don't see the chance of sucking as being a benefit of random rolling. I see increased variety, "dice-as-a-muse", lack of bean-counting, and limits on overspecialized builds as being the advantages. As such, my preferred rolling methods limit the spread, allow mulligans or (best yet), use cards instead of dice to make sure that while you don't have total freedom (burden) to pick your stats, all PCs have the same stat total.
This is not official, but:- Omnifray Random Chargen:-
Each stat is 2d4+2 except Alacrity which is roll d6:- 1 gives you Alacrity 6, 2-5 gives you Alacrity 7, 6 gives you Alacrity 8. Size/Target you determine in the normal Omnifray way (not randomly).
If you find you have two stats which are unfeasibly far apart (e.g. Strength 4, Agility 4 and Alacrity 6, Melee Prowess 10), then reduce a stat by 1 point and raise another stat by 1 point (randomly select which of several possible candidates to raise or reduce), and repeat until you have a feasible set of stats (ref's discretion as to when you do). Or just live with really weird stats.
You then get 2d8+1 CGP to spend on traits.
My problem with point-buy is that most players take ages to create their characters as they agonise over a point here or there, all in a desperate attempt to munchkin out - and then they do such a shitty job of munchkining. They become so focused on maxing out whatever they think is the most important stuff that they give themselves crippling weaknesses; or else they try to be jacks of all trades, and end up being shitty at everything.
If you're going to end up with an overly-focused or overly-spread-out character anyway, you may as well just roll them up - at least it's quick.
Another aspect of point-buy is that while minimaxing, players forget about character. They work the numbers first and come up with the personality and background later; these characters are invariably boring, as someone tries to justify why they have Sword-201% and only two other skills.
Particularly imaginative players may make an interesting character with point-buy, but these same imaginative players make amazing characters with random roll.
Random roll is quick, and may give interesting results, or may give boring results. Point-buy is slow, and usually gives boring results.
Quote from: jibbajibba;301702Point buy can be okay. I do get a bit obsessed by fairness and whilst dice are fair from the off a bad set of numbers can ruin a game for someone and the idea is for everyone to have fun.
That's my view, too.
One option is to have a baseline stat total, and allow players to re-roll if their PC comes in under that.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;301755Random roll is quick, and may give interesting results, or may give boring results. Point-buy is slow, and usually gives boring results.
Your experience can't be generalised to cover everyone else's. I believe the Americans have a term - YMMV?
YMMV
Quote from: Hairfoot;301759Your experience can't be generalised to cover everyone else's.
Maybe so. But you demonstrate that by describing your different experiences.
Tell us about the awesomely interesting characters even unimaginative players were able to create with entirely point-buy systems in game sessions you've been in.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;301765Maybe so. But you demonstrate that by describing your different experiences.
Tell us about the awesomely interesting characters even unimaginative players were able to create with entirely point-buy systems in game sessions you've been in.
Either of us may represent the majority. There's no way of knowing.
You didn't mention unimaginative players. You said
imaginative players make better characters without point-buy.
Don't ask me to contest an argument you never made.
Okay, so you have no experiences to back up your claims. That's okay. We know we can ignore what you say.
I do. I've played and run GURPS for years, an entirely point-buy system. Most of the characters were boring and had no background or personality. Players usually reverted to their favourite cliches, like being a horny wrestler and so on. Most commonly, the character was just the player in personality.
The characters created with other systems by random roll such as Classic Traveller, the player couldn't revert to their favourite cliches, nor could they imagine the character as themselves, they had to choose something else. So the random rolling helped unimaginative players create more interesting characters than they would have otherwise, and the imaginative players really shone.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;301767Okay, so you have no experiences to back up your claims. That's okay. We know we can ignore what you say.
Ah, the Henry Kissinger strategy: declare victory and retreat.
If you want to do some chest beating, let's not bother comparing gaming experience, and cut to the chase with dick measurements. 13 inches! Woo!
I just hate point buy because I like the characters to have different stats. It is nice when the spread isn't 18 13 13 13 13 10 for every character.
I think point buy was invented for people that cheat on die rolls. I think point buy is perfect for them.
I have to say that I agree with Kyle's point here, in general terms. Of course there can be exceptions, but usually he's right. Random chargen is just that, random. Sometimes you'll have awesome characters, sometimes mediocre ones, sometimes weak ones; but the results, from not being meticulously micromanaged, are likely to tend toward the unusual.
And it is usually much faster than point-buy.
Point buy, as well as being slower, tends towards creating characters that are above all uninteresting. I certainly don't think I've ever seen anyone create a sub-par character intentionally with point-buy, and its pretty much impossible to create a really superior character with it, though players will certainly spend HOURS trying to.
RPGPundit
Oh, I lament the elimination of randomness as much as anyone. I opted out of D&D because the structural character-building became more of a focus than the actual playing.
Point-buy is one part of that, and there are decent arguments for and against, but currently I'm enjoying watching Kyle lose his shit just because someone doesn't accept his opinion as the Last Word.
I'm still waiting for his dick measurement. 13 inches, dude, thir-teen.
Point Buy is okay, but tends to be too damn slow.
Combine that with a lethal rules-set (such as Aces & Eights, which has a lot of PB options), and you really disincentivize me from wanting to run or play your game.
Quote from: Hairfoot;301769Ah, the Henry Kissinger strategy: declare victory and retreat.
It's not a "retreat" when I hold onto the position, and present evidence of experience to justify it.
Of course you may argue that experience means nothing, since everyone has different experiences. But then there is no sense in having conversations at all, since we have nothing to learn from each-other's experiences. If you think we can learn nothing from conversations with one another, then you have no reason to be on a discussion forum, so shut the fuck up.
I think that everyone can speak from experience, but some people's experiences are deeper and/or broader than other's. We demonstrate that experience by describing it.
I think as I do based on my experiences, which are that random roll characters
may be interesting, or may be boring; but point-buy characters are
usually boring. I'll go for possible success over almost certain failure any day.
When we point-buy, we naturally go for minimaxed characters, or turn to a single familiar and comfortable cliche. When we random-roll, we're sometimes forced out of our comfort zone and try something new. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't; it is in any case more interesting. With some players, random roll can mean feeling less attached to the character, "if they die I'll roll up another." Whereas if you spent hours creating it, you're more likely to be attached. So there's that against it.
If your experiences are different, describe them for us, so we can learn from each-other. Or shut up.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;301782If your experiences are different, describe them for us, so we can learn from each-other. Or shut up.
I go for option C: not comparing dicks and not shutting up. I could describe my experiences, but you'll simply discount them, in the belief that yours are more significant because they're yours.
I agree with you 100% on the flight to cliches instead of well-developed and original characters, but point-buy is the least-contributing factor to that trend.
This is a very odd subject to get so wound up about. It's obvious that you're trying to build this up into a serious issue so that we'll forget you went ape-shit because I regard your opinion as just an opinion, and not a fundamental cosmic law.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;301767Players usually reverted to their favourite cliches, like being a horny wrestler and so on. Most commonly, the character was just the player in personality.
Your gaming group is made of horny wrestlers?
As I mentioned in another thread, point buy has been outlawed in our D&D game, and I'm running 4E. My group refuses to use point buy, because they said something along the lines of, "We'd much rather roll them up and see what happens."
I was perfectly fine with that. After all, I like seeing the guy who normally plays a sweaty barbarian type trying his hand at the Avenger class, and my wife who love arcane casters giving Druid a go.
We use 4d6, drop low, and roll them in order. Only then do people start thinking about what they'll be playing. It's lead to some interesting characters, and to some people expanding their comfort zones for what they like to play. In my book, that's a success.
I'm not saying that this could never happen with a point buy system, but I can say that were it not for our rolling rules, my wife would be playing a cookie-cutter Wizard right now. After all, I had to hear about how much she'd rather be playing a wizard for the first few days after our character creation session.
Quote from: jswa;301787Your gaming group is made of horny wrestlers?
Luckily, no. But that was a cliche one particular player kept returning to. After a few campaigns with horny wrestlers, I got very bored with it, and when he asked to join the next campaign, I said, "on condition that you play a different character." He said, "okay!" and stepped on up and created some very interesting characters.
A second player also played the same cliche every time, basically Ash from the
Evil Dead series. This, like the horny wrestler, was funny the first couple of times, but after a year or so got boring for me as GM. At the same time as the first guy, I asked this one to do something different. He cracked the shits and quit the group.
In both cases, we were about to use a point-buy system. Had we been using a random roll system, then they would have ended up playing whatever they rolled up, and I wouldn't have had to ask them to change or piss any players off.
Note that in speaking of "random roll", I mean
almost everything or
everything should be random rolled. If it's just attributes then skill and/or dis/advantage choices make it essentially point-buy. True "random roll" gives you random skills and dis/advantages, too. I think it's wise to have a few extra points to put in if the player decides they can't bear some low stat, or wants to take some low-level skill and make it more formidable.
Sometimes people just want to play what they want to play.
Different strokes for different folks. There is no ONE TRUE WAY, and anyone who says anything otherwise is an idiot.
Quote from: jswa;301796Sometimes people just want to play what they want to play.
They do, and that's fair enough. But sometimes
other people get tired of that, and would like them to change. After a year or so of the same corny lines, the same jokes, the same predictable behaviour, the player might still love it, but others might like a change.
For example, me as GM, I
love modern espionage campaigns. Some players like them, some don't - most like them for a bit and then want something different. Now I could just continue running those campaigns, and gradually piss everyone off, or I could change and run something different.
If the
GM has to compromise and run a different
campaign from time to time, it's only reasonable that
players have to compromise and run different
characters from time to time. We all compromise, that's the nature of a voluntary social hobby.
So they can change, and try something different, or just leave the group, or take to GMing instead of playing.
QuoteDifferent strokes for different folks. There is no ONE TRUE WAY, and anyone who says anything otherwise is an idiot.
And there's no one true way of playing characters, either. Players can change from time to time. It won't kill them.
The guy who wouldn't compromise, far as I know he hasn't gamed in the year or two since. That's what happens when you won't compromise. I hope that'll change soon, since he's a great guy personally and is missed by most of my gaming circle.
Random roll helps in playing different characters, because it helps you come up with characters you'd never have thought of by yourself.
I agree, Amber would be a far better game if the horrible point buy system of character building were removed and replaced with a far more sensible system of randomly generated stats.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;301800And there's no one true way of playing characters, either. Players can change from time to time. It won't kill them.
So you're flexible on the "my opinions = transcendental truth" bit, then?
Quote from: Daztur;301801I agree, Amber would be a far better game if the horrible point buy system of character building were removed and replaced with a far more sensible system of randomly generated stats.
Yeah it is pretty funny that Pundit hates point buy but loves Amber.
In Defence of Points-Buy (1) - Anecdotal Evidence
Speaking purely for my own part, I've points-bought my way into characters who were suboptimal. I play in a number of LARP systems where, by and large, there are ways of opting for less powerful characters who are in some other way more interesting - perhaps because they have weak but unusual talents, sometimes simply because they ARE weak in some particular areas and often because others won't be expecting you to be able to do the minor but weird things that you can do or to have the suboptimal but unusual combination of abilities that you have.
My favourite character ever had, at least when he started play, no ability to inflict damage on anyone whatsoever, save by casting Fireball, the casting of which would have rendered him unconscious (and nearly dead) due to casting damage. He was my favourite character because it was great to play a pyromaniac nutcase with the euphemistic catchphrase "I want to bring light and warmth to the world"... sadly he got PvP'd for attacking a captive (I'm not sure my attacks were doing any damage but they still got me killed).
And I am certainly not alone in being willing to play characters which are suboptimal, if they are in some other way interesting - if they are a character I have CHOSEN to play, and a character which interests me - or if they are a character which the ref has deliberately chosen for me to play on the grounds that it will make the game more interesting for everyone, including me.
Of all the PCs I have ever statted for my game Omnifray, the most powerful in melee combat (the default kind of conflict for many roleplayers, whatever system they're using) was the spirit of bloodletting in nature, who had possessed a human girl. The player I offered the PC to turned her down on the grounds that she was too awesome in combat. As the Americans say, go figure.
For these reasons I refute utterly the misconceived suggestion that everyone who plays points-buy characters is determined to munch them up to the max. It's just not empirically true.
Sure, some people take that approach. But as Pundy says, it's often very difficult to do (depending on the points-buy system), so they're wasting their own time. And if they want to be min-max master munchkins, they can take that on the chin, because they can hardly say that they don't deserve it. But yes, in many of the LARP games I play I often find myself just checking that the powers that I'm choosing are at least capable of working in combination with each other, that there are some synergies there, that I'm not totally screwing myself over with duff choices; in (my tabletop game) Omnifray, my characters always end up with at least reasonable stats in the main areas that their feats (powers) depend on. On the other hand, I would never play a character with implausible and stupid stats (e.g. in D&D terms Str 18 Con 3) just because it happened to have some min-max advantage (e.g. the DM allows me to buy an item which boosts my Con to 18 no matter what its natural value would be, so I points-buy my way to Con 3, but still want Str 18 - that would be the height of awful as far as I'm concerned).
In Defence of Points-Buy (2)
Regarding the suggestion that people who like points-buy are the same people who cheat on dice-rolls - what a complete and utter load of baloney. I'm a points-buy fanatic and as far as I can remember I have never cheated (as a player) on a single dice-roll ever. As a ref I have occasionally fudged dice-roll to benefit the players (NOT their enemies), but not really since my game Omnifray came out. The worst I am guilty of as a ref is often bending the rules on temporary fate points and Charmed Lives to keep player characters alive. But probably more often than not when the dice have said they die, I've let them die. Not having the balls for that undermines the credibility of the game.
Points-buy means your character can be DESIGNED to be whichever sort of character will make the game more fun, either for you (at your choice) or for the group (at the ref's choice, or your choice, or the whole group's choice).
Usually, most players expect a level playing field. There's no obvious reason why they should start a game with a strictly inferior character to anyone else. If another character can do EVERYTHING that yours can do in every way as well as yours can, AND more, what's your role in the game? Points-buy ensures that that situation never arises UNLESS deliberately engineered. At a minimum, the ref would have to be letting one player have more points to spend than another.
I would personally experiment with letting one player have more points than the others (a higher level character etc.), though I doubt it would be popular - but I would not lightly allow one player's character to be STRICTLY superior to another's.
Anyway, this brings me to what the essence of points-buy is:- making a CHOICE in CharGen which involves some kind of trade-off, whether it is that you get an advantage for a points cost, a disadvantage for a points saving or a mix of advantage and disadvantage for neutral cost.
In D&D the ability to choose your character class has this function. You choose a whole package of advantages and disadvantages. We could argue all day long over whether in some editions of D&D for instance clerics are overpowered or thieves are underpowered, but the fact remains that the choice of character class is a major element of deliberate CHOICE in CharGen, so D&D CharGen never has been truly purely random.
The suggestion that it is random becomes particularly farcical if you are allowed to put your ability scores in whatever order you want.
If I can choose my class, why not also the arrangement of my ability scores and other advantages/disadvantages such as skills/proficiencies/hitpoints?
Anyway the point is that the reason for points-buy CharGen is NOT and never has been so that you play a powerful or competent character. The reason is so that you play the character of your CHOICE (or the ref's, or the group's), with the overall level of power which the ref (or the group) has deemed appropriate. That means that the game that you end up playing is more likely to be the same sort of game that you WANT to play, and your role within it (if you have chosen it or at least had a say in it) is one you ENJOY. With truly random CharGen your enjoyment of the game is in the hands of Lady Luck. I am happy to take the risk of my character dying an ignominious death or ending up as a blind beggar after adventuring misfortune, but I don't want the theme and style of game that I'm playing to be left in the hands of Lady Luck. I want it to be a game that I'm going to enjoy - one that caters to my tastes. That's not about power or success - it's about style, and my role in the game.
For instance one of my worst experiences of roleplaying was in a points-buy system with an excellent world background which the very experienced and capable referee had carefully prepared. Why did I hate it so much? Because the referee point-blank refused to cater to the theme that I wanted for my character. At the time it had been a long time since I had played much tabletop, and I wanted the experience of playing a magic-user of some kind. The referee would only let there be one wizard in the party, and it wasn't me, so I ended up playing a berserker. I wouldn't say that the game was a complete waste of my time - it was an interesting learning experience to watch the ref at work and to learn a new system, and the group, thanks partly to my input in setting it up, went on to become a very solid one and the foundation of a small circle of friends (though I moved away and only visit occasionally). But as far as enjoyment of the game was concerned - that was hugely hampered for me by being constrained to play a non- magic-user due to the ref's dogmatic obstinacy.
Now since then I have played many characters with no wizard-type abilities, and some with no special abilities at all. I have more than 10 (maybe even 20) live player characters at the moment (mainly in 3 different LARP systems), and there's quite a lot of variety among them in terms of personality, ethos and abilities. But at the time I really wanted my wizard fix. If that was what I was going to enjoy, why wasn't I entitled to it?
In a true random CharGen system, I probably couldn't have expected to play a wizard (unless it was a game of pure wizardry of course).
In any edition of D&D I could pretty much be assured of playing a magic-user, but D&D doesn't count because it's NEVER been truly random CharGen. It's always been choice-based CharGen with a random element. The random element was reasonably important back in the 1970s and 1980s but got less and less so and now in 4e I believe it's gone altogether, or at best optional.
So that's the advantage of points-buy:- you get to choose what sort of character you want to play with, potentially, great flexibility.
Drawbacks?
Bean-counting? - yes, it can take time to create a character. I typically spend 30 to 45 minutes creating a character for my game Omnifray. New players may need longer. But if the game's going to last more than a couple of hours, and certainly if it's going to last 3+ sessions, then to me it's well worth it.
Besides, there are plenty of systems of CharGen with a random element where CharGen can be a lengthy process - Traveller (by reputation) and D&D 3.5 for instance (even if CharGen in D&D 3.5 is far from being entirely random). And plenty of systems where points-buy CharGen can be very quick - my game Sundered Space, for instance, with its much-simplified version of Omnifray CharGen. Or, to take an extreme example, Risus. And you can spend longer on a character concept and personality than on stats in any game, if you really want to.
If you have real trouble with the maths of any major points-buy CharGen system, you're probably going to have trouble with the maths of D&D 3.5 in any event, so just give up and let someone else do the maths for you.
Helping/hindering your imagination? - well, if you find that randomness helps fire yours or your players' imagination, fine. Randomly select some stats for them, work out how many points they have left, then let them points-buy the rest.
For instance, in Omnifray you could say:- Strength, Willpower, Understanding and Agility (scores out of 10) will each be determined with 2d4+2 (but if you roll 2 x 1 then reroll on a single d6-1 instead), and the rest is points-buy according to the rules but fitting the general framework of your random stats. But really, why not just PICK a concept on a whim from your imagination? If you have NO imagination then you are a tard anyway so who cares ;-) * Or let the ref or another player do CharGen for you.
* just kidding, y'all
Taking it like a man? - well, I think I've knocked that one on the head by saying that I've often CHOSEN to play weak characters. But I like that CHOICE to be made for a reason. I don't mind ending up rubbish over the course of a game, but I'd like it to be for some better reason than a few dice-rolls made at the very start of the game and unconnected to any choices I've made in or out of character.
My main beef with extensive points-buy systems is that they aren't very newbie friendly (generally). If you want to make a competent character then you need to have a degree of system mastery in order to do so. Fine for old hands, not so good when you're starting out -especially in systems that aren't simple.
You get exactly this same problem in any system where CharGen is choice-based UNLESS the choices are all ultimately equal. So in D&D 3.5 for instance anyone who plays a wizard is automatically at a disadvantage compared to anyone who plays a cleric or even a sorcerer (controversial, I admit). Anyone who chooses the Toughness feat is at a disadvantage at high levels. Etc.
And in truly random CharGen it's all in the lap of the gods whether your character is competent or not, regardless of whether you are a newbie or not; in other words, it's the same problem, except that it affects everyone, not just newbies, which IMHO makes it worse, YMMV.
So your real objection is not to points-buy, but to complex points-buy where not all choices are equal.
It's hard to make all choices constantly equal but I've done my best in my game Omnifray, so it's hard to make an incompetent character (you still can if you really try, e.g. choosing Willpower, Understanding and Perception of 0 and then exclusively choosing feats like Fire Blast, Healing and Death Magic which use those stats - though no doubt your character would end up being very, very good at something and his magic would still be of some use in some circumstances).
If you don't want CharGen to discriminate against newbie (or otherwise less-than-optimally competent) players, how can you prefer random CharGen which discriminates against anyone who's unlucky? Newbies will generally accept that others who know their way around the system are going to be capable of outgaming them. If it's a problem, the ref can always help the newbies out either with advice/assistance or points boosts at CharGen or during the game whether via tactical advice/tips or by fudging or favouring. In other words it's a non-point. So that leaves you with a choice between simple and complex points-buy. You object to complex points-buy because newbies MIGHT screw up and make weak characters?
But the complexity of complex points-buy systems is the price that you pay for huge flexibility and a relatively balanced system. Indeed, the complexity is often the byproduct of an attempt to make the system balanced.
Never mind, mate.
QuoteSometimes you'll have awesome characters, sometimes mediocre ones, sometimes weak ones; but the results, from not being meticulously micromanaged, are likely to tend toward the unusual.
And, all too often, they are not what the players wanted to play. It seems to me that GMs tend to overlook this crucial fact, and I blame it on not spending enough time as a player.
Point-based generation puts most of the power to create a character in the players' hands. "Random" generation puts most of it in the designer's hands.
QuotePoint buy, as well as being slower, tends towards creating characters that are above all uninteresting.
Your Pendragon game begs to differ, as do most Shadowrun games I've been part of.
QuoteI certainly don't think I've ever seen anyone create a sub-par character intentionally with point-buy,
See above.
Quoteand its pretty much impossible to create a really superior character with it, though players will certainly spend HOURS trying to.
See above.
(Reply to One Horse Town)
Sorry, I'm not trying to wear you down with the tedium of a wall of text, just maybe getting carried away with defending the One True Way ;-)
Quote from: Omnifray;301834(Reply to One Horse Town)
Sorry, I'm not trying to wear you down with the tedium of a wall of text, just maybe getting carried away with defending the One True Way ;-)
No worries. :)
It wasn't really your post in isolation - just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Within 2 days i've had people put words in my mouth, tell me what i really meant when i said something, apply meanings to what i've said when i've given no indication that this was the intention, make things up and generally make me lose interest in internet discourse.
Isn't a new thing - it's been going on for a while.
So no - it wasn't you in particular.
Losing interest in internet discourse --- is probably good for one's sanity and soul!
Quote from: Omnifray;301821In Defence of Points-Buy (2)
Regarding the suggestion that people who like points-buy are the same people who cheat on dice-rolls - what a complete and utter load of baloney.
Agreed with this.
I have used point buy systems to hamstring guy who always managed to never roll anything less than a 13 for their D&D characters (with at least one 18, sometimes a pair of 17s), for instance...I've used card-based systems to nerf the same guys...(in Marvel Classic, he rarely seemed to roll less than a 75 unless I was standing RIGHT THERE..in Marvel Saga, his luck seemed far more "comparable" to other peoples.)
I have played D&D 3.5 with a DM who let us randomly roll up our own characters. I've generally insisted on rolling up the character in front of the DM precisely because I know I'm going to roll decent stats and I don't want to feel that I'm under suspicion for it. When it wasn't possible for the DM to supervise, I got a mate of mine to supervise who's not in that gaming group but is a roleplayer. It might also have helped to lessen any temptation to say to myself "hang on that dice was crook'd" - when that might have been questionable - and at least I had an arbitrator there to make the decision for me if it became necessary!
My current Pathfinder Beta group (I'm playing a gnome sorcerer) have lots of dice which some of them have tested and they stick to the dice which roll the best numbers, i.e. the dice are probably not perfectly evenly weighted although there's no suggestion that they're deliberately loaded. TBH it fux me right off, the need for biased or loaded dice is symptomatic of being a fuckmunch*, with the greatest of respect to those involved. (I'm not saying that they personally are fuckmunches, just that wanting biased or loaded dice is, in isolation, a very fuckmunchy thing indeed.)
* fuckmunch:- typically, a man who performs orally on his wife after another man has had her, i.e. someone who is pathetic or at best very unfussy indeed
PS this may be the most obvious advantage of points-buy:- you can do it in the comfort of your own home without the rest of the group being there, submit the character for the ref to approve, job done - no QUESTION of any need to have anyone standing over you physically while you roll dice. So, VERY convenient.
I would like to think that in a mature group of players you don't need supervision to roll dice but as I stated above I personally REQUEST supervision when rolling dice because otherwise I'll be thinking people aren't utterly convinced unless the result is pretty mediocre or terrible.
And one of the refs of a LARP game I play tells me that from his experience of reffing boffer LARPs, EVERYONE lies about the hits they take. I have to say I try to be accurate about mine, but sometimes the temptation to think to yourself "well, that blow didn't really make contact with me properly - I hardly felt it" or "I think I only took 3 or 4 blows, let's say 3" when in reality you may have taken anywhere between 3 and 10 blows and you're not sure --- is a real temptation. And OFTEN in high-hit systems it's hard to remember accurately if there are big fights and long periods of time between reporting hits (battleboarding). This is not quite the same as cheating at dice-rolls but very similar.
I would like to think that mature adults could handle the results of random character generation and make it their own to have a positive and fun experience rather than becoming jealous because their character is "inferior" to the others in the group.
And all these points for and against are why I appreciate both methods of chargen equally. Building a character lets me indulge my munchkinism, and random lets me stretch my imagination.
Quote from: Sigmund;301857And all these points for and against are why I appreciate both methods of chargen equally. Building a character lets me indulge my munchkinism, and random lets me stretch my imagination.
Well said, and I agree.
Quote from: FASERIP;301781Point Buy is okay, but tends to be too damn slow.
Combine that with a lethal rules-set (such as Aces & Eights, which has a lot of PB options), and you really disincentivize me from wanting to run or play your game.
Lethality of the system is a good point. Any complex character generation system is a drag if characters can die in one strike. RoleMaster defeated me when a one-hit crit destroyed a carefully prepped NPC; it was my fault for happening (mishandled his walk-on, I guess), but still....
Do both point buy and random. Let a player use point buy for the stats he really thinks are important and make him randomly roll the rest. This gives some control to the player plus some room for the unexpected. For example, I want to create a Fighter. His three most important stats are Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. Spending 20 points between these three, gives me stats of Str- 16, Dex- 14, Con-12. Now I roll 3d6 in order for the rest. I end up with Int- 8, Wis-9, Cha- 15. Hmm... sounds like a rather dim witted, blond, muscle man - much more interesting than straight 10's. It also pushes his point value to 29 which is higher than the standard 25 point build. But as the higher value is due to a stat that won't have much effect due to the Fighter's lack of Charisma based skills it won't really cause him to overshadow any other character.
Quote from: Sigmund;301857And all these points for and against are why I appreciate both methods of chargen equally. Building a character lets me indulge my munchkinism, and random lets me stretch my imagination.
Points-buy frees me to stretch my imagination.
Random allows teenagers to indulge feelings of self-loathing by forcing themselves to play a character that they would never have chosen.
;-)
Quote from: Omnifray;301971Random allows teenagers to indulge feelings of self-loathing by forcing themselves to play a character that they would never have chosen.
;-)
It might do that for teenagers, but for this adult it allows me to be surprised by what i end up with, and encourages me to think of why this end product would be doing what it's doing.
I don't understand why there seems to have to be an either/or thing here. What is wrong with using both methods occasionally?
Quote from: Omnifray;301971Points-buy frees me to stretch my imagination.
Random allows teenagers to indulge feelings of self-loathing by forcing themselves to play a character that they would never have chosen.
;-)
Quote from: Sigmund;301975It might do that for teenagers, but for this adult it allows me to be surprised by what i end up with, and encourages me to think of why this end product would be doing what it's doing.
I don't understand why there seems to have to be an either/or thing here. What is wrong with using both methods occasionally?
I think that was supposed to be in the Damning with Faint Praise thread. :)
Quote from: Omnifray;301971Random allows teenagers to indulge feelings of self-loathing by forcing themselves to play a character that they would never have chosen.
;-)
hehehehe... that was so silly it was funny. :)
I prefer random attributes because I find it fun but I'd hardly declare point buy to be a universally bad or pussy way to go. I've made some well rounded characters with point buy before.
I've played both point buy and random roll systems, and neither is superior to the other. They just cater to different tastes.
I prefer point-buy overall, but that's just me and my GURPs talking.
Quote from: Daztur;301801I agree, Amber would be a far better game if the horrible point buy system of character building were removed and replaced with a far more sensible system of randomly generated stats.
Amber isn't point-buy; it runs on an attribute auction. If you think that the attribute auction doesn't result in unexpected developments, you've never played Amber.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;302001Amber isn't point-buy; it runs on an attribute auction. If you think that the attribute auction doesn't result in unexpected developments, you've never played Amber.
RPGPundit
Now, that is interesting. I haven't heard about the attribute auction method. Briefly, how does it work?
Quote from: JongWK;301831Your Pendragon game begs to differ,
I just knew you were going to bring that up.
What I can say is that yes, Pendragon does seem to be very good at creating unique and interesting characters. I also notice that Pendragon is way more regulated as far as what you can and can't do, than most point-buy games. It doesn't just say "Here's 500 points, buy whatever you want", so you don't see players floundering around for 4 hours trying to decide if they want to put 2 points into wilderness survival or split them into 1 point in spot and 1 point in (knowledge)Wilderness Lore, or something like that (and then its 2 points down, 498 to go!).
RPGPundit
And for the record, I don't think that anyone who likes point-buy is also going to cheat on dice rolls. I do think that someone who cheats on dice rolls is going to min-max the crap out of point-buy.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Drohem;302002Now, that is interesting. I haven't heard about the attribute auction method. Briefly, how does it work?
Its not just a "method" it is the default standard system of character creation. People who don't use the auction are the ones who are deviating from the regular rules.
The Attribute auction involves the players all engaging in a bidding war (a literal out-loud auction) for first place in an attribute. Anything they bid is spent, so that when someone finally "wins" 1st place, you also know who is 2nd, 3rd, etc.
If the GM does a good job of being auctioneer you create, from the very beginning, the sense of competition between players, and people inevitably end up spending points they weren't planning to spend, in ways they didn't expect (either "fighting it out" for the precious 1st place, or jumping in to bid when they see that an attribute is going for very low).
This ends up creating a very different setup than someone just calmly allocating his points. Also, since in standard Amber its the RANKS that matter, not the points, this means that while you could just allocate the points, you can't just know that "rank 2 will cost 20 points", at least not till after the auction (when it'll be too late to get rank 1).
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;302007Its not just a "method" it is the default standard system of character creation.
I didn't mean to infer or imply anything by the use of the word 'method.' :)
Thank you for the explanation. It sounds very interesting and that it could be some serious fun in practice.
The Amber auction is posibly the most interesting stat generation systems out there but however you slice it is point buy. Yes the rationale you might use to spend your points are different and it creates a dynamic that is unique with players in competition rather than co-operation but its still point buy and it ain't perfect (although some simple house rules can make it much more manageable).
the one complaint I see often about point buiy is that it takes ages. Um ... yeah when I make a character it takes ages. The arguement at I want a character in 2 mins cos I just want to wander round this dungeon and kill things makes me sad as you may as well not roll anything and just draw a random pregened character from a deck of cards.
I want the players to take time building 3 dimentional characters taking time to do that is great.
This can be randomised but if you are going to invest a couple of hours in a creating a character then ending up with a random batch of stuff can be tricky (though great on occassion remember classic Traveller... how many character gens actully kill the character durring creation).
I do alright with either point-buy or random, so long as they're clearly delineated as one or the other. I also think there is one other option that is being ignored here.
I find that if the techniques are mixed too willy-nilly, or grafted on to another otherwise unified system, it is more likely to create conflict between player intents.
For example, in D&D 3.5, I hate random rolled stats with a passion, because everything else in the game is hand-picked, and all this really does is create conflict between what the player wants to do, and what the rolls are actually compatible with. And there's very little to extrapolate from just a handful of stats beyond lining up the highest one with whatever class has it as the prime requisite, which leads to every bit as much dull cookie cutter nonsense as point-buy is being accused of.
Now, a fully random system, or at least mostly random, like one finds in Dark Heresy or Traveller, can be great at random stuff, because everything is random, and it becomes a proper actor's challenge, taking what is basically a scripted character, and giving your own spin on how to bring him to life. That's fun, and interesting, and a welcome trade off for the freedom of creating one's own character.
I think however, that "point-buy" is not really an accurate term for the divide here, in that not all systems with player-directed, hand-picked character design are necessarily "point-buy" or fraught with the bookkeeping that comes with pure Hero/GURPS style point buy.
Many games make use of systems where in character creation is simply a series of choices. X class pick here, Y race pick here, Z, A, B talent pick here, done. Dark Heresy is like this. Low-level D&D3 is like this.
I think a lot of things are being conflated together as a result of this excluded middle and making this whole discussion rather aimless and silly. Either the debate here is actually between the virtues of random versus player-directed creation, or it's nothing more than a rant about a type of system that is much more specific than is being implied.
I like both Point buy and random generation. Games with high character mortaility rates should have random generation, otherwise it takes too long for someone who may die in his first couple sessions.
Quote from: Omnifray;301849PS this may be the most obvious advantage of points-buy:- you can do it in the comfort of your own home without the rest of the group being there, submit the character for the ref to approve, job done - no QUESTION of any need to have anyone standing over you physically while you roll dice. So, VERY convenient.
Not really. Because some rules lawyers become rules rapers - they find a hole in the rules and fuck it without anyone's consent. And they come up with some wacky stuff for their character.
In principle it shouldn't make a difference whether the GM is around during character generation for point-buy, but in practice it does. If you get some multi-page GURPS character to check over, you'll not give it as thorough a look as you would if you were there as the player wrote each trait or number down.
As-you-go character generation review is more thorough than when-you're-finished review. That's just part of human nature: if presented with a completed thing, we're less picky with it than if we're invited to watch each step of its creation.
Quote from: RPGPundit;301645Especially with a game that could almost, almost be called "old school" otherwise. Its like they're missing the point!
Melee, Wizard, Champions, etc. Point buy came early in the development of RPGs.
The "manliness" of Old School is not about how you generate your character but how your character exists in the subsequent campaign.
Most people prefer making up the character they want to play rather than trying to come up with something out of a series of random rolls. However this preference doesn't bear on whatever the group plays "Old School" style or not.
Finally I don't see how anybody can consider a RPG character generation "manly" unless you can die during character generation. Anybody up for rolling Traveller Characters? ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit;301778Point buy, as well as being slower, tends towards creating characters that are above all uninteresting. I certainly don't think I've ever seen anyone create a sub-par character intentionally with point-buy, and its pretty much impossible to create a really superior character with it, though players will certainly spend HOURS trying to.
Yes this can occur with point-buy system. However shorn of the background of a setting even random character generation system can have this problem. Now you can 'bake' in the setting by building it in as part of the generation sequence. For example Harnmaster social and family tables.
Point Buy has it's own solutions in the form of template packaging the various option into interesting choices. In addition what I do is sit down with the player can get him to describe what he wants to do with the character. I then present him withsome interesting choices. We go back and forth until the character is fleshed out and then he starts using templates and the rules to build the actual character.
What it boils down to is the GM interacting with the player to produce interesting characters. In short it is the people participating not the rules that make bland characters.
Quote from: jibbajibba;301702A variation, that comes from the original Barbarian, is to do point buy with the dice. 4d6 highest three and arrange as you like is really a pool of 24d6. So pick your class and then assign the dice to the stats. So you want to play a Dwarven Warrior might have 6d6 Str, 5d6 Con, 4d6 Dex and 3d6 in the rest.
Hmm, I might steal that.
I have some guys who prefer to roll the dice. Mind you, that doesn't stop them from whining when they come up with 12, 9, 7, 14, 10, 11. So I've ended up giving them a do-over.
However, I don't see why you can't give players a choice.
For my latest D&D campaign, I've figured it's easier just to strip away the entire 3-18 thing and let the players assign their PCs a total of +6 in attribute bonuses. Or if they prefer, they can do the 4d6 thing. But if they choose the luck route, they keep what lady luck deals them and no whining.
Same with HP. Your cleric can take 5 HP at a new level, or you can roll that d8. It's up to you.
Quote from: estar;302130Most people prefer making up the character they want to play rather than trying to come up with something out of a series of random rolls. However this preference doesn't bear on whatever the group plays "Old School" style or not.
Yep. My group is pretty fucking old-school. However, some guys have no interest in ever playing spellcasters, and one guy only ever wants to play Magic-users, Druids, and Thieves. Who am I to step in tell them they need to get out of their comfort zone and play a different class?
And if you go with the '4d6, take the top 3, and assign' method, then a guy with a fighter is still going to put the highest value on Str, the 2nd highest on Dex or Con, etc, the MU is going to have Int as his highest stat, Dex as his 2nd, etc.
Point-buy is fine, though time-consuming.
Random Char-gen is fun though! Until you get a player with a 17 or 18 in every stat (D&D 4e)... It was one of those things that allowed me to wonder how much longer the son of a bitch would be cheating at my game table. (I hate dice fudging, sorry... Completely defeats the purpose of 'random' for me...)
Quote from: Haffrung;302139Who am I to step in tell them they need to get out of their comfort zone and play a different class?
- you're the Game MASTER
- you're a player in the roleplaying game, and have to have fun, too; other people always doing the same thing isn't fun, whatever watching ten years of Friends and twenty years of The Simpsons might have told you.
- You're the Game MASTER.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;302473- you're the Game MASTER
- you're a player in the roleplaying game, and have to have fun, too; other people always doing the same thing isn't fun, whatever watching ten years of Friends and twenty years of The Simpsons might have told you.
- You're the Game MASTER.
You don't have to tell me that. My players cheerfully recognize me as the 'god' of the game table.
I have absolute control over everything in the setting, and all of the rules. I can arbitrarily change anything I like, and make any ruling I like, and nobody complains.
But the one thing my players control is their PCs. And I'm not going to dictate that my players have to run whatever class the dice dictate (unless we're playing WFRP, where it's part of the whole package). If Gord doesn't want to run spellcasters, he doesn't have to. Period.
Quote from: Haffrung;302139Yep. My group is pretty fucking old-school. However, some guys have no interest in ever playing spellcasters, and one guy only ever wants to play Magic-users, Druids, and Thieves. Who am I to step in tell them they need to get out of their comfort zone and play a different class?
You don't have to. Choice of class is an absolute right of the Player, within the classes offered of course. So if you have a player that ends up with an 8 STR and a 17 INT who wants to play a fighter, that's no problem. He's just a very smart fighter who isn't very strong, and that would include all kinds of interesting elements for his fighter: why did he become a fighter? Why didn't he become a wizard? How does he use his intelligence to assist himself as a fighter? How does he compensate for not being as strong as most fighters?
RPGPundit
Pundit, you motherfucker, don't you realise that encouraging players to use their imaginations is an intolerable burden upon them that no free citizen in a democracy could possibly tolerate without taking up arms?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;302668Pundit, you motherfucker, don't you realise that encouraging players to use their imaginations is an intolerable burden upon them that no free citizen in a democracy could possibly tolerate without taking up arms?
And there's no imagination in coming up with your own character idea without needing a system to force you into one?
Just because your groups have all been unimaginative twats doesn't mean everyone else is.
Quote from: Haffrung;302139Yep. My group is pretty fucking old-school. However, some guys have no interest in ever playing spellcasters, and one guy only ever wants to play Magic-users, Druids, and Thieves. Who am I to step in tell them they need to get out of their comfort zone and play a different class?
Why is it a problem that they play classes that they enjoy? Is it messing with your ability to make interesting scenarios?
Quote from: J Arcane;302678And there's no imagination in coming up with your own character idea without needing a system to force you into one?
Sure there is.
But you should have more than
one character idea in you for your decades of having a gaming hobby.
Quote from: RPGPundit;302643You don't have to. Choice of class is an absolute right of the Player, within the classes offered of course. So if you have a player that ends up with an 8 STR and a 17 INT who wants to play a fighter, that's no problem. He's just a very smart fighter who isn't very strong, and that would include all kinds of interesting elements for his fighter: why did he become a fighter? Why didn't he become a wizard? How does he use his intelligence to assist himself as a fighter? How does he compensate for not being as strong as most fighters?
Some people have fun doing this while others don't. In my experience the latter are more numerous than the former. I find trying to push the latter out of their niche is not worth the trouble as most likely they won't show up for your game.
However I don't just accept it either. I had players wanted to play nothing but elves who had Silver in there name, another guy who named his characters alternatively either Alec or Marcus
My trick was "give up" and let them have their way the character generation, however he background was different for everyone. So the Silverring turned out to be a vastly different character than Silverwing. The same for the 1st Marcus against the 2nd Marcus.
After about two or three iterations of this the players began to think of other possibilities to play as they experienced different situations as I wove their background into the game.
P.S.Years later we found out the second named one of his kids Marcus. When
we teased him about it, he turned red and asked us not to tell his wife about it as she didn't know the source of the name.
Flashing Blades chargen is interesting.
1. Roll 3d6 in order to generate attribute score for Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, Wit, Charm, and Luck.
2. The total of the attribute scores must be greater than or equal to fifty-four (the equivalent of a score of nine for each attribute)
3. The player may trade points on a two-for-one basis, e.g., taking two points from Endurance to add one point to Wit.
It's a middle ground of sorts: randomness plus some customization.
Quote from: The Shaman;302907Flashing Blades chargen is interesting.
1. Roll 3d6 in order to generate attribute score for Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, Wit, Charm, and Luck.
2. The total of the attribute scores must be greater than or equal to fifty-four (the equivalent of a score of nine for each attribute)
3. The player may trade points on a two-for-one basis, e.g., taking two points from Endurance to add one point to Wit.
It's a middle ground of sorts: randomness plus some customization.
Except for step two, that is how we rolled up our earliest D&D characters as well. I'm not sure where the 2-for-1 trade came in, probably an early issue of Dragon or something.
Quote from: J Arcane;302036I also think there is one other option that is being ignored here.
...
I think however, that "point-buy" is not really an accurate term for the divide here, in that not all systems with player-directed, hand-picked character design are necessarily "point-buy" or fraught with the bookkeeping that comes with pure Hero/GURPS style point buy.
Many games make use of systems where in character creation is simply a series of choices. X class pick here, Y race pick here, Z, A, B talent pick here, done. Dark Heresy is like this. Low-level D&D3 is like this.
I think a lot of things are being conflated together as a result of this excluded middle and making this whole discussion rather aimless and silly. Either the debate here is actually between the virtues of random versus player-directed creation, or it's nothing more than a rant about a type of system that is much more specific than is being implied.
Quoted for truth.
And my favorite method for generating anything and everything is just picking shit off a list. It's why I liked SAGA. For ability scores, I prefer a pregenned set that I can assign as I like. Quick, custom, and standard character power.
Quote from: beejazz;302932Quoted for truth.
And my favorite method for generating anything and everything is just picking shit off a list. It's why I liked SAGA. For ability scores, I prefer a pregenned set that I can assign as I like. Quick, custom, and standard character power.
One of my all-time favorite chargen systems is Fallout/SPECIAL. The stats are technically point allocation, but it's the most "complicated" part of the whole process. After that it's just pick 3 tag skills and (optionally) 2 traits and calculate your secondaries and you're done. You can make up a character in like 5 minutes.
Well, that's all well and spiffy, but SPECIAL is based off of GURPS, on account of the fact that Fallout was initially supposed to use the system prior to a falling out between Steve Jackson Gaming and Black Isle. Though, yes, I will admit that the chargen in Fallout was very quick. Plus the setting was tops, so there's that.
On the other hand, SPECIAL kinda looses something in the translation from video game to table-top. I dunno, I'm just not a big fan of the way they handle Skill Resolution. Call me crazy, but I've always preferred the skill system in DnD 3.5. I really liked what they were doing there.
I'm just sayin' is all.
Quote from: stressfear;303040Well, that's all well and spiffy, but SPECIAL is based off of GURPS, on account of the fact that Fallout was initially supposed to use the system prior to a falling out between Steve Jackson Gaming and Black Isle. Though, yes, I will admit that the chargen in Fallout was very quick. Plus the setting was tops, so there's that.
On the other hand, SPECIAL kinda looses something in the translation from video game to table-top. I dunno, I'm just not a big fan of the way they handle Skill Resolution. Call me crazy, but I've always preferred the skill system in DnD 3.5. I really liked what they were doing there.
I'm just sayin' is all.
Umm, no, SPECIAL is not based on GURPS, except the the absolute most broad sense that combat still takes place on a hex grid. The system is completely different, and the chargen bears more resemblance to a classless, percentile based D20 than it does to GURPS.
The GURPS license was lost, the only thing they kept was the hex grid because it's what the engine was built around. If they'd dared go any farther with the system they would've been threatening a lawsuit.
In terms of actual play, well, plenty people played it. The onyl problem I have personally with it are the range bands are a slight bit of excess calculation, and you have to houserule auto fire because rolling a percentile for each bullet like the game does is for obvious reasons rather impractical.
Regardless however, none of those faults have a damn thing to do with the Character Creation, which is what I was bloody talking about.