QuoteTotally, this is the reason I like random ability score generation as well (and I think you two are essentially saying the same thing, whether you call it a "challenge" or not).

If there's a "risk/reward" factor in there somewhere, I'm not seeing it. (At least, not without stretching the meaning of that phrase to its breaking point, which I'm sure someone will now do  .)

I mean unique character and interesting story/situations/adventures are it's own REWARD. I'd say most important one in RPG generally.

Quote from: Zalman on March 15, 2022, 09:31:01 AM

Quote from: migo on March 14, 2022, 07:28:44 PM
Like random ability score generation, it adds an element of gambling to the game. Critical hit charts too. That makes players want to keep taking risks because of the occasional reward.

Trying to understand this idea ... are you saying that players like "risking" bad ability score roles so much that they keep playing those characters for whole campaigns just in case they're lucky enough in the next campaign to roll a good character? That seems like a stretch, so I gotta ask:

What exactly is the risk/reward scenario around random ability scores?

It depends on the system, I find it is really pronounced in AD&D though. For instance if you manage to get an 18 in Strength and have a fighter, there's the chance to be starting out with a significant performance boost simply because of percentile strength. Also, depending on how strict the rolling is, if you manage to get a Paladin or Ranger, you might just play it because it's such a rare opportunity. It makes playing those classes special not because of the inherent class characteristics, but because you usually can't.

It's also not that they'll be playing the character through a whole campaign - if you get some bad scores you can just play a reckless character, rush headlong into battle, see what happens. Get a few cool anecdotes from surviving, and when you die you get to roll up another character. So if you get a bad roll, you basically just try again, but you're paying for the mulligan by having to spend some time playing the character and starting your next one at an XP deficit. It's again like gambling.

Quote from: migo on March 29, 2022, 07:01:14 AM

Quote from: Zalman on March 15, 2022, 09:31:01 AM

Quote from: migo on March 14, 2022, 07:28:44 PM
Like random ability score generation, it adds an element of gambling to the game. Critical hit charts too. That makes players want to keep taking risks because of the occasional reward.

Trying to understand this idea ... are you saying that players like "risking" bad ability score roles so much that they keep playing those characters for whole campaigns just in case they're lucky enough in the next campaign to roll a good character? That seems like a stretch, so I gotta ask:

What exactly is the risk/reward scenario around random ability scores?

It depends on the system, I find it is really pronounced in AD&D though. For instance if you manage to get an 18 in Strength and have a fighter, there's the chance to be starting out with a significant performance boost simply because of percentile strength. Also, depending on how strict the rolling is, if you manage to get a Paladin or Ranger, you might just play it because it's such a rare opportunity. It makes playing those classes special not because of the inherent class characteristics, but because you usually can't.

It's also not that they'll be playing the character through a whole campaign - if you get some bad scores you can just play a reckless character, rush headlong into battle, see what happens. Get a few cool anecdotes from surviving, and when you die you get to roll up another character. So if you get a bad roll, you basically just try again, but you're paying for the mulligan by having to spend some time playing the character and starting your next one at an XP deficit. It's again like gambling.

Cool, that all makes sense to me. I guess you and I have a different idea of what "risk/reward" means.

I don't see the "risk" part in a random chance to get either something or something better. It's like door prizes: everyone gets something, but only a few get the really good ones. But no one "risked" anything.

You seem to be saying that the door prize people are "risking" not getting something even better ... which just doesn't sound like what I mean by "risk". For me, risk has to involve something you already have.

The risk is your time. If you want to play a particular type of character, you have to spend a fair amount of time playing a character other than the one you wanted, before you finally get to it.

In my estimation, whether a campaign has many or few magic items, and their comparative power levels, will have much less impact on whether a campaign feels "high magic" or not. You can have a campaign with zero magic items, but if half or more of the PCs are wizards, clerics, druids, bards or other spellcasters then the campaign will still be full of magic. Meanwhile, if you have no spellcasters being played, you can outfit each PC with a few magic items and it will still feel fairly low magic. Magic items are not generally what makes a campaign or setting high magic or low magic, the presence of spellcasters with powerful spells is.