Quote from: fearsomepirate;1032520No, it was because:

1. A single d20 v. DC roll is a moderately terrible skill check engine.

Actually, it's very elegant if handled correctly.

Quote2. 3e included a table with objective DCs to hit to achieve predetermined effects in predetermined conditions, plus had tons of feats which could be used to goose your bonus way up.

Yes. That was a big problem. Because both 3.x skills and feats were point-buy systems.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033093Yes. That was a big problem. Because both 3.x skills and feats were point-buy systems.

Fearsome is pointing out that the defined DC to achieve certain effects (without any real understanding of how easily those DCs could be obtained) is what caused the problem. You have not laid out the evidence for the claim that point buy is the actual culprit here. You are not bringing the audience along with your line of thinking.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033092In RPGs, it's also called bad design.

Then no RPG ever has been well-designed, Pundit;).
In all RPGs knowing the rules will make you better, even if it's only by a slim margin. Yes, even in Lion&Dragon:)!

Simple example from 3d6 in order OD&D that almost happened: the player gets a statblock of 16 Str, 9 Dex, 11 Con, 12 Int, 4 Wis and 5 Cha...and a player who didn't even have a copy of the rules decides to play a Cleric instead of Fighter. Why?
Because he checked that it's possible by the rules, but had no idea (and didn't think to ask) that attributes give XP bonuses and penalties, that's why:D. So, instead of a bonus from high Strength, the player almost took the class that gets a penalty from his low Wisdom. That's rules ignorance for you.
(Of course, it was quickly pointed out. At the end, the player made a religious Fighter who served the church, just without being a miracle-worker. And he still wielded a mace, because he'd trained with a clerical order).
Would it have been a better character as a Cleric? Unlikely, IMO.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033093Yes. That was a big problem. Because both 3.x skills and feats were point-buy systems.

So characters can't even select what to focus on as they advance (i.e. selecting feats and devoting points to skills, representing effort to master those skills vs. other skills) or it's bad rules design?

Are gold pieces point-buy because characters can choose how to invest those too (like say a wizard into crafting magic items that could boost someone's Charisma or skill at Diplomacy)?

I'm guessing you also think ability score improvements as you level up in systems like 5e are also point-buy since you don't roll randomly to see which ones improve?

Are levels point-buy if a system has multi-class rules too?

At a certain point your definition of point-buy gets so broad that it ceases to have meaning.

The other problem is that your arguments about the Diplomancer being rooted in the "evils" of point-buy are simply not connecting anywhere outside your own head. It should say something when you now have to expand point-buy to mean "feat selection." Its why asking if ability score improvements, leveling up via multi-classing and spending gold aren't next in your Ahab-like quest to link point-buy to the White Whale of bad game design doesn't feel completely out of left field.

The fundamental disconnect is that the problem with Diplomancers would still exist even if you rolled for stats and used one of the Unearthed Arcana options like "Level Based Skill Checks" where you don't get skills, just bonus to class skills (and only class skills) equal to your level.

The only difference is that the "Diplomancer" trick would just be available to random players who rolled really well on their Charisma score and then picked Bard, Cleric or Paladin as a class (all three of whom gain benefits from a high Charisma, making them natural choices if the player rolls a good Charisma score). i.e. literally everything random except your choice of career, just like you're saying is the Platonic ideal of game design... and the Diplomancer would STILL be a problem.

And that's why your attempts to foist the millstone of Diplomancers around the neck of point-buy just isn't working. Its like arguing that a car that won't start needs to have its engine replaced because the gas tank is empty. You can replace the engine all you want, but it won't solve the actual problem keeping the car from starting (the empty gas tank).

Quote from: AsenRG;1033112Then no RPG ever has been well-designed, Pundit;).

Indeed. A player's knowledge and experience are always going to have an impact. Impartially, the so called Even Player Feild stems from the rules. In point buy, all players generally start with the same resources, in random everyoe has the same chances.

Which you prefer depends what you want out of the experience and enjoy. More experience with either is going to provide some level of advantage in character creation or in play. The players innate ability isn't considered an unfair edge in other aspect of gaming. For those that prefer non mechanical "Just role play it" handling of social interaction, player ability is the basis, for example. Nothing evens the playing field. This often but fourth as a feature not a bug in that case.

In a point buy frame work that has social mechanics, its a somewhat different story. Again, comees down to what the individuals likes and wants out of play.

Quote from: CarlD.;1033241Indeed. A player's knowledge and experience are always going to have an impact.

Yes. I just try to make sure that my players get more impact out of skills that aren't crunch-related:).
But that's me, not the rules;).

QuoteImpartially, the so called Even Player Feild stems from the rules. In point buy, all players generally start with the same resources, in random everyoe has the same chances.

Yes.
But, you know, it might not be an Even Playing Field if all players have the same resources. That's why a chessmaster playing with you will remove one of his pieces before you start...and then trounce you soundly while you thought you were winning:D!
The gift benefits the master, not you. He has to actually put some thought behind evening out the disadvantage, while if you were playing with the same resources, the outcome would never be in doubt.

Similarly, that's why some systems advise you to give less XP for the same achievements to player with better skills. They still achieve at least as much as the others, anyway, you just up the ante for them, and they usually earn the same amount;).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1033107Fearsome is pointing out that the defined DC to achieve certain effects (without any real understanding of how easily those DCs could be obtained) is what caused the problem. You have not laid out the evidence for the claim that point buy is the actual culprit here. You are not bringing the audience along with your line of thinking.

The problem I'm talking about had nothing to do with that. It had to do with people gaming the system. For skills being exclusive rather than inclusive (just like feats did the same even to things in combat that everyone should be able to do). For social skills being used as an alternative to roleplaying.

And the problem with all of that at its core was that players made CHOICES to invest in certain skills. If the GM turned around and said "those skills don't do what the rules say they do" or "other people who didn't put points into skills can also do those things" or "player b who has no skill points in diplomacy but actually just fucking said the right thing in the right way gets to succeed and you, who said the wrong thing or said nothing but has a +10 bonus to your diplomacy roll will fail", then it is not only that it will have a sense of 'unfairness' but that doing so will then compound the problem.  Because now the people who DIDN'T invest in those skills that are problematic (say, because they knew how this GM operates) were the smart ones.

That's the problem I'm talking about. I don't give a twopenny fuck about whatever personal conundrum you guys are talking about. I'm talking about why point buy is shit.

Quote from: AsenRG;1033112Then no RPG ever has been well-designed, Pundit;).
In all RPGs knowing the rules will make you better, even if it's only by a slim margin. Yes, even in Lion&Dragon:)!

Simple example from 3d6 in order OD&D that almost happened: the player gets a statblock of 16 Str, 9 Dex, 11 Con, 12 Int, 4 Wis and 5 Cha...and a player who didn't even have a copy of the rules decides to play a Cleric instead of Fighter. Why?
Because he checked that it's possible by the rules, but had no idea (and didn't think to ask) that attributes give XP bonuses and penalties, that's why:D. So, instead of a bonus from high Strength, the player almost took the class that gets a penalty from his low Wisdom. That's rules ignorance for you.
(Of course, it was quickly pointed out. At the end, the player made a religious Fighter who served the church, just without being a miracle-worker. And he still wielded a mace, because he'd trained with a clerical order).
Would it have been a better character as a Cleric? Unlikely, IMO.

That's also an example of bad design.

That's why in Lion & Dragon, you can't play a class if you don't have a 9+ in the class' connected ability score.

Anyways, YES, in non-point-buy games there can also be instances of bad design, and in non-point buy games there can still be ways to game the rules. But Point-Buy games:

a) Make that sort of thing MUCH WORSE

and

b) implicitly ENCOURAGE (in many cases) that kind of situation

Quote from: Chris24601;1033136So characters can't even select what to focus on as they advance (i.e. selecting feats and devoting points to skills, representing effort to master those skills vs. other skills) or it's bad rules design?

It's less bad design than point buy.

A system where you get told "you don't get to choose stuff at character creation mostly, but when you hit level 2 you'll get a choice between option A or option B" is much less prone to abuse than a system that says "here's 400 points, you get to pick between 2300 different potential choices, plus every time you level up you'll get another 25 points to put into that same number of choices".

QuoteAre gold pieces point-buy because characters can choose how to invest those too (like say a wizard into crafting magic items that could boost someone's Charisma or skill at Diplomacy)?

No, gold pieces are part of immersion into a setting. If you really don't understand the difference you're a fucking moron. Unless you're talking about something where in complete defiance of emulation people get x amount of gold pieces for no reason every x period of time with no in-setting justification, in which case that's abysmal design.

QuoteI'm guessing you also think ability score improvements as you level up in systems like 5e are also point-buy since you don't roll randomly to see which ones improve?

Well, they're less problematic than "here's 400 points, go nuts and wank all over the entire fucking rulebook".

QuoteAre levels point-buy if a system has multi-class rules too?

Multi-classing is very often a clusterfuck of problematic rules. Still not nearly as bad as your favorite point-buy game, though.

QuoteThe other problem is that your arguments about the Diplomancer being rooted in the "evils" of point-buy are simply not connecting anywhere outside your own head.

"I spent 8 of my 20 skill points on diplomacy. Therefore I must now be better at winning in social situations than other players who spent their set of POINTS to BUY other skills. If that is true it means it doesn't matter how badly I roleplay, I SPENT THE POINTS TO BUY SUCCESS.
If it is not true, then that means that other people who BOUGHT things with POINTS are getting a better deal than me, meaning that there's ways to manipulate the system to min-max POINT BUY of skills"

QuoteIt should say something when you now have to expand point-buy to mean "feat selection."

You get four POINTS to BUY feats from a list of 200 feats, at a cost of 1 feat per point.

QuoteIts why asking if ability score improvements, leveling up via multi-classing and spending gold aren't next in your Ahab-like quest to link point-buy to the White Whale of bad game design doesn't feel completely out of left field.

No, it's just more of your retarded shitting-your-own-pants school of debating that you clearly learned from some obscure keyboard-fu monastery that trained you wrong as a fucking joke, Wimp Lo.

QuoteThe fundamental disconnect is that the problem with Diplomancers would still exist even if you rolled for stats and used one of the Unearthed Arcana options like "Level Based Skill Checks" where you don't get skills, just bonus to class skills (and only class skills) equal to your level.

Yes, that's true because ALL SOCIAL SKILLS ARE SHIT. They're all garbage. But the COMBINATION of Social Skills plus Point Buy are a fucking disaster of epic proportions.

Social Skills should not exist in a ROLEPLAYING GAME at all, and Point Buy is still garbage. That's the problem with your argument, Wimp Lo, as soon as one concedes that social skills are shit what you're saying does nothing to change the fact that point-buy is also awful. Social Skills combined with point buy is just one of the best examples, but all the same problems exist in a skill system that doesn't include social skills.

Its just that games designed with point buy are usually designed by control freaks, who want to be able to bean-count their way through the gaming experience, so the same putrid impulse that leads them to create a system where every step of character creation is completely under the total control of the creator is likely to lead them to also have a set of social mechanics where no one can take away their precious control by actually fucking roleplaying in a way that's unfair to autistics and the socially retarded.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033465That's also an example of bad design.

What, the OD&D example? Or just the rule that you get more XP for having a high "connected" attribute, and a penalty for a low one?
I disagree either way, but I'd like to know what I'm disagreeing with.

QuoteThat's why in Lion & Dragon, you can't play a class if you don't have a 9+ in the class' connected ability score.

Which is its own share of issues when it comes to worldbuilding. Come on, Pundit, what happens to Cymri or Scotman guys who are born in the society with no way out, but don't get 9+ on the connected attribute?

QuoteAnyways, YES, in non-point-buy games there can also be instances of bad design, and in non-point buy games there can still be ways to game the rules.

Of course:)!

QuoteBut Point-Buy games:

a) Make that sort of thing MUCH WORSE

and

b) implicitly ENCOURAGE (in many cases) that kind of situation

Nope, they don't. In the above scenario, a point-buy game would have simply required someone to hold the guy's hand while he (or she, it was an online game and I never cared to know) is creating a character.
Anyway, you're missing my point: your earlier statement that if a game rewards knowing the rules, it's a bad RPG, is simply wrong. All RPGs reward some amount of rules knowledge - like knowing how many people with what weapons fit in a 3-meters corridor (2 with swords or axes, but three with spears).

And in what pertains to your "war against the point-buy", I'm not interested. To me, point-buy, random, and lifepath generators are simply different, each with their own set of issues and advantages. Some will appeal to a given subset of gamers, others, to a different one. And some gamers, myself included, would be able to enjoy all of them for what they are, and hopefully would know enough to mitigate the disadvantages;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1033291But, you know, it might not be an Even Playing Field if all players have the same resources. That's why a chessmaster playing with you will remove one of his pieces before you start...and then trounce you soundly while you thought you were winning:D!
The gift benefits the master, not you. He has to actually put some thought behind evening out the disadvantage, while if you were playing with the same resources, the outcome would never be in doubt.

Similarly, that's why some systems advise you to give less XP for the same achievements to player with better skills. They still achieve at least as much as the others, anyway, you just up the ante for them, and they usually earn the same amount;).

I think I failed to make myself clear; please allow me to restate myself: It was that the mechanics start players out on an equal basis or with equal chancces. Points, random, neither is inherently unfair. In both modes or almost any gaame really Player experiene, understanding and talent will be different and effect the outcome.

IMO, that's not undesirable or unreasonable.

Quote from: CarlD.;1033503I think I failed to make myself clear; please allow me to restate myself: It was that the mechanics start players out on an equal basis or with equal chancces. Points, random, neither is inherently unfair. In both modes or almost any gaame really Player experiene, understanding and talent will be different and effect the outcome.

IMO, that's not undesirable or unreasonable.

And I agree with that:).
My point is that even the "Even Playing Field" might not be the best way. In some games, it's sometimes better to put the more experienced players at an additional disadvantage, and that's not "unfair", it just makes for a more interesting game that's not dominated by one person;).

For 5e, random point-buy, choose race & class. My random point-buy proceeds by rolling 2d6. First die is the score to increase, second is how much to increase it by. Start with 27 points, follow the rules for increasing your scores. Continue until you've spent all 27 points.

This guarantees a usable set of scores.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033468No, it's just more of your retarded shitting-your-own-pants school of debating that you clearly learned from some obscure keyboard-fu monastery that trained you wrong as a fucking joke, Wimp Lo.

I prefer it to the "I'm Right! I'm Right!! I'm Right and if you disagree you're a poopy-head!!!" school of debate. You've already lost this and you know it or you wouldn't need to resort the personal attacks to try and save face.

QuoteNo, gold pieces are part of immersion into a setting. If you really don't understand the difference you're a fucking moron.

I asked because you seem to attribute anything that might increase your ability to pull the 'Diplomancer' trick in 3e as point buy (first skill points, then feats) and the number one tool for abuse isn't skill points or even feats but MAGIC ITEMS; all of which are capable of being crafted by a 3e wizard using only their class features and gold pieces. Cloak of Charisma +2/4/6 and a magic item to give you +5 to +20 or more to a skill check will contribute more to being able to hit the DCs on the Diplomacy Reaction table than all twenty levels of spending skill points ever will.

But the setting allows it so, as you just stated, that can't be immersion breaking point-buy. So how can point-buy be the reason for the Diplomancer problem if something you say is definitely NOT point-buy is one of the primary contributors to it?

Or have you changed your mind and now are going to state that 3e's gold pieces are obvious point buy?

QuoteWell, they're less problematic than "here's 400 points, go nuts and wank all over the entire fucking rulebook".

You do understand that the system with the Diplomancer problem is 3rd Edition D&D right? The system where the default ability score generation is 4d6 drop lowest? The one where your skill points you receive are based on your class and your randomly rolled Intelligence score, and which has hard limits on how many skill points you can put into a skill at every level?

Because you're currently railing at an imaginary point-buy system that doesn't even exist as part of the actual game that has the problem with its mechanics. You are claiming that the imaginary system is the root cause of the problem instead of the problem being a badly designed Reaction Roll table. This is why your line of argument feels nonsensical to others.

QuoteYou get four POINTS to BUY feats from a list of 200 feats, at a cost of 1 feat per point.

I don't know what game you're referring to but a starting character in 3rd Edition (the one with the Diplomancer issue) only gives you one feat at first level (two if you're a human because that IS your racial feature). Similarly, even a Human Rogue with an 18 Intelligence (52 skill points) can only spend 4 points on the Diplomacy skill at level 1 and can only spend one additional point on it per level.

Inventing rules system that don't exist in order to rail against them is straight up Straw-manning; not a very convincing debate technique, though slightly above name-calling at least.

QuoteMulti-classing is very often a clusterfuck of problematic rules. Still not nearly as bad as your favorite point-buy game, though.

Again, you're confusing me for someone who prefers point-buy. I've said several times already that my preferred method is Allocation (i.e. assign stats from an array, pick X of Y listed skills/traits), but again... that's just my preference not an objective best method. I don't believe there to be a single best One-True-Way method of character generation (which is why I've included allocation, point-buy and two different random roll methods of character generation; including random tables for species, background and class; as options in the game I've been developing... so people can play what they like to play).

You're the one arguing a "One True Way" path of character creation. My argument is that people should play whatever is most fun to them.

Quote"I spent 8 of my 20 skill points on diplomacy. Therefore I must now be better at winning in social situations than other players who spent their set of POINTS to BUY other skills. If that is true it means it doesn't matter how badly I roleplay, I SPENT THE POINTS TO BUY SUCCESS.  If it is not true, then that means that other people who BOUGHT things with POINTS are getting a better deal than me, meaning that there's ways to manipulate the system to min-max POINT BUY of skills"

Or it means they get better results on the Reaction Roll table; you know, that thing in the other thread you tout as the height of good RPG design where you randomly roll how the NPCs you populated an area with react instead of actually thinking about how they would react in character?

The only difference is they chose to give their character that benefit instead of having a high roll for the Charisma stat determine that they get a better modifier to Reaction Rolls (because that's all the 3e Diplomacy table is... the best core result is friendly) than the guy who rolled crap on Charisma. Or are you now claiming that Reaction Roll tables (which are modified by Charisma scores) and Morale checks are now bad game design?

Because even Basic D&D had you roll multiple times on the Reaction tables (page 22 in the Basic Red Book), modified by the Charisma of the speaker at each stage to mechanically resolve whether a group of monsters would attack, negotiate or behave in a friendly manner towards the PCs. Claiming Mechanical social resolution sucks while simultaneously espousing the virtues of Reaction Rolls... which are almost entirely the same thing mechanically (right down to the second check, if needed coming after another minute of interaction... just like 3e's Diplomacy check required at least a minute of interaction before you could make a check to improve their initial reactions) is utter hypocrisy on your part.

Here are the actual words used in the Basic Rules...

QuoteReactions
Monsters may have nearly any reaction to the appearance of a party, unless the monster description says otherwise. To find the monsters' reactions, roll 2d6 and find the total on the left side of the Monster Reaction Chart. Use the chart to find the monsters' actions and any further rolls needed.

MONSTER REACTION CHART
2 Immediate Attack
3-5 Possible attack, roll again*:
___2-8 Attack
___9-12 Uncertain, roll again*:
______2-5 Attack
______6-8 Leave
______9-12 Friendly
6-8 Uncertain, roll again*:
___2-5 Attack
___6-8 Negotiate, roll again*:
______2-5 Attack
______6-8 Leave
______9-12 Friendly
___9-12 Friendly
9-11 Possibly friendly, roll again*:
___2-5 Uncertain, roll again*:
______2-5 Attack
______6-8 Leave
______9-12 Friendly
___6-12 Friendly
12 Immediately Friendly

*Wait 1 or more rounds, and consider character actions, the speaker's Charisma, and the overall situation before rolling again (as explained below).

Character Actions
The actions of the PCs may affect the monsters' reactions. The characters may talk (negotiate), or may use hand motions if the creatures don't understand the PC languages. Your Reaction Roll may include an adjustment to account for the actions of the
characters. Adjustments from PC actions could be a - 2 or - 1 penalty, or a + 1 or +2 bonus, or no adjustment.

Effects of Charisma
If the monster or NPC encountered can understand what is said by the PCs, the bonus or penalty due to Charisma is applied to the result, in addition to bonuses or penalties due to Character Actions.

So the GM is supposed to to consider the PC's words and actions, which give a bonus or penalty to the check, but ultimately its a RANDOM DIE ROLL modified by the speaker's mechanical Charisma score that determines whether the monsters are hostile, neutral or friendly to the PCs... and even if they do something completely inappropriate (short of attacking... which is when you're supposed to stop rolling) an 18 Charisma will still leave you with a net +1 after the maximum possible penalty for actions so they could still end up immediately friendly anyway.

How very MECHANICAL.

You must HATE Old-School D&D with a passion for not handling social situations correctly.

ETA: I just noticed above that it is LITERALLY impossible for a character with a positive Cha modifier to get "Immediate Attack" unless they're literally coming in with weapons drawn and screaming for blood. This means that by virtue of their high mechanical score they'll always have at least 1 round/minute to use actions to improve their odds for the second check and the odds of the follow up "Uncertain Roll Again" results are about 50% of avoiding an attack even if they don't do anything to get a better modifier by their actions.

Further a character with an 18 Cha (+3 modifier) only scores a "possible attack" on a 2 on 2d6... and even then needs another 4 or less on 2d6 to actually result in an attack just by staying neutral (virtually non-existent if they take actions that earn them a +1 or better modifier over the next minute). Those are HUGE odds in their favor playing by the rules.

I'd always kinda taken people at their word that the older rules didn't allow things like the Diplomancer. But actually reading the rules as written the old Reaction Roll tables are RIDICULOUSLY mechanistic in their resolution and allow outcomes every bit as crazy as the 3e Diplomancer rules allowed. The only difference was that who got the Diplomancer ability was a random roll instead of something that could be chosen.

Quote from: Chris24601;1033528* snippity doo dah *

Here are the actual words used in the Basic Rules...

* snippity  ay *

You must HATE Old-School D&D with a passion for not handling social situations correctly.

"Basic" is not old-school.  OD&D is old school.