# Worlds of Design: Rolls vs. Points in Character Building



## Jacob Lewis (May 8, 2020)

Rolling for attributes is exciting for the five minutes you spend hoping to beat the odds. After that, you'll spend the rest of the campaign with the outcome, good or bad, and eyeing everyone else's sheet to compare their results. Nobody ever really goes into this method hoping for less than or average numbers, and many will come up with numerous ways to circumvent the odds to ensure better results anyway, like more dice, discard low numbers, arrange the order, etc. 

Point buy makes more sense to me. Everyone is given the same pool of resources and freedom to make decisions for themselves. If players want to play with low scores, it's determined by their choices, not chances.


----------



## EternalDungeonMaster (May 8, 2020)

As an active D&D 5e DM, I don't use dice rolling for ability scores in my game. Firstly, on average, what does it really get you? If you use the 5e standard array of [15,14,13,12,10,8] as representative of a typical point-buy character (remember, the standard array is built using the 27-point point buy method), that gives you 72 total ability score points. If you roll 4d6 (drop the lowest) six times, which I suspect is the most common method of rolling ability scores in D&D, you end up with an average of approximately 73.5 total ability score points. Frankly, there isn't much difference there.

Most importantly, though, it puts too much weight on the DM. If a player rolls substandard scores, the weight falls on the DM to decide that the character is unplayably weak. If a player were to roll all 3s, that's a no-brainer. Reroll. If a player were to roll all 5s or all 7s, also a no-brainer. Reroll. What if the player rolled all 10s, though? Not an exciting D&D character, but is it unplayable? Surely, the player wouldn't want to play that character and would be looking to his or her DM to nix it and allow a reroll.

What about on the other end? What if the player rolled all 18s? Is it okay for the DM to say that the character is too powerful and would unbalance the campaign? Imagine if you accomplished the miraculous, staggeringly improbable act of rolling all 18s for a character and the DM told you that you had to reroll.

So if we're asking DMs to adjudicate a rolled character as being either too weak or too powerful, what we're really saying is that we need a mechanism for determining the acceptable upper and lower bounds of character ability scores. Well, we already have that. It's call a point buy method.


----------



## Morrus (May 8, 2020)

Point buy is certainly fairer. However, you get a very limited number of character builds -- they all have a maximum primary attribute, and they all tend to look the same.

I do agree, though, that that similarity is outweighed by the unfairness of a single unlucky roll at the start of a campaign affecting you for the entire campaign.

Rolling ability scores is _very_ exciting, and full of possibility and wonder. The tension is high. It's like being a kid, when the world is full of infinite variety, the opportunities endless and the future unknowable. It's like opening a present, when you don't know what's inside. But it only lasts a few minutes and then you have those scores for months.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2020)

There are definitely methods that split the difference between the two, a kind of stochastic with boundaries.

Off the top of my head, _Beyond the Wall's _playbooks generate stats that add up to the same values, but are varied by what you roll during the playbook.  Like the first table of character creation gives you  a total of +4 to your stats, but the actual stats that increase depend on the entry of the table.  

One method I've used before is roll with boundaries.  You roll 2d6+5 five times, and the 6th stat is 75 minus the sum of the other 5 stats.  (You do some adjustments is the last stat is out of bounds for a viable stat.)  

Another method I've tried recently (suggested by @FaerieGodfather) is point-buy combined with rolling.  You do standard point-buy first for your character.  Then you roll 4d6kh3 6 times in order, and you keep whichever value is higher for each stat.  Fairly high powered, but everyone has at minimum a viable character and sometimes you get some lucky rolls that make you re-evaluate your concept.


----------



## Hussar (May 8, 2020)

I have to admit, I'm far more in the point buy camp now.  Die rolled characters just don't really do it for me anymore.  

Now, in 5e, since ability scores don't actually make a whole lot of difference, it really doesn't matter that much.  Whether you've got a +8 to attack or a +10 isn't going to matter often enough that it is going to bother me.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 8, 2020)

I have enough experience playing characters with truly awful stats that I have no great desire to back. Not for a long-term campaign anyway. For shorter games or one-offs its a little different. I also have less issues with rolling in OSR and similar games where that's a key part of the experience that you've bought into before you start.

Rolling is _fun _though, there's no doubt about that. Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it, rolling would be cool if for every X number under a set total stat number you got something else, like a feat. SO for every three or four points you are under the total you get a feat or something from a list, and totals under X (something really bad) get binned. That could be fun too.


----------



## Mortus (May 8, 2020)

I prefer rolling dice and using the results to create the concept and background for the PC.

In my most recent campaign as a player in DCC I rolled a 5 for my Agility and a 5 for Personality.

Ian, my handsome halfling with a wooden peg leg and absolutely no filter to his blunt opinions is among the most fun PCs I’ve ever played.


----------



## drjones (May 8, 2020)

I have the BEST way, it involves some randomness but statistically binds the stats together, so in the end the power curve looks a lot like point buy.  It is literally the best of both worlds, all my groups use it now.  

The cards:
Take Ace-6 cards from a normal deck.
Deal into 6 piles
Drop lowest from each pile (ace is a 1)
You are done.

The result is that you can have an 18 or a 3, but you only have 4 6's so you will never have two 18s or two 3s.  One bad stat makes the others more likely to be high.  One great stat makes the others more likely to be low. 
All the gambling fun of random, but with a much better statistical distribution so all players are on an even playing field.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 8, 2020)

Under point buy, players who prefer randomness could always use a random system to generate their choices. I've never seen anyone do that tho.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 8, 2020)

I think my favorite character gen system to use is the one from Buttery Wholesomeness. So awesome.


----------



## Ath-kethin (May 8, 2020)

I absolutely adore rollong dice. It's exciting, it's tactile, and the sound itself is addictive.

It's also cripplingly unfair as an ability generation method. But I also dislike point buy, because it is, be definition, min-maxing. It also relies on luck to make a successful character: a person lucky enough to have game experience or the assistance of someone with game experience will make a very different character than a total newbie.

What I find best mitigates the situation is what I call Standard Array +2. Everyone uses the standard array and has two additional points to allocate as they see fit. This method allows some flexibility and eliminates "useless" characters, but maximizes fairness by presenting everyone with almost the same numbers and options.

I've had some mild grumbling through the years, but generally my players seem to like it too. Fewer choices makes character creation faster, easier, and less stressful for everyone.


----------



## TrippyHippy (May 8, 2020)

There can be a balance between the two. 

For example, instead of rolling up each Ability or Characteristic (or whatever) separately, you could roll all the dice at once and then pick and choose how they are ‘spent’ to build up seperate scores.


----------



## Fenris447 (May 8, 2020)

I knew rolling would produce problems from the start. So I tried to come up with a whole system of them rolling a pool of numbers from which they all then draft. It was too complicated, not thrilling, and not well received. I abandoned it and let them go with 4d6h3 * 7, dropping lowest one.

What's resulted is an OP party. They punch above their CR consistently. It's my problem to deal with, which I am happy to do as their DM, but it's still an ongoing challenge for me. I've since gone back and averaged the point buy cost of their stats, which was 37. Any characters entering the game now use point buy with that 37 points.

But you can bet that when I started my other campaign, this time BGDIA, I allowed them to pick standard point buy or the standard array. And sure enough, balancing is much easier.

I would allow rolling for one-shot characters in the future. But for any long-term game where consistent balance is important, I will probably never have them roll again.


----------



## Scott Christian (May 8, 2020)

One of my favorite characters used the roll method, and was terribly below average. The dwarf next to me seemed like a minor deity.  We all had a blast.

That said, there are many game groups I've played with where that would not be the case. People would constantly be in a state of envy or questioning how the player was able to have +10 in their acrobatics roll or whatever. That is never a good state for a table that's supposed to be storytelling to be in. 

So why risk it? 

Maybe, just maybe, you want your characters to represent the gritty reality of life. (a la, I will never be near the level of any Olympic track athlete no matter how hard I train.) If that's your table's objective - go for it. But, unless everyone agrees to that specific objective, it should be flat out no.


----------



## atanakar (May 8, 2020)

Even during the Basic and AD&D 1e era my players wanted to shoe horn their stats in the best positions. This is not a modern thing.

We quickly abandoned the official method. Players chose class first, then rolled. Considering we were going for the long haul and the number of XPs was gargantuan, I don't blame them. I believe we used roll 5d6 keep best three to avoid having «useless characters» from the get go. Attributes didn't raise with levelling in those days. You had to find Magic Tomes or Stones to raise them. 

I switched to point buy as soon as it became available. The problem starts if one player insists on rolling the dice but whines because his score are less optimal than point buy. But doesn't whine if he gets high rolls. All players should use the same method.


----------



## delericho (May 8, 2020)

Rolling is fine for one-shot games. For a campaign, my preference in point-buy, every time. In fact, I'd go further - in a campaign, dice have no place in character generation or advancement, period.

That said, I don't consider that an absolute deal-breaker, on either side of the table. For the right DM, I'd be willing to play even if they insisted on random rolled ability scores (much less so for hit points). Conversely, if a player _really_ wants to roll, I'll allow it - but the condition is that they accept the rolls they get, and play the resulting character in good faith (that is, no suiciding the character so you can roll again).

(All IMO, of course!)


----------



## atanakar (May 8, 2020)

delericho said:


> Conversely, if a player _really_ wants to roll, I'll allow it - but the condition is that they accept the rolls they get, and play the resulting character in good faith (that is, no suiciding the character so you can roll again).




Yep! Character suicide was a thing with random attribute rolls. Charging mindlessly into combat to get killed on purpose.


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2020)

I love organic characters such as D&D rolled _in order_ - ones where you don't have the most efficient ordering.

However, in D&D 5e, I love the Faustian bargain of ASI vs. feat. Specifically where (a) it's a meaningful choice (not too low or two high of ability scores) and (b) everyone in the party has the same choice (not some with high ability scores and some with low). So I definitely like point buy for that.

Point buy also works better for the minigame of creating characters - something you can do even without an imminent need for a character. The number of Champions (excuse me, Hero System) characters I've made without a Champions game on the horizon could be shocking.

Which brings us to another category, similar to Deterministic but not based on the description given since it can vary between characters in the group.  It's a point buy or similar, but coming from a pool where non ability scores are also impacted.  This could be Hero System, where the same points are used for your characteristics, skill, and powers.  It could be something like Shadowrun where you prioritize different character aspects so you get more or less points for a point buy scenario.


----------



## jsaving (May 8, 2020)

The problem in actual campaigns is that groups often have a person or two willing to cheat while the rest of the group rolls honestly, which rewards bad behavior for months or even years at the expense of group members who play by the rules.  There are ways around that, like having each player roll for the person to their left or having the DM roll for everybody, but those methods defeat the purpose of having players "feel like" their die rolls are creating their characters.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (May 8, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Rolling for attributes is exciting for the five minutes you spend hoping to beat the odds. After that, you'll spend the rest of the campaign with the outcome, good or bad, and eyeing everyone else's sheet to compare their results. Nobody ever really goes into this method hoping for less than or average numbers, and many will come up with numerous ways to circumvent the odds to ensure better results anyway, like more dice, discard low numbers, arrange the order, etc.
> 
> Point buy makes more sense to me. Everyone is given the same pool of resources and freedom to make decisions for themselves. If players want to play with low scores, it's determined by their choices, not chances.




I guess I could have just hit "Like" on this one. To add to it, I will say I played a lot of GURPS, and that swung me over to the points buy method. I could also see a points buy method being applied to the skills and attacks.


----------



## Ulfgeir (May 8, 2020)

Prefer pointbuy, If you have enough points. Though random can be interesting some times.

My old group used to do this: for each stat, roll 3d6. Keep at least 1. If you kept 1, reroll, the other two dice, keep at least 1, then reroll the last die.  If you kept 2 dice in the first step, you had 2 reroll on the last die. 

We also had roll two sets of stats, take the set you liked best (The whole set, no mixing between them). If you were still not happy, roll a 3rd set (or more), but you had to lower the total value of your stats by a cumulative  -2 per extra set beyond the first 2 free ones. We had one guy ending up with a 4 in strength (on a 3-18 scale).


----------



## Envisioner (May 8, 2020)

In my campaign world, it's an important plot point that every being in the universe has the same point-buy total.  The gods themselves wanted life to be fair, or at least as fair as was possible, so they didn't permit any individual to be born with suboptimal characteristics.  (There are a few builds which sabotage slightly, but this is generally the equivalent of having made poor life choices at a formative age, rather than being actually born with less of a chance, although this does vary a bit by species.)


----------



## Worrgrendel (May 8, 2020)

jsaving said:


> The problem in actual campaigns is that groups often have a person or two willing to cheat while the rest of the group rolls honestly, which rewards bad behavior for months or even years at the expense of group members who play by the rules.  There are ways around that, like having each player roll for the person to their left or having the DM roll for everybody, but those methods defeat the purpose of having players "feel like" their die rolls are creating their characters.




There is an easy way to prevent cheating and still allow everyone to roll their stats. At session 0, everyone rolls their stats out in the open in front of everyone else. Then you could take if further and if someone rolls atrociously bad, then the group could decide on a reroll perhaps. That's the way we used to do it. Now I'm pretty much a point buy guy these days.

Incindentally, I used to have a player in my old group that still tried to circumvent this and during the campaign. We busted him using a set of dice that had all the "1's" on the die replaced with the highest number for that die. He tried to claim it was an "accident" and those dice were just for fun and got mixed in with his "regular" dice. Needless to say we put an end to that and he eventually was kicked out of the group for other issues as well.


----------



## GMMichael (May 8, 2020)

lewpuls said:


> One of the cons of rolling dice is that it's unfair in the long run, a player can get big advantages lasting for years of real-time throughout the campaign just by getting lucky in the first dice rolls. . .
> 
> I haven’t spent much time trying to figure out yet another method of generating a character. The only other method I can think of that isn’t one or the other is to have some kind of skilled contest determine the numbers, such as pitching pennies or bowling. Then the question becomes why use one kind of skill over another?
> 
> Do you favor one method over the other? And has anyone devised a method that is not stochastic or deterministic?




How is rolling dice unfair?  Each PC has the same odds of getting the same scores.  That's like saying the guy who won the lottery had an unfair advantage because he picked all the right numbers.

*Another Method:*
All scores are predetermined by the GM.  The players pick their classes (if you're into that sort of thing), and then the players must negotiate which character gets which of the scores.  Interestingly, the list of scores is not evenly distributed for the number of players (e.g. there is not one 10 score for each PC).

My PCs roll 3d4+3 for their scores.  If they don't like their results, they can take a set that's just a hair worse than completely average rolls (which is probably still an improvement if they didn't like the first set).  The dice-gods will not be ignored.


----------



## Alzrius (May 8, 2020)

DMMike said:


> How is rolling dice unfair?  Each PC has the same odds of getting the same scores.  That's like saying the guy who won the lottery had an unfair advantage because he picked all the right numbers.




It's one of those things where "fairness" is being used as shorthand for different terms by different people, in this case equal outcome (i.e. you end up with the same point-value of ability scores), as opposed to having equal opportunity at something (i.e. everyone rolls the same number of dice the same number of times). Sort of like how people can use "realism" to mean either "functions according to real-world physics" or "follows internal logic and self-consistency."


----------



## atanakar (May 8, 2020)

*Equal* chances of being *unequal* when rolling. Characters at *both ends* for the curve should be rejected when using random rolls. Not just the weak ones. Uber ones should also be discarded. If you are going to use all kinds of *dice shenanigans* to average the randomness of results towards the middle of the curve, just use Point Buy.

I didn't get to choose my stats when I was born. I'm sure as hell not going to impose random rolls on my fantasy characters or those of my players.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 8, 2020)

I like rolling stats only for my own PCs. I can take bad rolls. It depends on the edition, but in 5e I've even played spellcasters with a negative modifier on their spellcasting stat, and it's doable. I don't care if it's more difficult, it only makes me more proud when I succeed and less guilty when I fail. I also don't care if I roll so badly that I die in a few sessions, there's always another character concept I want to try out anyway. It helps that usually I do not like planning my character's 20-levels career in advance. 

As a DM it's a whole other story. I don't want to hear players whine each session that they can't play like they want because they were unlucky at character creation. Luckily I always have newcomers so that I have a reason to provide pregenerated PCs, and those are a great excuse to use standard arrays ("otherwise I would have to recalculate everything") which are even better because they are the fastest and hardest to cheat with. If a player really wants to roll, I allow it but I give no second chance, they are warned.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (May 8, 2020)

atanakar said:


> I didn't get to choose my stats when I was born. I'm sure as hell not going to impose random rolls on my fantasy characters or those of my players.



 Me neither. All 18/00's baby!


----------



## billd91 (May 8, 2020)

I still make my players roll in the D&D games I run. I like it as a player because I like to discover my character rather than always fall into the same patterns with point buy - so I make my players discover their characters as well. And if that means they have to reconsider something - so be it.

With the latest PF campaign I'm running, I did have the players all roll and then we recorded everyone's results and gave everyone the choice of picking which rolled array to take. It has been an interesting experiment and I'll probably try it again. You don't have to deal with players whining about one being luckier than another because they all could have chosen the array they personally thought was best. And the array generated isn't bought by trading points back and forth between stats so nothing has been dumped to boost something higher and the familiar patterns of point buy may not appear.


----------



## billd91 (May 8, 2020)

whoops - double post


----------



## Hurin88 (May 8, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> One method I've used before is roll with boundaries.  You roll 2d6+5 five times, and the 6th stat is 75 minus the sum of the other 5 stats.  (You do some adjustments is the last stat is out of bounds for a viable stat.)




I like that! Nice idea.


----------



## Lanefan (May 8, 2020)

atanakar said:


> I didn't get to choose my stats when I was born.



Exactly; and in the game-world your character didn't get to choose its stats when it was born either.

Some people are just plain overall better at everything.  Fact of life.

And there also seems to be a (to me, new-school) assumption and expectation throughout this thread that the character you roll up at session 0 will be the character you play for the duration of the campaign.

How dull.


----------



## atanakar (May 8, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Exactly; and in the game-world your character didn't get to choose its stats when it was born either.
> 
> Some people are just plain overall better at everything.  Fact of life.
> 
> ...




Please tell me how to cast spell, in real life !!! I really want to learn how to do it!


----------



## Shiroiken (May 8, 2020)

A lot of it is system dependent. To use D&D as an example, I usually offer point buy or rolled; after the roll you can choose to take the standard array. This prevents "useless" characters, since you can choose to take the array, or you can not take the risk of rolling, using point buy to make the exact character you want. Personally, I'd much rather offer several arrays, basically premade point buys that prevent mix/max nonsense, but my players much prefer rolling.

A good system that splits the difference was the original Deadlands. You randomly generated your ability scores by drawing cards, then you get a number of points to buy advantages, skills, or increase your ability scores. The lower the ability score, the cheaper it is to raise, so if you draw badly, you can forsake some of your skills to raise key abilities. 

Another option involves having less of a range on the ability scores. For example, in the AEG version of Legend of the Five Rings, everyone started with a 2 in each ability, and normally gained +1 in two different ones. You could spend points to raise them, but the cost was exponentially expensive. Thus some characters might get a single ability to 4, but most would rather have more 3s, since the 1 extra die rolled and kept was better over multiple abilities, and a single one.


----------



## Sabathius42 (May 8, 2020)

DMMike said:


> How is rolling dice unfair?  Each PC has the same odds of getting the same scores.  That's like saying the guy who won the lottery had an unfair advantage because he picked all the right numbers.



In the case of a lottery, you test your number against the system ONE TIME and no set of number is "better" than any other set of numbers.

In the case of rolling stats, you test your numbers against the system potentially tens of thousands of times and some numbers are better than other numbers.

If you wanted to make these cases closer to equal, it would be like saying everyone born is given a lottery ticket for life.  Each day a lottery result is generated.  In the hopper are balls marked 1-100, and the number on the ball is the number of balls of that number placed in the hopper.  So there is 1 #1 ball, 2 #2 balls....and 100 #100 balls.

Would you rather have ticket 1-2-2-3-3-3 or 100-100-100-100-100-100?


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 8, 2020)

Seeing a lot of folks saying "unfair" when they mean "unequal" in the thread. Rolling is just as fair as point buy is, assuming that every player is given the same particulars and no one is using loaded dice - but rolling produces unequal results.

That aside, I find my own preference sways one way or the other based on other details within the system. For example, I will happily roll scores if the ability modifier range mirrors TSR-era D&D (so the most likely to occur scores don't have much impact on game-play) or if there are ways to mitigate the impact of not rolling well like in the Hackmaster RPG (where there is both a floor for acceptable scores, and scores can be improved via build points and rolls over time).

But if a system gives out easier access to ability modifiers and the game math figures you have a particular non-zero modifier, I heavily prefer non-random score generation. The PF2 system being my current favorite since it has elements of point buy, elements of story-driven determination, and doesn't actually involve doing math for how many points you've spent where.


----------



## Ian Danton (May 8, 2020)

Am I alone in remembering the release of the original Unearthed Arcana? (Page 74 if anyone has it). Getting excited at the table of contents and seeing that the dice methods for character creation had been expanded. Finally, my method of cheating was official! Want a Paladin? Just roll 9d6 for Wisdom, and 8d6 for Charisma. Brilliant!

Guess what, even then I did not always get the required 17 to become a Paladin. 

Hmmm, maybe if I rolled 17d6..........

Great article Lewis. Nothing beats rolling for excitement. Nothing destroys fun faster than being the one who plays the Fighter because the best you rolled was a 9. At least you died young..... (or learnt to run...).


----------



## Ace (May 8, 2020)

Both methods work fine though my personal preference is to use point buy which is fair for everyone.  

Of course there is a 3rd way, at least if you trust your players. Let them decide what states they want for the character and what is appropriate.  This doesn't work if you as a DM aren't experienced enough to adjust challenges (toss an extra goblin or two  against the  high stat guy)  or if you player's aren't decent.

And note it does work with an entire group (including DM here) of power gamers. As the saying goes if everybody is incredible nobody is incredible.


----------



## Lanefan (May 8, 2020)

atanakar said:


> Please tell me how to cast spell, in real life !!! I really want to learn how to do it!



Like I said, some people are better than others...


----------



## rknop (May 8, 2020)

The other way I've seen is to bid for attributes, which is a modification of the point-buy system, making it competetive.  This is what's used in Amber.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> Under point buy, players who prefer randomness could always use a random system to generate their choices. I've never seen anyone do that tho.



A player in miy group did something like this when we played an AD&D one-shot: I had an option to choose rolling or points, and he chose rolling for stats, and then rolled race, class and alignment randomly. From memory he ended up a half-orc cleric.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

My group has a number of active campaigns.

For our Classic Traveller campaign, in the first session the players rolled their PCs - stats, then the dice-driven lifepath system that is one of the centrepieces of that RPG. Each player started with two PCs. After they'd rolled their PCs I rolled the starting world.

In our Prince Valiant game each PC choose starting Brawn and Presence (the rule is that each can  be between 1 and 6 and the two must sum to 7). They also chose their starting skills. Random generation would be pretty silly in this system.

In our Cortex+ Heroic games I built the PCs as pre-gens: character generation in Cortex+/MHRP is neither random, nor points-buy, but rather about using the system resources to model the character envisioned. So in our current LotR games it's probably fair to say that Gandalf is mechanically more powerful than Dwalin.


----------



## murquhart72 (May 9, 2020)

Gary always dug the dice and said choosing a characters abilities was silly. I like that when playing "old school", but I'm also a fan of a player having as much control as possible in the creation of their character. Some campaigns, I literally have them choose ability scores based on character concept! But all in all, I think it doesn't really matter and one campaign can be different from another without too much fuss.


----------



## Tun Kai Poh (May 9, 2020)

I'm in favour of point-buy or array choices. Random rolling can lead to players feeling left behind and generally dissatisfied with their options.

I remember joining a Pathfinder 1e game with a randomly-rolled half-orc druid, Beastwizzard (spelling intentional) Brak, who had some ridiculous scores like 20 Strength, 17 Wisdom, and very good Constitution, Dexterity and Intelligence. Not only did he do plenty of problem-solving with his spells and wild shape (like turning into a dugong and swimming under a pirate fleet to cast Warp Wood on critical planks in the hulls), he was also pretty formidable in melee. My friend Doug, who is known as a very characterful roleplayer who always puts stats and optimization second, got very mediocre stats for his human Cavalier by comparison, and often failed to make any contribution in combat while I was clearing up the field with the help of summoned bears.

Our GM finally took a look at our respective stats and calculated there was a nearly 40-point difference between the two of us, if you used point-buy. After that, he swore off random stat generation for his campaigns!

I should also note my displeasure at Call of Cthulhu for remaining behind the times with its random stats. Plenty of other horror games have point-buy presented as the first option. A pity, I liked CoC back in the day.



rknop said:


> The other way I've seen is to bid for attributes, which is a modification of the point-buy system, making it competetive.  This is what's used in Amber.



Bidding can be hilariously fun when done right.


----------



## Ace (May 9, 2020)

atanakar said:


> Please tell me how to cast spell, in real life !!! I really want to learn how to do it!





Try here

Results  absolutely NOT guaranteed.


----------



## Octiron (May 9, 2020)

I have two slightly different ways to roll for stats while still getting the same total number. My players in the past were very satisfied with the results. You start with 6 in each attribute, roll 6 dice and put them into your attributes in order, then flip the dice over to the opposite side and choose where they go for the last part. The two methods are slightly different in how much choice you have over where the dice go.

BARFLIP (some choice in die placement)
GRIDFLIP (no choice in die placement)

You can download sample versions for free using the full-size preview last I checked.

There's also a web version of GRIDFLIP that does it with a press of the button on Itch
GRIDFLIP Attribute Generator


----------



## Ace (May 9, 2020)

Another method I saw for OSR was background dice. 

You started with 3d6 and  rolled the events in your background.They gave you d6 for certain stats. Survived a deadly injury? Get an extra d6 for Con. 

This could result with characters with 5d6 Con and 3d6 Wisdom or whatever but it worked OK. I added a  few "free dice" two or three depending on power level which I though worked OK.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2020)

See, honestly, the problem I have with die rolled characters is that it's simply a way to beat the average.  If the average array is 27 points, for example, dollars to donuts, if you have 10 die rolled characters in front of you, 8 of them will be better than 27 points.  

You can often spot the inveterate die rollers because they turn up their nose at standard array as being a "weak" character.  

If you're going to die roll, you might as well just set a 32 point buy and you'll get virtually the same results most of the time.

I do find the "variety" argument tends to fall apart on examination because, again, with exceptions, no one plays a die rolled character that came up with lower than standard point buy.  Even equal is a rarity.  

I mean, heck, poll your current group if you die roll.  Add up the stat values of the characters and, I'll bet dollars to donuts, the majority of the characters will be above the standard array.  If die rolling was truly "fair" then there should be significant numbers of PC's under the standard array value.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

On the argument that _in real life you don't choose so why should you in the game_?

In real life you don't choose the circumstances of your birth, and depending what those are you may have only modest or perhaps no choice over the context and content of your socialisation, education and training.

Converesely, you probably do have some choice over how much effort you put into your fitiness, your reflexes, your pratice at rhetoric and singing, etc.

So I don't see any strong contrast between "ability scores", "race" and "class" (the three classic components of PC building) in this context.

Of cousre once we move into more "modern" RPGs that don't draw those distinctions that particuarl argment becoms even weaker.


----------



## Darth Solo (May 9, 2020)

The world isn't fair. Random rolls fit any game a group chooses.

On point-buy, it isn't fair either: there's a level of system mastery that goes into making competent PB PCs. Players more knowledgeable about GURPS or Shadowrun or HERO or Savage Worlds or Mutants & Masterminds will build BETTER characters than a player with limited knowledge of the system .

So sometimes the dice are kinder than not knowing which level of ability, skill and power you need to make a capable character.

Plus, everyone knows you use 2d6+6 Ability rolls for D&D-esque games. Give the PCs some teeth.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

Darth Solo said:


> The world isn't fair. Random rolls fit any game a group chooses.



I don't follow,

(1) Why roll for stats but not race or class?

(2) How would random rolling work in (say) Burning Wheel? Apocalpyse World? 4e D&D?


----------



## Darth Solo (May 9, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't follow,
> 
> (1) Why roll for stats but not race or class?
> 
> (2) How would random rolling work in (say) Burning Wheel? Apocalpyse World? 4e D&D?



Again, random rolls work for a given group that are fine with them. Never played BW or AW or 4e. Do they allow random ability rolls? If so, the group would decide if they wanted to use them.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (May 9, 2020)

I've never not rolled for D&D. Someone can roll crap stats or someone can roll amazing stats, it's not really that important. Some people also seem to get consistently lucky or unlucky on rolls in general. Perhaps some people would prefer a game where your character just get a "standard array" of rolls to apply to skill checks throughout each game session.

But more seriously, I totally understand why people would like point buying or standard arraying or whatever. If you are someone who likes theory-crafting (and I do) it works way better for that. Often closely related, if you are someone who shows up with their heart set on one and only one character concept to a group that would insist you play even with rolls where that character really wouldn't be viable then it may be a real bummer. In D&D 5e were you to not get a positive modifier for the spellcasting stat on a wizard, cleric, or druid then you would not only have less effective spells but you would barely be able to prepare any. 

But most people I play with are either newbies whom the group would all agree to let reroll truly bad stats so that they have a good first experience or else long time players who are bristling with a half dozen or so different character ideas they want to try out so it has never been an issue.

I'm less sympathetic to the "everyone needs equal power levels" school of thought. That's the adolescent "Timmy got a cookie and I didn't. Where's my cookie!?" theory of fairness, and life is happier once you outgrow it.



Hussar said:


> mean, heck, poll your current group if you die roll. Add up the stat values of the characters and, I'll bet dollars to donuts, the majority of the characters will be above the standard array. If die rolling was truly "fair" then there should be significant numbers of PC's under the standard array value.




Or if the standard array were "fair" it should equal the average array of rolls for 4d6 drop the lowest. Or maybe straight 3d6 (with average roll of 10.5) is truly fair and standard array is for people who want overpowered characters. Fundamentally fair is whatever arbitrary values we set. But yes, someone much better then me at math determined the average rolled array would with 4d6 drop the lowest would be 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, which puts three stats one point above the 5e standard array, though the 9 and 11 are functionally the same as an 8 and 10 for most purposes, unless you are someone who invests in evening out your dump stats. In D&D 5e the main "unfair" advantage rolling gets you is the strong chance of starting with an 18 after racial bonus, and the low probability of a 20, both of which under the standard array are impossibly high to achieve, in a game where one or two stats tend to hold outsized importance for any given characters. But if starting with a +4 or +5 instead of a +3 to your main stat is unfair or gamebreaking then so is starting at any level after an ability score increase.


----------



## Darth Solo (May 9, 2020)

Preference is preference. 

Can I as GM design tight NPCs that might overwhelm novice and even experienced Point-Buy players?

Yup. I know ALL the kinky munchkin twists. Is that fair? If the novice PB player designs a nice warrior who's outclassed by the warrior PC of a more experienced player, is that fair?

Where's the "unfair overlap" across the two build systems?

Tell me.


----------



## Sabathius42 (May 9, 2020)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I'm less sympathetic to the "everyone needs equal power levels" school of thought. That's the adolescent "Timmy got a cookie and I didn't. Where's my cookie!?" theory of fairness, and life is happier once you outgrow it.




Dr Evil: Riiiight


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

Darth Solo said:


> Again, random rolls work for a given group that are fine with them. Never played BW or AW or 4e. Do they allow random ability rolls? If so, the group would decide if they wanted to use them.



Well, that's my point: if a game _doesn't allow random ability rolls_, or _doesn't have ability scores at all _(eg Cortex+ Heroic) or doesn't have any context in which random rolls make sense, then it's not true that _random rolls_ _fit any game a group chooses_.

Take another example: Prince Valiant, There are two "abilities": Brawn and Presence. These are rated from 1 to 6. The rating tells you the number of coins (or dice) you add to your pool in action resolution (often combined with further dice from a relevant skill, gear, circumstances, etc): heads (or evens, or whatever) are successes. And successes are compared against either an opposed roll or a difficulty number.

At PC build, a player gets to allocate 7 "points" to Brawn and Presence. It would be ridiculous to use random generation. It would add nothing to the game, Whereas by choosing allocation a player is choosing to play a more physically- or socially-inclined character.

Similarly, very few D&D games start with rolling PC level on (say) a d6 or d10.


----------



## Darth Solo (May 9, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Well, that's my point: if a game _doesn't allow random ability rolls_, or _doesn't have ability scores at all _(eg Cortex+ Heroic) or doesn't have any context in which random rolls make sense, then it's not true that _random rolls_ _fit any game a group chooses_.
> 
> Take another example: Prince Valiant, There are two "abilities": Brawn and Presence. These are rated from 1 to 6. The rating tells you the number of coins (or dice) you add to your pool in action resolution (often combined with further dice from a relevant skill, gear, circumstances, etc): heads (or evens, or whatever) are successes. And successes are compared against either an opposed roll or a difficulty number.
> 
> ...



Duh. If the game doesn't allow it, then YES, you can't exercise that option.

Are you mad those games don't? Write your own then.

You seem to think "fair" is every RPG allowing you to do everything.

Please design & publish THAT game (lol).


----------



## Sabathius42 (May 9, 2020)

Darth Solo said:


> Duh. If the game doesn't allow it, then YES, you can't exercise that option.
> 
> Are you mad those games don't? Write your own then.
> 
> ...



In case you weren't aware, it's free to treat people respectfully.  Perhaps even welcomed.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2020)

Benjamin Olson said:


> /snip
> 
> I'm less sympathetic to the "everyone needs equal power levels" school of thought. That's the adolescent "Timmy got a cookie and I didn't. Where's my cookie!?" theory of fairness, and life is happier once you outgrow it.




Ahh, ye olde ad hominem.  How I missed thee.  Particularly in view of this:



> Or if the standard array were "fair" it should equal the average array of rolls for 4d6 drop the lowest. Or maybe straight 3d6 (with average roll of 10.5) is truly fair and standard array is for people who want overpowered characters. Fundamentally fair is whatever arbitrary values we set. But yes, someone much better then me at math determined the average rolled array would with 4d6 drop the lowest would be 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, which puts three stats one point above the 5e standard array, though the 9 and 11 are functionally the same as an 8 and 10 for most purposes, unless you are someone who invests in evening out your dump stats. In D&D 5e the main "unfair" advantage rolling gets you is the strong chance of starting with an 18 after racial bonus, and the low probability of a 20, both of which under the standard array are impossibly high to achieve, in a game where one or two stats tend to hold outsized importance for any given characters. But if starting with a +4 or +5 instead of a +3 to your main stat is unfair or gamebreaking then so is starting at any level after an ability score increase.




So, you agree with me that the only reason to die roll is to get higher stats than the baseline, but, apparently it's childish to simply use the baseline for chargen.  

Additionally, no one said it was game breaking.  Although, what generally happens, is that you have an entire group with higher than presumed stats, meaning that the entire group is punching above its weight class.  Which does make more work for the DM.  And, honestly all it does is raise the bar a bit on encounter prep, unnecessarily.  So, no, it's not game breaking or unfair to die roll.  It's pointless and typically a way for powergamers to powergame without raising any complaints of powergaming, but, no, it's not game breaking or unfair.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 9, 2020)

I prefer point buy or standard array style attributes, overall. I tend to think that when people roll, there’s a tendency to allow for a reroll here or there, and so on. 

The argument that it leads to similarly statted characters has a little merit, but you could always change things up and not put your highest score in your primary stat. 

Also, if characters having different scores in their stats is really what makes them different than each other...then I think there are other things to worry about.

Ideally, I’d like a mix of some sort. Five Torches Deep has different methods for determining scores based on your race and class selections. That’s pretty cool. Blades in the Dark starts you off with 1 point in one stat and 2 points in another based on your playbook, and then allows you to add four more to whatever stats you’d like, up to a starting max. 

I mean, I don’t see how a balanced method is a bad thing in a game where everyone’s meant to have fun, and which is cooperative rather than competitive. Why does anyone need more than what others have?


----------



## MGibster (May 9, 2020)

rknop said:


> The other way I've seen is to bid for attributes, which is a modification of the point-buy system, making it competetive.  This is what's used in Amber.




You can run into oddities with any system.  The last time I played Amber everyone except me decide to go for #1 in Psyche.  I ended up spending a few points on Strength and Endurance because nobody else wanted it and Warfare was my true desire so I ended up in first place on that as well.  So in a group of 5 I was the strongest, toughest, and most skilled warrior sitting on my Amber level psyche.  Nobody but me was particularly happy with those results.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

Darth Solo said:


> The world isn't fair. Random rolls fit any game a group chooses.





Darth Solo said:


> Again, random rolls work for a given group that are fine with them. Never played BW or AW or 4e. Do they allow random ability rolls? If so, the group would decide if they wanted to use them.





Darth Solo said:


> Duh. If the game doesn't allow it, then YES, you can't exercise that option.



I've lost track of what your point is. You seemed to start by saying that, _because the world isn't fair_, random rolls can fit _any game_ if a grouip chooses to use them.

Now you seem to be saying that, _if a group enjoys random rolls_, and _if a game provies for them_, then a group can use them.

The first claim was interesting and, in my view, false, because there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with _what a group chooses_, nor with the _(un)fairness of the world_.

The second claim seems to be uninteresting and bordering on the tautological.



Darth Solo said:


> On point-buy, it isn't fair either: there's a level of system mastery that goes into making competent PB PCs. Players more knowledgeable about GURPS or Shadowrun or HERO or Savage Worlds or Mutants & Masterminds will build BETTER characters than a player with limited knowledge of the system .





Darth Solo said:


> Can I as GM design tight NPCs that might overwhelm novice and even experienced Point-Buy players?
> 
> Yup. I know ALL the kinky munchkin twists. Is that fair? If the novice PB player designs a nice warrior who's outclassed by the warrior PC of a more experienced player, is that fair?



There are points-buy systems that don't manifest the sort of system mastery and kinky munchkin twists you describe here.

One example would be (again) Prince Valiant. Another would be spending XP to change or improve your character in Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP. Another, I think, would be choosing a new PC option in Apocalypse World.

In those systems, player skill - to the extent that it is a thing at all in those games - manifests primarily at the moment of resolution, not in PC building.


----------



## MGibster (May 9, 2020)

The time available to me for gaming purposes is finite and I do not wish to squander it with a character I have no desire to play so it's point buy for me.  As others have pointed out, with random rolling you run into issues where someone rolled abysmally low and is stuck with a terribly weak character.  Worse yet, the player may be stuck with a character he or she simply doesn't want.  If I played a scientist in my last game I might want to be a grizzled street samurai in this game instead.  I don't want to hope the dice go my way to get what I want.  

Although I do agree it's fun to roll up random characters.  I rolled one up for Conan but it was totally random.  The characters name, class, country of origin, education, etc., etc. were completely random and I think gender was pretty much the only thing I picked.


----------



## MGibster (May 9, 2020)

pemerton said:


> There are points-buy systems that don't manifest the sort of system mastery and kinky munchkin twists you describe here.




Savage Worlds is pretty simple so far as point buy systems go but even then new players can run into a few pitfalls.  But I can think of very few games where the experienced player won't be better at it than inexperienced players.  If folks are randomly rolling I expect the player with more experience is probably going to be able to do more with their character because they understand how the rules work better than the inexperienced player.


----------



## pming (May 9, 2020)

Hiya!



Jacob Lewis said:


> Rolling for attributes is exciting for the five minutes you spend hoping to beat the odds. After that, you'll spend the rest of the campaign with the outcome, good or bad, and eyeing everyone else's sheet to compare their results. Nobody ever really goes into this method hoping for less than or average numbers, and many will come up with numerous ways to circumvent the odds to ensure better results anyway, like more dice, discard low numbers, arrange the order, etc.
> 
> Point buy makes more sense to me. Everyone is given the same pool of resources and freedom to make decisions for themselves. If players want to play with low scores, it's determined by their choices, not chances.




I prefer rolling so much that I more or less insist on it for virtually any RPG I GM/DM...or play.

With the Random method I've never had a DM say "THOSE are your scores? Too high! You cheated!" ...and I've never had a DM say "THOSE are your scores? Too low! Roll again!".

With Point Buy, I _have_ had a DM's say "THOSE are your scores? Too high AND too low! Balance them better!" ...and I've had a DM say "THOSE are your scores? Too low! Spend ALL your points!".

The point I'm getting at is that...at least in my experience... the "Array/Point Buy" method tends to discourage unusual or unique characters. It also tends to annoy the DM when I get the "official 5e array stats of [15,14,13,12,10,8 ]....and show him my character that has [16, 10, 11, 9, 8, 7]...and the other Players. Suddenly I'm accused of "trying to screw with the game" because I want to play a 'below PC average' character.

As for "cheating" players with the Random method; my solution to this if/when it ever comes out is the same solution I made 30+ years ago when I was still a "DM newb with only 8 or so years under my belt". All I said to fix the cheating player was.... "OK, everyone make some 1st level PC's. Just pick your stats. Whatever you feel is a reasonable character or fits your concept, just don't get too crazy". BOOM! Every single PC brought to the table was reasonable. No "multiple 18's", no "multiple 3's". No "mostly in the teens". Just decent, interesting PC's with stats that fit the character concept. Why? Nobody wanted to be accused of being a Munchkin/Monty-Haul type of person with a self-esteem problem who needed validation via a set of high stats. Who wuddathunkit?  So I saw stats like "17, 14, 10, 11, 8, 8", or "16, 16, 10, 9, 9, 8", or MAYBE a "18, 15, 11, 9, 8, 6", or even a "13, 11, 11, 11, 10, 12"...but nothing like "17,15,13,12,16,18".

If you want to see what kind of players you have...tell them to each "make a character over the week for the weekend game....and every one just pick your stats". That'll show you what kind of player someone is. Well, at least that's been my experience.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## aramis erak (May 9, 2020)

lewpuls said:


> Let’s talk about methods of generating RPG characters, both stochastic and deterministic.
> 
> [snip]​
> I haven’t spent much time trying to figure out yet another method of generating a character. The only other method I can think of that isn’t one or the other is to have some kind of skilled contest determine the numbers, such as pitching pennies or bowling. Then the question becomes why use one kind of skill over another?
> ...



As I've come to expect, another unsubtle and fundamentally flawed analysis.

Not all stochastic modes are simple rolled attributes; Redrick's rolling mode, and my implementation of it as a roller, is a hybrid of the two. It randomly assigns the points for the 5E point build.

Card based char gen as done in Dragonlance Fifth Age is not determinisitic - you draw 12 cards, and allocate them to the 8 primary atts, expertise, wealth, and two personality factors. The deck is 82 cards deep, no central tendency distribution.  

Choices with random - Classic Traveller is the simplest to explain. Random attribtues, then pick a service, attempt to enter that service, attempt to not die, attempt to get a commission if desired, attempt to get a promotion if desired and holding a commission, make aging saves, decide whether to attempt reenlistment, roll reenlistment (even if not desired, a nat 12 compels), roll for skills for the term on selected tables. If reenlisted, go back to avoiding death and repeat. Multiple choices, a good bit of control. Later editions (including the d20 edition, but not GURPS nor Hero) all increase the number of choices.

Deterministic...

Pregen only systems: Feng Shui 2, several storygames. Technically, Marvel Heroic RP, too, as the "Character Creation" chapter isn't a character generation ruleset, merely advice on statting up characters

Multiple template systems - No point spends.
The simplest I've seen is Danger Patrol Alpha. Pick a left half sheet, and a Right Half Sheet, put them together, add a name, D&D 5E technically falls into this, at least when using array. 

Priority spend systems: Shadowrun, Mechwarrior 2e...  technically a multi-pool point spend... but the priority system is determining the sizes of the other pools. It avoids many of the pitfalls of pure points. Especially, when combined with templates. (Mechwarrior doesn't enforce that, but when a GM does...) But not the "Knuckles the XXIII" syndrome

Defining abilities systems - everyone has a set number of abilities, but then defines them in an open ended method. Non-random, non-deterministic, as well. Fate can be handled this way; when it's a specific size tree, and  all aspects are up to group agreement, the deterministic skills are often outweighed by the aspects.


----------



## R_Chance (May 9, 2020)

billd91 said:


> I still make my players roll in the D&D games I run. I like it as a player because I like to discover my character rather than always fall into the same patterns with point buy - so I make my players discover their characters as well. And if that means they have to reconsider something - so be it.




Pretty much this. I've had a lot of PCs and NPCs shaped by oddities in the dice. You can give the PCs an advantage (say 4D6, drop the lowest) to safeguard against those random accidents that are too low, but I think the variations in characters abilities are good. Then too, the game I play isn't dominated by stats, more by level. As for feeling it's unfair when someone has higher stats... I always wanted those guys on my side, or preferably in front of me  

This topic always reminds me of arguments over which flavor is "better"...


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I prefer point buy or standard array style attributes, overall. I tend to think that when people roll, there’s a tendency to allow for a reroll here or there, and so on.
> 
> The argument that it leads to similarly statted characters has a little merit, but you could always change things up and not put your highest score in your primary stat.
> 
> Also, if characters having different scores in their stats is really what makes them different than each other...then I think there are other things to worry about.



D&D can be many things to many people - but at least through the classic lens as I read those books the fundamental element of PC build is _class_. Stats are a soft funnel into a class, and I suspect that very few players build their first or even second classic D&D PC as a low-STR high-INT fighter or a vice versa MU.

So rolling for stats is, in a real way, rolling for class. The power variation, especially in the earliest versions with almost flat stat-mods, is modest. It gets greater in AD&D and Moldvay Basic, but the latter also has rules for boosting your main stat at the expense of two other stats.

What distinguishes different instances of the same class in classic D&D tends not to be stats but (i) how they are played at the table, and (ii) what their gear (and, for casters, spell) load-out is.

In contemporary D&D stats aren't just or even mainly a soft funnel for class, if only because there are multiple classes with the same prime requisite, and they are also the foundation of non-combat resolution. Using random generation would be a bit like, in classic D&D, rolling for potency of class abilities. AD&D has a bit of this - percentile strength and chance to know spells - but I don't know many people who point to these as highlights of that system!



hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, I don’t see how a balanced method is a bad thing in a game where everyone’s meant to have fun, and which is cooperative rather than competitive. Why does anyone need more than what others have?



It depends on the point, flavour, focus etc of play. Part of the appeal of Classic Traveller is that the characters are (in some relative sense) ordinary - they have ordinary origins, they age, they had careers and have bank accounts and pensions, etc. Rolling for stats, for lifepath, for skills etc is part of this. A big part of PC gen is finding out _who you are going to be in the world of the far future_. Probably no one is going to _buy _Steward skill, but with random rolling you might discvoer that your character is really good at waiting tables and keeping passengers happy!

At least in my experience one result is a degree of distance or 3rd-person persepctive between player and PC. Though we also use multiple PCs, and while I tend to think that works _becusae of _the distaincing, maybe I'm confusing cause and effect!

Another thing about stats in Traveller is that they are not super-important in resolution. The standard consideation in resolution is skill level - each skill has its own resolution framework (not as clunky as it sounds, I assert!) and stats often don't factor in at all and even when they do are not normally determinative.



hawkeyefan said:


> Ideally, I’d like a mix of some sort. Five Torches Deep has different methods for determining scores based on your race and class selections. That’s pretty cool. Blades in the Dark starts you off with 1 point in one stat and 2 points in another based on your playbook, and then allows you to add four more to whatever stats you’d like, up to a starting max.



In Burning Wheel first the GM after consulting with the players sets a lifepath limit. (Typically 3 to 6.) Then you choose your LPs - this determines your skill options and skill points, your trait (roughly, feat) options and feat points, your starting wealth (wizard spells are something you have to buy with this), and your starting age. Startig age plus modifications from LPs determine your starting physical and mental stat pools, which you then allocate to your stats. Stats are sometimes used in resolution (at different frequencies for different of the 6 stats), and for untrained checks; if you're trainined in a skill then your starting value is derived from the relevant stats but checks are made off your skill rank and your stat is now irrelevant.

It just woudln't make any sense to even look at injecting random rolling into that framework.

In Apocalypse World your playbook gives you four options to choose from for your five stats (Cool, Hot, Sharp, Hard, Weird). Each of those options will set one of those stats (the one that is most important for that sort of character) at +2 (+3 for a couple of playbooks) while the rest will be set between -2 and +2 depending on which option you choose. Character improvement can include raising stats.

Given that most resolution in AW involves rolling 2d6 and adding the appropriate stat, it would be silly - game-breaing - to roll randomly. And the idea of (say) a low-Hard Gunlugger would be even more ridiculous than the low-INT MU that some D&D player somewhere has surely built and played.

But the idea that every Gunlugger is the same because they all have +2 Hard (or +3 if a particular starting move - _Insano like Drano_ - is chosen) is silly. An AW character is not defined by his/her stats, nor even by his/her moves although the latter start to at least establish an outline.of who the character is


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I can think of very few games where the experienced player won't be better at it than inexperienced players.



In a dice pool game this can manifest either in the ability to do better probability estimations, or at least a better intuitive familiarity with the shape and behaviour of various pools.

But this woul be about skill in action resolutoin, not mastery of the PC build mechanics. One thing I like about Classic Traveller, and RQ, and Prince Valiant, and even Rolemaster (mostly, is that the capabilties of the PC are pretty transparent. Want to hit things hard? Then you want a big number in your _hitting things_ skill (whatever that happens to be in the system).

This contrasts with (say) 4e D&D or Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP. In the former, working out what a PC is capable of requires integrating their stats with their powers with their feats with their gear. In the former, working out what a PC is capable of requires looking carefully at their SFX and how those affect the way they build and resolve their dice pools. In my expereince these systems require more mastery both to understand your PC at the build stage (or pre-gen selection state in Cortex+) and to play your PC at the resolution stage.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (May 9, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Ahh, ye olde ad hominem.  How I missed thee.  Particularly in view of this:




_Ad hominem_ is not an accurate description here unless someone here is known to have frequent cookie disputes with someone named Timmy. A particular conception of fairness where everyone has to rigidly receive the exact same things at all time is typical of children. There are certainly times for adults to adhere to it as well, but I think people sometimes do so reflexively because it was ingrained in childhood. I am sorry if I have inadvertently attacked someone here, I didn't read every post that carefully and was also just being flippant.



Hussar said:


> It's pointless and typically a way for powergamers to powergame without raising any complaints of powergaming, but, no, it's not game breaking or unfair.




Well then we're agreed that there is no fairness issue. Some people enjoy playing deeply flawed characters as well, and some people just enjoy gambling or just some randomness. I roll my 5e hit points most the time and that means on average -.5 hitpoints per level. I find the randomness more exciting and more interesting and value it over having two more hitpoints on average at level five. Rolling stats is totally favored by a large number of powergamers, but that's not what seems to excite the people I typically play with (with, I suspect, one exception), and the overwhelming majority are into rolling. If the standard array or point buy got a boost a lot of us still wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. But once again, there are also plenty of people who really just want to munchkin it up, and if I'd played with more than a couple of them I might be proselytizing some sort of point buy.

And powergamers are also often attracted to nonrandom systems, as they have spent hours thinking out the perfect character build and don't want to risk it.


----------



## prongbuck (May 9, 2020)

For me, the title of this article says it all: Worlds of Design: Rolls vs. Points in Character *Building*. There isn't much room for debate here; when *building *characters fairness and equality is a requirement, random rolling is not a valid option (edit: I realized this came off to strongly of course there is room for debate, everyones table is different so of course its debateable.).

I read an article years ago that put into words something I knew but had never fully realized, that when it comes to creating player characters for an RPG ,there are two main methods*: character generation and character building.

Character generation is sitting down with no, or very few ideas, about the character. You let the dice guide you and do the deciding for you. You randomly roll your stats, 3d6 in order perhaps, you see where your strengths lie and then you select or roll for a race and class. If picking race and class then you have the option of selecting a combination that enhances your strengths or maybe tries to mitigate your weaknesses.

This is my preferred method. I prefer total random attribute generation but I think most types of players need the ability to exercise at least a small level of control over their characters attributes so we generally now do 3d6 in order and replace your chosen classes primary ability score with a 15.

For my table, I make it clear the character generation method will include inequality in the characters and everyone participating has to be ok with this. It helps if the game system supports this through things like a compressed range of attribute bonuses, low or no requirements for races and classes, etc.

Character building is coming to the table with a character concept in mind. You don't want random generation for this because random results usually mean a players concept is thrown out of the window whn their rolls don't allow them to build the character they envision. There isn't much more to say about this method because its fair, you pick an array of attributes or spend points as you see fit and every character is equal at the attribute level.

All this boils down to is that the method you choose has to support the game you want to play and has to work for the players at your table.

*There are other methods of course, games without attributes or where attributes are determined based on other selctions of traits, race, class, etc. but I am assuming we are talking about D&D like games here.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 9, 2020)

pming said:


> With the Random method I've never had a DM say "THOSE are your scores? Too high! You cheated!" ...and I've never had a DM say "THOSE are your scores? Too low! Roll again!".



I've had someone watch me roll scores with _their dice_ and _still_ think I had somehow cheated.

I've also gone through the fun moment of watching all the players in a campaign roll their scores and then when one player found out what another player had rolled they accused me of letting that player cheat because their scores were high.

And I've been in more than a few situations where a player didn't roll well and outright asked "can I reroll?" because when they said "I wanna roll scores" they didn't actually want random scores, they wanted high ones. Including a player that roll all 1s on the dice for one score and said "Can I count that as an 18? It's the same odds" and the rest of the group lobbied to alter the die-rolling rules so that rolling a 3 was actually also rolling an 18.

And there there are the groups I've been in that didn't just roll scores, they had some specific scheme like 4d6 drop lowest, re-roll 1s and 2s, make 3 sets and choose your favorite (that is the most extreme I've seen, but it's an actual example, not an exaggeration) that actually takes all the purpose (and fun in my opinion) out of rolling because it makes it take a lot longer than it needs to and the result aren't all that random either so just doing a high-pool point buy would check all the same boxes except "I rolled dice."


----------



## atanakar (May 9, 2020)

*OD&D FUN FACT : *Random rolls. The *DM* is supposed to roll the six abilities of each character. The player notes them down in order.

I guess Gary was worried about cheaters too !

Source OD&D reprints:


----------



## MGibster (May 9, 2020)

In one AD&D campaign (1st edition) the DM decided we'd all roll 2d6 and multiply the highest by 3 for each stat.  I managed to roll an 18 for each attribute except for Charisma which was merely a 15.  I didn't qualify for the Paladin.  :-(


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 9, 2020)

Gary's writing bounced around a bit when it came to the topic of ability scores. In that source he's giving a strict rule that's entirely in the DMs control, and then in AD&D he mentions how a DM should make sure that players have ability scores high enough to keep them interested in continuing playing.


----------



## dragoner (May 9, 2020)

pemerton said:


> For our Classic Traveller campaign, in the first session the players rolled their PCs - stats, then the dice-driven lifepath system that is one of the centrepieces of that RPG.




I've done quick and dirty chargen for a CT: A quick build is 42 points for characteristics, 7 to be used for characteristics or skills, and 11 for skills. Make them 34 with 4 terms, 5 MO bennies.

It works. Also compares with the character generator programs, mostly though, whatever way someone generates a character, it should be someone the player wants to play. I can't be the sole motivation, it wears me out.


----------



## atanakar (May 9, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Gary's writing bounced around a bit when it came to the topic of ability scores. In that source he's giving a strict rule that's entirely in the DMs control, and then in AD&D he mentions how a DM should make sure that players have ability scores high enough to keep them interested in continuing playing.




Player control over ability rolls was given in the Holmes edition (1977). They are rolled in order, then class is chosen. Holmes introduces «adjusting ability scores» to raise the Primes by lowering others. A first step at mitigating randomness.


----------



## atanakar (May 9, 2020)

*In 1977 Gygax wrote:*

_Quote: AD&D : As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is *often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable* one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather *marginal characters tend to have short life expectanc*y — which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can’t or won’t identify with. *Character generation, then, is a serious matter*, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:

*Method I: *All scores are recorded and *arranged in the order* the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

*Method II:* All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method I. *3d6 are rolled 12 times* and the highest 6 scores are retained.

*Method III:* Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH, INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA. *3d6 are rolled 6 times for each ability*, and the highest score in each category is retained for that category.

*Method IV:* 3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, for 12 characters. The player then* selects the single set of scores* which he or she finds most desirable and these scores are noted on the character record sheet.»_

So, as stated by Gygax, *D&D is not* a game in which you have to play the character you don't want to play and characters that are barely viable because of quirks of the dice.

Again, if you are going to go through all kinds of dice shenanigans the push towards to upper end of the median, to create viable and interesting characters for the player to engage with, just use Point Buy and be done quickly and fairly.

Have a good day.
/mic drop.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (May 9, 2020)

I have found two exceptions to my tendency to use points buy.

DCC and other funnel games. You get what you get and don't throw a fet. Since your character will die probably soon, it's actually fun to lean into the poor scores.

Old School play. Here, since player skills matters as much or more than character abilities, part of the appeal of the game is to "win" in spite of the poor odds given by the random whims of fate. Again, leaning into the poor scores is part of this - when my thief with a 10 Dex manages to steal something and *survive*, in spite of himself - that's tale for the ages!

I think really, if I am playing heroic play that is based on character skill not player skill, then I'd like point buy attributes (how my 5e games are played).

If I am playing gritty or slightly comedic play, then I'm ok with rolled up characters (Freebooters on the Frontier, DCC, other).


----------



## lewpuls (May 9, 2020)

I prefer the method that is fair in _game_ terms, not in life terms - life is clearly not fair.

If the excitement of rolling characters is a significant part of your campaign, there's something wrong with your campaign.

Your character is the accumulation of what he/she/it _does_, and chooses _not_ to do, not of the ability numbers.

In the only RPG I ever designed, there are no character ability numbers.

LP the OP


----------



## R_Chance (May 10, 2020)

atanakar said:


> *In 1977 Gygax wrote:*
> 
> _Quote: AD&D : As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is *often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable* one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather *marginal characters tend to have short life expectanc*y — which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can’t or won’t identify with. *Character generation, then, is a serious matter*, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:
> 
> ...




Pick up your mic! Litterbugs. 

Ahem, not to be too picky but the Dungeon Masters Guide was published in 1979. The Players Handbook was 1978. The Monster Manual was 1977   Exactly when EGG wrote those words, page 11 of the DMG specifically, is subject to question but I gather he spent about a year on the manuscript of the DMG before editing and publication . Ymmv.

All four of these methods give a player a chance at better ability scores for their character. Method I was the one we used, but we had been using it since about 1975 anyway, to avoid really low rolls. Survival was not a given  None of those methods guarantees that you will get the scores needed for the class you want. No 17Charisma, no Paladin.  Assassins and Monks had three and four requisites respectively and falling low in any of them meant no Assassin / Monk. Rangers and Illusionists had their requirements (but not as high as a Paladin or in as many areas as the Assassin or Monk). Other classes required a 9 in the prime requisite. Not much of a barrier given the various rolling methods you enumerated. What these methods did do was give you a decent character who could play most, but not all, classes without too many issues.

There was no guarantee you would get exactly what you wanted. And what you ended up with mattered. I remember choosing to play a Paladin once because it seemed like a waste to not make use of that 17 Charisma I ended up with. Despite not "wanting" a Paladin I had a blast playing him until he died, heroically saving the other PCs, at 4th level. You rolled your dice and made your choices from what chance gave you.

I suspect the high mortality rate of PCs in those days and the emphasis on exploring the DMs world made it easier to "put up with" characters who were not exactly what you wanted. The level limits for many non-human races were probably less of an issue because death often came before the level cap was hit. You explored your character options, the world the DM presented and had a blast. We were, of course, all miniature and board wargamers, so fatalities just seemed par for the course  Players tend to assume, and plan for, the run up to level twenty in more recent editions.

Point buy will give you exactly what you want / need for the class you have chosen. There is a right and a wrong way to build characters (within certain bounds perhaps). Player control is total, choices do not result from an outside agency (like chance), but from what the player wants. It's an attractive option, but personally I prefer choices based on options and consequences presented by chance. Roll those dice!

As for which is "better", neither I think. It depends on the game, the players and the DM.


----------



## Inanity (May 10, 2020)

Point Buy/Deterministic:
More Control over result.
Fairer.


----------



## Darth Solo (May 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I've lost track of what your point is. You seemed to start by saying that, _because the world isn't fair_, random rolls can fit _any game_ if a grouip chooses to use them.
> 
> Now you seem to be saying that, _if a group enjoys random rolls_, and _if a game provies for them_, then a group can use them.
> 
> ...



In your examples of PB games that don't favor player skill could you provide examples outside your play group of this? I only ask because given any opportunity to 'game the system', why _wouldn't_ the player do so since such a micro-game confers benefit?

Your dismissive attitude of how groups others than yours plays games is revealing of your entire point. But, to be fair, I'd enjoy you sharing examples of how "there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with _what a group chooses_, nor with the _(un)fairness of the world_."

Again, call me rude and/or disruptive, but, I need clear examples of play to win me over. Only because running games for a while has shown me my opinions.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2020)

Darth Solo said:


> In your examples of PB games that don't favor player skill could you provide examples outside your play group of this? I only ask because given any opportunity to 'game the system', why _wouldn't_ the player do so since such a micro-game confers benefit?
> 
> Your dismissive attitude of how groups others than yours plays games is revealing of your entire point. But, to be fair, I'd enjoy you sharing examples of how "there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with _what a group chooses_, nor with the _(un)fairness of the world_."
> 
> Again, call me rude and/or disruptive, but, I need clear examples of play to win me over. Only because running games for a while has shown me my opinions.




There are many, many reasons why players don't "game the system".  Not caring about powergaming is probably the highest on the list.  Creating to concept would be a big reason as well.  Systems where the stats really don't make that much of a difference would be high on the list.  

Benefit =/= bigger numbers.


----------



## univoxs (May 10, 2020)

Rolling is fun, point allocation is sensible. Both are fine.


----------



## Ovinomancer (May 10, 2020)

Darth Solo said:


> In your examples of PB games that don't favor player skill could you provide examples outside your play group of this?



How, exactly, do you propose that someone provide you examples of play from outside their own play?

There are plenty of games where character build is point-buy, but system mastery will not give you an advantage.  As noted, Apocalypse World is one, Blades in the Dark another. The counter is that system mastery can aid you even in random generation -- ie, choice of character build after stats in D&D is very susceptible to system mastery.




> I only ask because given any opportunity to 'game the system', why _wouldn't_ the player do so since such a micro-game confers benefit?



It isn't a question of if they wouldn't, it's a statement that some games exist where it not really possible.



> Your dismissive attitude of how groups others than yours plays games is revealing of your entire point. But, to be fair, I'd enjoy you sharing examples of how "there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with _what a group chooses_, nor with the _(un)fairness of the world_."



@pemerton didn't dismiss anything -- he followed up on what you said.  You're the one, if anyone is, dismissing other's play.  And, he gave you examples.  Random stat generation in some games is just silly, not because of any unfairness in the world or because of what a group chooses, but because the very structure of the game would make that pointless.  Take Blades in the Dark -- random stat generation doesn't make a bit of sense for this game.  It accomplishes nothing and actually skews the resolution mechanic in play.  There's no sense to doing random stat generation in Blades, and it has nothing to do with unfairness or choice.

You should really get out an try some other games before making blanket assertions about how games play.  Sure, you play the 800 lb. gorilla game, D&D, and it's a great game (I happen to really enjoy 5e), but it's not the apex because how it does things are the bestest of all ways ever.  It's the apex because it does enough things well that many people can enjoy playing it.  And, that means that there's many ways to play it, not just yours.



> Again, call me rude and/or disruptive, but, I need clear examples of play to win me over. Only because running games for a while has shown me my opinions.



I don't think anyone actually cares to win you over.  Why would they?  They aren't playing with you, nor does what happens at your table impact them.  There's an opportunity to discuss how games work, though, which doesn't require anyone to change how they actually play unless they choose to.  Don't confuse a willingness to explore how games can play with any attempt to get you to change how you play.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 10, 2020)

pemerton said:


> D&D can be many things to many people - but at least through the classic lens as I read those books the fundamental element of PC build is _class_. Stats are a soft funnel into a class, and I suspect that very few players build their first or even second classic D&D PC as a low-STR high-INT fighter or a vice versa MU.
> 
> So rolling for stats is, in a real way, rolling for class. The power variation, especially in the earliest versions with almost flat stat-mods, is modest. It gets greater in AD&D and Moldvay Basic, but the latter also has rules for boosting your main stat at the expense of two other stats.
> 
> ...




Yeah, absolutely. When I was a kid and was playing the older editions of the game, we'd roll our stats, and those would determine what kind of character we'd make. But even then, we quickly started adopting alternative methods that allowed us to build the kinds of characters we wanted to play. The first of these was to roll six scores and then assign them as you wanted. Then we started rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest. And so on. 

And then once you start doing that, then I feel the point of rolling is mostly gone.



pemerton said:


> It depends on the point, flavour, focus etc of play. Part of the appeal of Classic Traveller is that the characters are (in some relative sense) ordinary - they have ordinary origins, they age, they had careers and have bank accounts and pensions, etc. Rolling for stats, for lifepath, for skills etc is part of this. A big part of PC gen is finding out _who you are going to be in the world of the far future_. Probably no one is going to _buy _Steward skill, but with random rolling you might discvoer that your character is really good at waiting tables and keeping passengers happy!
> 
> At least in my experience one result is a degree of distance or 3rd-person persepctive between player and PC. Though we also use multiple PCs, and while I tend to think that works _becusae of _the distaincing, maybe I'm confusing cause and effect!
> 
> Another thing about stats in Traveller is that they are not super-important in resolution. The standard consideation in resolution is skill level - each skill has its own resolution framework (not as clunky as it sounds, I assert!) and stats often don't factor in at all and even when they do are not normally determinative.




Yeah, the tone and style you're going for can matter a lot. Five Torches Deep, let's say, compared to 5e D&D....one is more about struggling to survive, and the other is about being nigh super-heroic. Rolling makes more sense in Five Torches because of the tone. However, they also mitigate the risk of rolling so poorly as to wind up with a non-viable character, and the way the stats are generated still allows players to pick class and race ahead of time.



pemerton said:


> In Burning Wheel first the GM after consulting with the players sets a lifepath limit. (Typically 3 to 6.) Then you choose your LPs - this determines your skill options and skill points, your trait (roughly, feat) options and feat points, your starting wealth (wizard spells are something you have to buy with this), and your starting age. Startig age plus modifications from LPs determine your starting physical and mental stat pools, which you then allocate to your stats. Stats are sometimes used in resolution (at different frequencies for different of the 6 stats), and for untrained checks; if you're trainined in a skill then your starting value is derived from the relevant stats but checks are made off your skill rank and your stat is now irrelevant.
> 
> It just woudln't make any sense to even look at injecting random rolling into that framework.
> 
> ...




Right, this is one thing I touched on earlier. If you have two 16 Wisdom Clerics in D&D, I'd hope that there would still be enough about each of them to make them stand out. There should be enough about the characters that is different so that we don't confuse them simply because they're both wise. I suppose it's easier for a class like Fighter or maybe Rogue, where the focus is even tighter....but then I think that sameness may be more a flaw with the stats themselves, rather than stat parity. If I want my Fighter to be as effective as the other Fighter, than I need to have a Strength score equal to his. 

If there were other ways to make them equally effective mechanically, but different in flavor, then perhaps there would be more variety. So something like what 5E allows with a Dexterity based Fighter. You can picture the Strength Based one as clad in heavy armor and swinging a heavy weapon around, and the Dexterity based fighter is a duelist with a rapier. 4E Also promoted this kind of diversity in stats. 

This is to say nothing of all the distinction that can be made with personality and goals and so on. I think that games like Apocalypse World promote the non-mechanical differences so much more heavily, that parity in stats among members of the same class or playbook just isn't a concern.


----------



## DammitVictor (May 10, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> And there there are the groups I've been in that didn't just roll scores, they had some specific scheme like 4d6 drop lowest, re-roll 1s and 2s, make 3 sets and choose your favorite (that is the most extreme I've seen, but it's an actual example, not an exaggeration)...




Roll 5d6 (best 3), reroll 1s and 2s unless you roll five of a kind. Any five of a kind is equal to 18 plus the face value of the dice (thus 19-24). Roll seven times, drop lowest. Players had to roll their abilities in front of the DM, while the DM's own DMPCs all had _statistically questionable_ results.

This approach may have had _long term consequences_ on my perception of what kind of game D&D was, but I think D&D also has a problem with _its own perception_ of what kind of game it is: compare any of its own ability generation methods for PCs-- deterministic or random or in-between-- with the ability scores it gives named PCs. Has anyone ever done a comparison of the relative point-buy values of every named PC in the _Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting_ for 3.X, or a statistical analysis of the rolls they had to have made?

The point buy math in modern D&D is balanced around the idea that to have the scores you need to function in your primary and secondary attributes, one or more of your tertiary attributes has to be below average for a standard memeber of your race... but with the exception of Caramon and Raistlin Majere, I can't think of any canonical D&D _protagonist heroes_ for whom that's the case. As someone with _multiple dump stats_ in real life, playing someone with similarly diminished capacities... isn't an enjoyable roleplaying challenge, and it doesn't really fulfill the need for escapism that I want D&D to provide me.

It was mentioned upthread that I like systems that combine deterministic and random elements. I like them because they combine that guarantee that your character will be _minimally viable_ with the possibility of happy surprises from randomized mechanics.

The method mentioned upthread-- which I didn't invent-- is taking a standard (or low) point buy, and then rolling for your stats _in order_, taking the better of the point-buy value or the rolled value for each ability. This means both that while you have a chance at a "happy surprise" on your primary abilities, you're more likely to end up with better scores in your secondary and tertiary abilities-- which is what makes organic rolling methods more interesting. It also introduces some measure of risk-reward to the process, as rolling over your high scores "wastes" the points you spent on them and, while you're more likely to roll over your low scores, dumping them imposes the risk of having to play them that way.

I originally proposed a more heroic point buy with 3d6 or 4d6k3 to represent the better of two values from the same average and range, but the more I think about it... the more I think I prefer pairing a lower point buy with 5d4, as I think this will make the dice more exciting without drastically increasing the risk of unsatisfying characters.

Another method I've proposed on multiple occasions is based on TSR's _Alternity Science Fiction Roleplaying Game_, which is a standard class/race/level system: the default method in the PHB is unweighted point-buy, but there are three random systems in the GMG. The first is just a standard rolling method, but the second two are interesting: you pick your species or your profession first, and then each ability score has its own rolling method that guarantees you meet requirements.  You're _guaranteed_ to meet minimums and you're unlikely to roll catastrophically low for abilities important to your concept. Only hitch in Alternity is that it doesn't make provisions for rolling above _species _maximums on your profession rolls, which is easily solved.

Could easily do the same thing with D&D. Each race and class gets its own little table, pick your race and class, pick which formula you want to use for each ability. (Default is, of course, use the better one.) Very, very simple formula for 5e is that every class gets 12+2d4 for their Prime Requisite, 8+3d4 for their other Save Proficiency, and 4+4d4 for the other four abilities. For race/subrace, +2 is 12+2d4 and +1 is 8+3d4, and all Humans are _Variant Human_.


----------



## Lalato (May 10, 2020)

I love rolling... even when it gives me less than optimal stats.  I just... wait for it...  roll with it.  I'm so prone to keep crappy stats that my DM will request that I reroll

I'm currently on a Life Path chargen kick, mostly looking at systems that are similar to the old Traveler RPG. I've been using a modified version of this...









						New method for character creation in 5E
					

A PDF version of this post is available which includes the tables needed to create a character. Download it here



					www.arcanatimes.com
				




but I'm also looking to incorporate a bit of this that I just found this morning...









						Traveller Style Character Creation D&D 5E
					

Traveller Style Character Creation D&D 5E (Edited) This creation system assumes that you go through the process once and begin at age 18 and level 1. Every time you do the advancement process, add 10 years to your age ( or equivalent in regards to your race). Mind you, every time you go through ...




					docs.google.com


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 10, 2020)

Lifepath character creation can be a *lot* of fun. It usually does a great job suggesting story elements to build around, and I enjoy how that, in many of those systems, you end up with a character that is very much a product of their experiences.


----------



## clearstream (May 10, 2020)

lewpuls said:


> Let’s talk about methods of generating RPG characters, both stochastic and deterministic.
> 
> View attachment 120194
> Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​
> ...



Stochastic using cards with no replacement solves many of the issues you perceive with random. The sum will always be the same, so the maximum cheating would just be to arrange the draws which comes close to reverting to points buy. If you draw a high score, you will also draw a low one, so characters are more balanced and there is little overshadowing or unfairness in the long run as you put it.

The array of cards is up to the group. I am liking five 2s, five 5s, four 3s and four 4s for my campaign, which is consciously set on hard mode. One could easily shift that range upward to match points buy. For that matter, one can always roll for a random array from the 65 possible arrays.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (May 11, 2020)

Blue said:


> I love organic characters such as D&D rolled _in order_ - ones where you don't have the most efficient ordering.
> 
> However, in D&D 5e, I love the Faustian bargain of ASI vs. feat. Specifically where (a) it's a meaningful choice (not too low or two high of ability scores) and (b) everyone in the party has the same choice (not some with high ability scores and some with low). So I definitely like point buy for that.




This is ultimately my main concern with rolling for stats: feats. Characters who roll well will become unstoppable demigods with multiple feats while those who roll poorly are so busy trying to increase their stats just to become a functional character they end up feat starved and it only makes them feel worse.

I give my players a choice at the beginning of the campaign: they vote as a party to have rolling for stats OR point buy with feats. NOT both. I find the game ends up similarly balanced either way in the end.


----------



## Lanefan (May 11, 2020)

lewpuls said:


> I prefer the method that is fair in _game_ terms, not in life terms - life is clearly not fair.



And as the game setting is in part trying to replicate something halfway real (one hopes!), then where are you?



> If the excitement of rolling characters is a significant part of your campaign, there's something wrong with your campaign.
> 
> Your character is the accumulation of what he/she/it _does_, and chooses _not_ to do, not of the ability numbers.



Strange how I can agree so fully with the second statement yet take some umbrage at the first.

They're not related.  One can have a fine campaign where players love rolling stats and yet still see their characters as the sum of what they do.

Why's that, you ask?  Well, whe the character's being rolled up it hasn't done anything yet.  Its stats are all it has, so might as well have fun creating them.


----------



## Scott Christian (May 11, 2020)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree, point buy tends to create the same character, but that's only when you're dealing with a group that has the same experience. When you have a group where there are new players to TTRPG's and others that are min/maxers, you get a difference the size of the Grand Canyon. Even more so later on in levels, as the maxers inevitably plotted out each level. So each successive level, they may gain an extra 2% or 5% or 10%. 

But the truth is, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't break the game. And if you have mature players, it doesn't do anything except have the novice ask the maxer how they did it; thus, teaching them the ins and outs of character creation.

As far as your experience with a DM is considered, I'm sorry. Sometimes DM's try (or want) to control things they don't need to. And stats, if the rules are followed, is something they definitely don't need to try and control. Again, it doesn't break the game.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> And as the game setting is in part trying to replicate something halfway real (one hopes!), then where are you?
> /snip




Why would one hope that?  The setting is where the campaign takes place.  It's cardboard and sawdust as soon as you peek behind the frames.  

Just like everything else, the setting is in service to the campaign and the game, not the other way around.


----------



## Lanefan (May 11, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Why would one hope that?  The setting is where the campaign takes place.  It's cardboard and sawdust as soon as you peek behind the frames.



Only if a) you peek behind the frames and b) there isn't in fact more setting there.



> Just like everything else, the setting is in service to the campaign and the game, not the other way around.



The setting is - or certainly can be - independent of the campaign, notwithstanding any changes made to it as a direct result of said campaign.

It has to be, in fact, if there's any intention of reusing it or - in the extreme - trying to publish it.


----------



## Sabathius42 (May 11, 2020)

At my table....the setting, the campaign, and any individual session is co-mingled and inseparable.

I run a sandbox style game, so for me...

The setting is what happens in that sandbox absent of the Player Characters input.  Cultures rise and fall, map borders change, people move in and out of history.  This is a forward moving point in time so actions by the PCs have shaped the setting, however there is always an "absent of PC input" future in my mind as time progresses.

The campaign is simply a series of interconnected adventures the PCs have chosen to pursue for whatever reasons they decide to pursue them.  Factions in the world may request the PCs help directly, or maybe it just so happens the PCs randomly bump into a situation that concerns a factions interests.  Or maybe the PCs engage in some story that has no relation to anything else.  Its really player driven based on story threads i've dropped in front of them.  I have no overarching story more than that which is happening in the setting itself as various powers compete for their own goals.

I rarely "design" adventures ahead of time.  I use my setting to determine the way the world reacts to what the PCs decide to do in any given session.  I then update the setting based on the actions the PCs performed to establish a new "present" and use that new present to adjudicate future actions.  The history of those actions becomes "the campaign".

I have TONS of the world left that is barely or not at all defined.  What is happening or has happened in those areas isn't yet defined, but I think the border to those areas would be better described as "the fog of war" rather than as "seeing the back of the set" because it becomes fleshed out as soon as it becomes interacted with (like a famous cat).


----------



## Vaslov (May 12, 2020)

I've played in 5e and DCC campaigns using either method.  Still playing a 5e character with technically slightly below below average stats rolled when 5e first came out.   I fail more than others at the table.  Fine for me, but I can see how some might get frustrated.  

I do like how SotDL addressed this issue in their game design.  Character creation is effectively point buy, with a lot less variation at starting level.  The real investment in stats happens as the characters level up, greatly influenced by the the 3 classes they pick up over their career.   I believe in a rules expansion somewhere there is a rule for rolling stats for starting characters for those who like that dynamic.


----------



## aramis erak (May 12, 2020)

atanakar said:


> *In 1977 Gygax wrote:*
> 
> _Quote: AD&D : As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is *often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable* one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather *marginal characters tend to have short life expectanc*y — which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can’t or won’t identify with. *Character generation, then, is a serious matter*, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:
> 
> ...



It's worth noting that the DMG was nearly a year after the PHB... long enough for players to have realized that AD&D stats had far more importance than Original D&D or even Holmes Basic.

THe  OE core had no attribute requirements for classes. Only penalties for substandard ones.

that Many GM's still used flat 3d6 says Gygax was a powergaming (expletive adjective) who was as detrimental as he was beneficial to the game. The AD&D 2E explosion - both in depth and breadth of sales - really shows just how much getting rid of Gary was a GOOD THING.

And it uses 3d6 as standard. Playing paladins isn't supposed to be the core play. It also quite properly moves the 1e DMG alternatives into the PHB, and makes them the Alternate versions, with the original 3d6 roll as the primary, and bog-standard, mode.

Point buy is plagued with other problems -
repeat characters (just tack on a roman numeral and return to 1st level abilities) being the largest.
Player indecision, especially for novices, can be a huge problem.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> It's worth noting that the DMG was nearly a year after the PHB... long enough for players to have realized that AD&D stats had far more importance than Original D&D or even Holmes Basic.
> 
> THe  OE core had no attribute requirements for classes. Only penalties for substandard ones.
> 
> ...




Yeah, no thanks.  Why waste space in the PHB for a class that only a tiny percentage will be "allowed" to play, even if they choose to do so?  If we're going to restrict classes based on die rolls, then there is zero reason for them to be in the PHB.  Give me classes that we can actually PLAY, instead of forcing me to wait for that 1% of die rolled characters that actually gets a 17 or 18 (never minding rangers, druids or monks which are nearly as hard to qualify for) so that if I'm in the mood, I can play a paladin.

And, frankly, because 3d6 averages out so much, most characters are virtually indistinguishable anyway.  Roll 3d6 in order ten times and most of the characters are within a point or so of each other anyway.  The myth that die rolling leads to more variation is just that, a myth.  Particularly in light of even if the group forces players to accept a given set, falling on the sword of the first orc you see so you can roll again means that it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Only if a) you peek behind the frames and b) there isn't in fact more setting there.
> 
> The setting is - or certainly can be - independent of the campaign, notwithstanding any changes made to it as a direct result of said campaign.
> 
> It has to be, in fact, if there's any intention of reusing it or - in the extreme - trying to publish it.




Reuse a setting?  Bleah.  How boring.  Thousands of settings out there and you want to recycle?  Yuck.  No thanks.   Every campaign should have its own setting.  Keeps things fresh and interesting instead of stuck in a rut.


----------



## Lanefan (May 12, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Reuse a setting?  Bleah.  How boring.  Thousands of settings out there and you want to recycle?  Yuck.  No thanks.   Every campaign should have its own setting.  Keeps things fresh and interesting instead of stuck in a rut.



I design my own settings, and have come to realize it's a lot of bloody work.

Work, I've now concluded, I'd far prefer to only have to do (or have already done) once.

There's vast areas of my current setting that in 12+ years of play have yet to be visited, meaning I could run a whole new campaign there and while the astronomy etc. would be familiar to the players the local area and region certainly wouldn't.


----------



## Ogre Mage (May 12, 2020)

Are you comfortable with some PCs having much better stats then others?  Because if you roll, there is a fair chance this will happen.  I would consider how much PC attributes affect a player's outcomes.  Attributes mean more in some systems than others.

In a bonded accuracy system like 5E, even a +1 can be quite significant.  I would prefer point buy in such a system as I think higher stats can have a major impact on character effectiveness.  In a more open-ended system like 3.X, class level bonuses, magic item bonuses and skill points count for more (in the long run) than attributes.  I'd be more open to rolling in that case.


----------



## R_Chance (May 12, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I design my own settings, and have come to realize it's a lot of bloody work.
> 
> Work, I've now concluded, I'd far prefer to only have to do (or have already done) once.
> 
> There's vast areas of my current setting that in 12+ years of play have yet to be visited, meaning I could run a whole new campaign there and while the astronomy etc. would be familiar to the players the local area and region certainly wouldn't.




This. I am probably going to be pilloried for this by people who want entirely new things, but I've used the same world / setting for 45 years now. From the original game to 5E (skipping 4E, sorry not my cup of tea). More time if you count Chainmail fantasy supplement miniature games. We were into campaign play, taxation, recruiting, sieges etc. with each campaign season based off the last  It's a world. It's big. It has tremendous variation. The world has changed overtime (and I've advanced it's history with new editions). With complex social systems, cultures, a well developed history, and interesting NPCs I don't see how someone couldn't find more to explore in it. I've plowed in detail and my players seem to enjoy that about it. The fun is in exploring a world and "living" in it. 

The only other fantasy (or science fantasy in one case) settings I've ever used were Tekumel (but Empire of the Petal throne is addictive), Glorantha (we went through a Runequest phase) and Bushido's version of fantasy Japan. In have cribbed ideas from a number of settings (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, the original Forgotten Realms and many more), but that was pillaging cool stuff for my own game 

What my game doesn't have is radically different systems (magic, combat, levelling, skills, etc.) other than moving from edition to edition, but if your staying with the same game system over time, that shouldn't be an issue. 

All, imho, of course. Throw in the standard ymmv. I like the depth, world building and tinkering with game systems that comes out of that. Not everyone does and that's fine


----------



## aramis erak (May 12, 2020)

Samaritan Physical Rehabilitation Specialists - Corvallis | Patient Portal
					






					shs-corvallis.medbridgego.com
				





Hussar said:


> Reuse a setting?  Bleah.  How boring.  Thousands of settings out there and you want to recycle?  Yuck.  No thanks.   Every campaign should have its own setting.  Keeps things fresh and interesting instead of stuck in a rut.



For some of us, that a setting has specific tropes makes the setting desirable for reuse, rather than learning a new setting sharing those tropes. 

And some of us on;y do short-ish campaigns. My longest calendared campaign lasted 3 years... but only played 3 sessions each year. My typical runs 4 months to 6 months. I tend to run 2-3 campaigns at a time. Usually 2 of system A, and one of B. This pandemic is an odd period. I'm running only one campaign.

In short campaigns, there is almost always something left to explore.

And to be blunt, if a setting is to have depth, it's usually easier to reuse it than do a new one, and players do tend to notice... but they also tend to complain if they need to read more than an aggregate of 2 to 3 pages of setting material.... so if a GM wants a deep campaign setting, he's got to spoon feed it to the players... and in short campaign mode, by doing multiple campaigns there, possibly in 4 month chunks over years.


----------



## clearstream (May 12, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> that Many GM's still used flat 3d6 says Gygax was a powergaming (expletive adjective) who was as detrimental as he was beneficial to the game. The AD&D 2E explosion - both in depth and breadth of sales - really shows just how much getting rid of Gary was a GOOD THING.



I agree that powergaming is a thing, and that the goals of powergaming sometimes overwrite the goals of RP. What I would just like to add however is that it is not a guaranteed dichotomy: it is possible to make characters that are both beneficial to the game and mechanically robust.



aramis erak said:


> Point buy is plagued with other problems -
> repeat characters (just tack on a roman numeral and return to 1st level abilities) being the largest.
> Player indecision, especially for novices, can be a huge problem.



So true! This is one of the dissonances for me with commentators identifying random with powergaming, while not also identifying points-buy with powergaming. While it is true that points-buy prevents some of the crazier statlines, it is also highly subject to cookie-cutter power-builds. Where stats fall in just the right places.


----------



## aramis erak (May 12, 2020)

clearstream said:


> So true! This is one of the dissonances for me with commentators identifying random with powergaming, while not also identifying points-buy with powergaming. While it is true that points-buy prevents some of the crazier statlines, it is also highly subject to cookie-cutter power-builds. Where stats fall in just the right places.



The simplest solution to rounding breakpoints is to not have any divisions in the char gen...

IE, rather than have (Siz+Con)/2 HP and d6 swords, have (Siz+Con) HP and 1d12 swords.


----------



## Rdm (May 12, 2020)

of course this doesn’t work for random groups or all permanent groups even, but in ours we tend toward ‘rolls, can substitute point buy if rolls are unplayable, and people who got godlike rolls will often ‘donate’ points to those who got unlucky to buff them up to par.


----------



## Scott Christian (May 12, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, no thanks.  Why waste space in the PHB for a class that only a tiny percentage will be "allowed" to play, even if they choose to do so?  If we're going to restrict classes based on die rolls, then there is zero reason for them to be in the PHB.  Give me classes that we can actually PLAY, instead of forcing me to wait for that 1% of die rolled characters that actually gets a 17 or 18 (never minding rangers, druids or monks which are nearly as hard to qualify for) so that if I'm in the mood, I can play a paladin.
> 
> And, frankly, because 3d6 averages out so much, most characters are virtually indistinguishable anyway.  Roll 3d6 in order ten times and most of the characters are within a point or so of each other anyway.  The myth that die rolling leads to more variation is just that, a myth.  Particularly in light of even if the group forces players to accept a given set, falling on the sword of the first orc you see so you can roll again means that it doesn't really matter.




I'm just trying to come at this from a different angle: Are you okay with D&D's tiers of play? (and) Do you accept a campaign where a character can die? If so, what's the difference between reaching tier 2 or 3, a spot where characters are far stronger and their abilities far greater?

The way I'm looking at it is an enormous amount of the PHB is relegated for tiers of play many don't see, either because they play in a gritty campaign where death happens often or they don't continue play longer than six months. So why is it so bad for a class to be in there that many players won't be able to play. I mean, characters die all the time because of bad dice rolls. For the paladin it's just inverted, you can't reach this pinnacle because of bad dice rolls. 

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for reading.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 12, 2020)

Scott Christian said:


> I'm just trying to come at this from a different angle: Are you okay with D&D's tiers of play? (and) Do you accept a campaign where a character can die? If so, what's the difference between reaching tier 2 or 3, a spot where characters are far stronger and their abilities far greater?
> 
> The way I'm looking at it is an enormous amount of the PHB is relegated for tiers of play many don't see, either because they play in a gritty campaign where death happens often or they don't continue play longer than six months. So why is it so bad for a class to be in there that many players won't be able to play. I mean, characters die all the time because of bad dice rolls. For the paladin it's just inverted, you can't reach this pinnacle because of bad dice rolls.
> 
> Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for reading.



The difference, judging from the post you quoted, is choice.

In AD&D a player says "I want to play a paladin" and the DM says "I want you to play a paladin too, but let's follow the rules - go ahead and roll your ability scores." And then those dice rolls can say "no" to the paladin getting played even though the player and DM are both wanting it to happen and have chosen the path that is supposed to make it happen.

But in the other example the DM saying "I'm ending this campaign at 8th level" or "I'm only running for 6 months" or "despite it not actually being a rule, character death is going to mean down-leveling, and I'm gonna run a lethal enough campaign that we keep repeating the lower levels" is making a choice to _not]_ engage in a particular part of the book - the analog of a player not wanting to play a paladin in the first place.


----------



## clearstream (May 12, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> The difference, judging from the post you quoted, is choice.
> 
> In AD&D a player says "I want to play a paladin" and the DM says "I want you to play a paladin too, but let's follow the rules - go ahead and roll your ability scores." And then those dice rolls can say "no" to the paladin getting played even though the player and DM are both wanting it to happen and have chosen the path that is supposed to make it happen.
> 
> But in the other example the DM saying "I'm ending this campaign at 8th level" or "I'm only running for 6 months" or "despite it not actually being a rule, character death is going to mean down-leveling, and I'm gonna run a lethal enough campaign that we keep repeating the lower levels" is making a choice to _not]_ engage in a particular part of the book - the analog of a player not wanting to play a paladin in the first place.



Another take is that Paladin is a rare class, and it is something special to have the chance to play one. This can be regulated by the stochastic mechanism. We always made a big deal out of someone having the option. Same with monks. It wasn't about their mechanical power, it was about not being able to auto-pick one.

The thing about games, is that it is the constraints constitute the play. They are accepted just so that, that kind of play can occur. It may be that a group does not enjoy certain constraints, or where they are located, but that is just a matter of which constraints to use... how they want to shape the space for play.


----------



## Scott Christian (May 12, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> The difference, judging from the post you quoted, is choice.
> 
> In AD&D a player says "I want to play a paladin" and the DM says "I want you to play a paladin too, but let's follow the rules - go ahead and roll your ability scores." And then those dice rolls can say "no" to the paladin getting played even though the player and DM are both wanting it to happen and have chosen the path that is supposed to make it happen.
> 
> But in the other example the DM saying "I'm ending this campaign at 8th level" or "I'm only running for 6 months" or "despite it not actually being a rule, character death is going to mean down-leveling, and I'm gonna run a lethal enough campaign that we keep repeating the lower levels" is making a choice to _not]_ engage in a particular part of the book - the analog of a player not wanting to play a paladin in the first place.




It may be about choice, but I think my point is valid - it is also about chance. The player is allowed the choice of the paladin versus the player having a chance to play the paladin. But, I think the inverse holds true: the player choosing to play a wizard may not have a chance to play in tier 2 or 3. Both of these are based on a roll of the dice. 

I'm not saying I run my campaign that way, but I know people who have. You die, you start over. It is the way the game is essentially set up. 

But, I do get your point, it feels like more choice is weighted in your option.


----------



## Nytmare (May 12, 2020)

My preferred method when I ran my last four player campaign was stat array with a twist.  No two characters could share the same high or low stat (including whatever stats the retiring or recently dead character had). 

[EDIT as an example, If the high str/low int barbarian died, and the rest of the party was an int/con wiz, a cha/wis bard, and a wis/dex cleric, the new character could either have dex or con as their high stat, and str or cha as their low stat]

It was maybe a little heavy handed, but it made sure that the group always had singular specialists, new characters wouldn't step on the toes of the established characters,  and that new characters were never just a carbon copy of the person who died.

For a D&D game that wasn't a campaign, I really wouldn't care, though I'd probably lean towards array or point buy.  My actual preference at this point are games without D&D style character stats.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 12, 2020)

Scott Christian said:


> But, I think the inverse holds true: the player choosing to play a wizard may not have a chance to play in tier 2 or 3. Both of these are based on a roll of the dice.



The tier of play a campaign reaches is not "a roll of the dice" by design.


----------



## pemerton (May 13, 2020)

The paladin issues seems fairly straightforward

If a group approaches D&D in a similar way to how one might approach an arcade game - with level-ups and boosts, unlockables, etc - then it makes sense to gate cettain options behind luck and/or skill.

If a group approaches D&D primarily focused on the fiction, the character, the emotional experience of inhabiting one's character, etc - then it doesn't make much sense to restrict the sorts of characters that can be played behind a lucky dice roll. Just the same as it woudn't make sense to say _We can play this game set in Middle Earth only if this toss of the coin comes up heads - otherwise we're not allowed to_.

There is also the suggestion that the random gating is a way of making the frequency of paladins among players roughly map onto the frequency of paladins in the imagined world, but to me that makes little sense at all, as other character build elements - beig a knight rather thana peasant, being a wizard, being an elf - are not similarly gated.


----------



## Hriston (May 13, 2020)

I've mostly played D&D and have always rolled (except when I played a pre-gen character once). Recently, however, I've DMed some PbP games. For the first game I ran, I allowed players the option of rolling or point buy, and every one of them chose to roll. But what I found is that those who rolled poorly (and there was one person in particular who rolled a character so abysmal that the player felt it was necessary to explain the low scores with the character having a disability) became disinterested in joining the game, and the one with the very bad scores (who did join) ended up ghosting and eventually quitting. So while I would still prefer using rolled scores in a face to face game, in my most recent PbP game I insisted on everyone using point buy to help overcome the challenge of retaining players that format seems to have.


----------



## Scott Christian (May 13, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> The tier of play a campaign reaches is not "a roll of the dice" by design.




I agree. For many GM's it might be set and for others more fluid. But, I am not talking about a campaign, I am discussing a single character. And, I have seen (as I am sure you have too) characters die because they had a string of bad rolls. 
Now, we can debate about how the GM should it handle it, whether the interventions were in place, encounter design, etc. And my guess is I will agree with everything you say. But, a single character sometimes doesn't have the chance to make it to higher levels. And most players that I know, if their character dies they create a new character - something different. 
Heck, the last campaign I was in this happened. I had a halfling bard I was in love with. Couldn't wait to see him hit that first peak of fifth level. Had everything plotted out. Nope. He died at fourth level. So I made a fourth level wood elf barbarian and came back into the game. Sad. But, it was chance that killed him.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 13, 2020)

"your character is dead and never coming back" hasn't been a default caused-by-the-rules detail in a long time, so it's still very odd to try and treat that as an analog to "didn't roll good enough stats to play a paladin"


----------



## Maxperson (May 13, 2020)

I won't use an array outside of a one shot convention game. In a sit down game it would be a deal breaker for me if I could not roll.  Arrays make PCs feel too samey to me.  Even if the stats don't go in the same spots, the numbers are pretty much the same.  Hit points are the same way for me.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2020)

Scott Christian said:


> I'm just trying to come at this from a different angle: Are you okay with D&D's tiers of play? (and) Do you accept a campaign where a character can die? If so, what's the difference between reaching tier 2 or 3, a spot where characters are far stronger and their abilities far greater?
> 
> The way I'm looking at it is an enormous amount of the PHB is relegated for tiers of play many don't see, either because they play in a gritty campaign where death happens often or they don't continue play longer than six months. So why is it so bad for a class to be in there that many players won't be able to play. I mean, characters die all the time because of bad dice rolls. For the paladin it's just inverted, you can't reach this pinnacle because of bad dice rolls.
> 
> Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for reading.




Character death can be pretty easily mitigated, for one.  For another, the notion that most of the game is cannot feasibly be reached hasn't been true in a couple of decades as well.  There's a reason 3e is based on a 1 year, 1st to 20th level play model.  Now, I don't think it actually achieved that - I think it takes a bit longer - but, it is entirely possible, in 3e, 4e and 5e to reach most of the tiers of play within a fairly short and plausibly short period of time.  The game is designed for that to be true.

OTOH, there is nothing actually mitigating the lack of chances of actually playing these classes that are walled behind luck for no particular reason.  It's not like a monk or a ranger, or a druid or a paladin is particularly more powerful than any other class.  And, any power issues in the class are paid for through the xp tables.  So, if the class already pays for any additional power by having a higher xp requirement, what is the justification for restricting its numbers by placing it behind the luck wall?


----------



## Lanefan (May 14, 2020)

Nytmare said:


> My preferred method when I ran my last four player campaign was stat array with a twist.  No two characters could share the same high or low stat (including whatever stats the retiring or recently dead character had).
> 
> [EDIT as an example, If the high str/low int barbarian died, and the rest of the party was an int/con wiz, a cha/wis bard, and a wis/dex cleric, the new character could either have dex or con as their high stat, and str or cha as their low stat]



What did you do when you got to your seventh character?  Or your tenth?  Or your forty-fifth, after some turnover?  Or when there were more than six characters in the party?



> It was maybe a little heavy handed, but it made sure that the group always had singular specialists, new characters wouldn't step on the toes of the established characters,  and that new characters were never just a carbon copy of the person who died.



It also completely wrecks the idea of playing a non-standard party e.g. three Fighters and a Wizard, which seems an odd thing to do.


----------



## pemerton (May 14, 2020)

I don't really get the _points buy = samey _thing. Here are three reasons for that.

(1) The last two times I've played AD&D I gave the players the option of rolling 4d6 drop 1 (reroll if two < 6 or fewer than two > 14) or allocating 76 points (with an 18 costing 19 points). We had a mixture of rolling and points-buy. And we got different spreads - eg a points-buy monk (needs 3 15s) looked different from a points-buy F/MU.

(2) In our main 4e game, the PCs were all points-buy. Here are the starting stats (including racial adjustments in brackets, and then 30th level stats in square brackets):

8,10,13,14,14,16  (8,10,14,15,16,16)  [10,12,18,19,20,26]
8,10,12,12,16,16 (8,10,12,12,18,18)  [10,12,14,14,26,28]
8,10,10,11,14,18 (8,10,10,11,16,20)  [10,12,12,1324,28]
8,10,13,14,14,16 (8,10,13,14,16,18)  [10,12,15,16,26,28]
10,11,12,13,14,16 (10,11,12,14,15,18)  [12,14,14,18,20,28]

Of those 5 starting spreads only two were the same, and they were different after racial adjustments. The difference have only grown with levels.

(3) In our Prince Valiant game, two PCs were built (without collaboration) almost identically: Brawn 4, Presence 3, Arms 3, Riding 1, Hunting 1, Archery 1 - and then one had Fellowship 1, Healing 2 and the other Fellowship 2, Healing 1.

The players - once they saw they had built two similar PCs - decided that one was the son of the other. The father's description was "A broad-framed knight of early middle age who, while a veteran, has achieved little".  The son's description was "Mighty thews [and] long blond hair". The two characters have played in ways that one might expect from those descriptions - the brash son, the calm and sensible father. In play the son has married, on the basis of romantic passion; the father (who it turned out was widowed) has remarried to cement a political alliance between the knights and French nobility.

So even when stats are near-identical, that doesn't mean that the two PCs must or will be the same in play.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 14, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't really get the _points buy = samey _thing. Here are three reasons for that.



Usually people are meaning that if someone plays a [race + class + build] combo more than once using point buy, the ability scores are going to come out the same - or at least are encouraged to come out the same because you can choose where to put the points and certain configurations provide benefits compared to other configurations.

What I don't get is how rolling gets a pass just because placing scores with the same order of priority happens to result in different numbers. It's still the "same" even though the volume has been turned up or down compared to point buy depending on how well the rolls went.


----------



## pemerton (May 14, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Usually people are meaning that if someone plays a [race + class + build] combo more than once using point buy, the ability scores are going to come out the same - or at least are encouraged to come out the same because you can choose where to put the points and certain configurations provide benefits compared to other configurations.



One wizard might be INT/DEX, another INT/CON, another INT/CHA to have social capability, etc. Unless people are playing very "same-y" games I don't think there's a unique optimisation solution for each class.



AaronOfBarbaria said:


> What I don't get is how rolling gets a pass just because placing scores with the same order of priority happens to result in different numbers. It's still the "same" even though the volume has been turned up or down compared to point buy depending on how well the rolls went.



This I agree with.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 14, 2020)

I think point buy would result in a wider spread of stats if 5E wasn't so focused on maxing out key stats, and so tolerant of dump stats. There just aren't many convincing reasons to spread the love outside of maybe half the stats for a given character (generally DEX/CON plus class stat). I'd like to see actual reasons for fighters to take intelligence, or for a Wizard to take strength. _Five Torches Deep_ manages that to a degree, so it is possible.


----------



## Scott Christian (May 14, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Character death can be pretty easily mitigated, for one.  For another, the notion that most of the game is cannot feasibly be reached hasn't been true in a couple of decades as well.  There's a reason 3e is based on a 1 year, 1st to 20th level play model.  Now, I don't think it actually achieved that - I think it takes a bit longer - but, it is entirely possible, in 3e, 4e and 5e to reach most of the tiers of play within a fairly short and plausibly short period of time.  The game is designed for that to be true.
> 
> OTOH, there is nothing actually mitigating the lack of chances of actually playing these classes that are walled behind luck for no particular reason.  It's not like a monk or a ranger, or a druid or a paladin is particularly more powerful than any other class.  And, any power issues in the class are paid for through the xp tables.  So, if the class already pays for any additional power by having a higher xp requirement, what is the justification for restricting its numbers by placing it behind the luck wall?




I agree. Death is easily mitigated. But my claim was that character death is _sometimes_ based on chance, just like character creation rolls. And if you roadblock a character behind rolls (like the old paladin rules), that's roadblocking it behind chance. And higher levels are _sometimes_ roadblocked by death; a string of bad rolls that is also chance. 

As far as the 1-20, I have played in a few campaigns that did it - milestones almost every session. Played for approximately one year. And I have been part of campaigns that lasted a year and we reached 8th level. It's all DM discretion in my opinion. 

And completely agree on the wall statement. No reason to wall them (I am glad they are not walled). And the older rulesets did have experience points to curve down the power of the walled classes. Both very good points.


----------



## Mallus (May 14, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't really get the _points buy = samey _thing. Here are three reasons for that.



I don't get it either, Pem. Right now my group is playing Labyrinth Lord over Roll20. Two of us are playing clerics. Mechanical differences in that system are as minimal as they are besid the point.

One cleric an ox of the man; a goodhearted pseudo-Swede stout of the heart, weak of intellect, generally amenable to suggestions. The other is Pontius Pilate who discovered god -- well, Leviathan -- after being kidnapped by Vikings during his exile in Hibernia.

(guess which one I'm playing)


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 14, 2020)

pemerton said:


> One wizard might be INT/DEX, another INT/CON, another INT/CHA to have social capability, etc. Unless people are playing very "same-y" games I don't think there's a unique optimisation solution for each class.



That's why I mentioned build in my earlier post. Not every wizard would be "the same" but every INT/DEX wizard build would be.


----------



## pemerton (May 15, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Not every wizard would be "the same" but every INT/DEX wizard build would be.



But wouldn't one be trained in (say) Thievery and another in (say) Stealth?

Or even if two are trained in Thievery mightn't one be a parlour magician and another be a thief in the strict sense? Which for wizards would affect their spell choice among other things.

I mean, I guess it's true that two PCs both with high INT and DEX resemble one another in respect of having high INT and DEX but (i) that seems tautologous and (ii) the same thing will be true if those stats were rolled rather than allocated.

I guess it's possible using rolld stats to try and play a INT/DEX wizard whose high stats are CON and CHA. Is that very common? As I posted upthread, my understanding of the earliler D&D rulebooks and my experience in play was that rolled stats served as a soft funnel into class. There was no expectation that people would roll STR 16, INT 9 and try and play that PC as a wizard.


----------



## pemerton (May 15, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think point buy would result in a wider spread of stats if 5E wasn't so focused on maxing out key stats, and so tolerant of dump stats. There just aren't many convincing reasons to spread the love outside of maybe half the stats for a given character (generally DEX/CON plus class stat). I'd like to see actual reasons for fighters to take intelligence, or for a Wizard to take strength. _Five Torches Deep_ manages that to a degree, so it is possible.



I don't know Five Torches Deep except as a name.

I've played games in which warrior PCs have excelled in non-fighting stuff:, but they're non-D&D games.

In one of our long-running Rolemaster campaigns two of the PCs were warriors (and cousins): one was focused almost solely on fighting; the other was a strong warrior but also a master smith, knowledgable in languages and socially rather graceful.

In our Prince Valiant game one of the knights is Brawn 3, Presence 4 and more skilled at talking than fighting.

To speak in generalities, contemporary D&D tends to emphasise all classes being able to contribute in combat. If you want to use your INT to contribute in combat, you build a wizard. A fighter contributes in combat via STR, DEX and CON, so it would seem to many rather artificial to also create an INT path (unless it is some sort of <pause for effect> warlord-type option).

Whereas, and still speaking in generatlisation, both RM and Prince Valiant tend to emphasise there being multiple arenas of action in which various PCs might find themselves involved. A clever or suave warrior is going to shine less in combat than other more physical or single-minded warrior builds, but brings something else to the table.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 15, 2020)

pemerton said:


> But wouldn't one be trained in (say) Thievery and another in (say) Stealth?



I dunno, my ability to explain a position I do not hold falls short at that point.

Personally, I have no difficulty seeing two characters with identical mechanical choices as not being the same if their personalities aren't the same (a skill I practiced while DMing by having a group of monsters using the same stat block each behave as individuals rather than clones or personality-free drones).


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 15, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't know Five Torches Deep except as a name.
> 
> I've played games in which warrior PCs have excelled in non-fighting stuff:, but they're non-D&D games.



Five Torches is an OSR strip-down of 5E. One of the things they did is attempt, pretty successfully, to spread the mechanical benefits evenly across the abilities, each tied to game mechanics that every or most characters use. There's much more of a reason for, say, a Fighter to take Cha or Int. I thought it was a pretty successful treatment of the standard six in that regard. Part of that is to facilitate the role in order nature of character creation in 5TD, but I thought it was interesting outside that.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 15, 2020)

I mean....rolled stats are going to generally result in similar abilities. And the priority of the stat as it relates to the chosen class is the same whichever method you use. 

So a player who’s decided to play a Cleric is almost always going to place his highest score....rolled or bought....in Wisdom. And so on for each class. 

The priorities don’t change based on method of generation. 

Perhaps this is more a complaint that there are less meaningful choices for stat allocation than there should be?


----------



## Darth Solo (May 15, 2020)

Still waiting for examples of play that demonstrate how "where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with _what a group chooses_, nor with the _(un)fairness of the world_."

It's unusual enough to require examples.


----------



## Darth Solo (May 15, 2020)

I think you're making things up to cover your weak point. 

Please demonstrate I'm wrong with examples ....


----------



## Lanefan (May 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean....rolled stats are going to generally result in similar abilities. And the priority of the stat as it relates to the chosen class is the same whichever method you use.
> 
> So a player who’s decided to play a Cleric is almost always going to place his highest score....rolled or bought....in Wisdom. And so on for each class.
> 
> The priorities don’t change based on method of generation.



Not for the prime stat, no; but sorting out the others can be trickier with rolled stats depending what the dice gave you.

If you're a single-stat class and roll 16-11-11-11-10-10 it's dirt simple.  But if you roll 17-15-14-14-8-7 you've got some more interesting (and maybe tougher) choices to make even though on average those are nicer stats; especially when it comes to what to do with the 8 and the 7.

Edition makes a difference too: my choices would almost certainly be different in 5e (from what I can tell) than in 1e, or in 3e.


----------



## pemerton (May 15, 2020)

Darth Solo said:


> Still waiting for examples of play that demonstrate how "where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with _what a group chooses_, nor with the _(un)fairness of the world_."



I gave three examples already: Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant. Whether the world is unfair, or not (a question for another time), random rolls for ability scores have no conceivable place in PC-gen for these games. In BW, ability scores are built from pools that are in turn built from LPs that in turn are chosen under various constaints negotiated by the group as part of setting up a campaign.

In AW, each playbook has four ability-score spreds ("arrays") to choose from which reflect a particular approach to that sort of PC, and will feed into other choices of moves for one's character. You _could_, if you wanted to, through a d4 to choose one's array, but that would be like throwing a die-whatever to choose from the possible points-buy options. It wouldn't be a version of throwing 3d6 (or whatever) for each score.

In Prince Valiant, there are two abilities, Brawn and Presence, and 7 points to allocate to them. The number of points in a score represents coins tossed in action resolution (heads are succdesses). In our game we have two Brawn 4, Presence 3 (both knights) and two Brawn 3, Presence 4 (one started as a squire but is now a knight; the other is a travelling performer). There is no scope in this system for making a random roll for stats. You could toss a coin to decide whether you want to play a more physical or more mental character, but that would be like a 5e player tossing a coin to choose between fighter and wizard. That's not random stat generation.

Besides D&D, systems I know of that invite random stat generation are Tunnels & Trolls (mandatory I would have thought), Classic Traveller (for the reasons I explained upthread) and at least traditionally RQ (and its offshoots) and Rolemaster, which in this respect show their conceptual connections to classic D&D.


----------



## pemerton (May 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Not for the prime stat, no; but sorting out the others can be trickier with rolled stats depending what the dice gave you.
> 
> If you're a single-stat class and roll 16-11-11-11-10-10 it's dirt simple.  But if you roll 17-15-14-14-8-7 you've got some more interesting (and maybe tougher) choices to make



I'm not seeing the dramatic contrast here with the points-buy examples I posted upthread from 4e, which have one PC with the lowest stat 10, others with 8s, and various spreads from maxing one to near-maxing two to having multiples in the 14-ish range.


----------



## Lanefan (May 15, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I'm not seeing the dramatic contrast here with the points-buy examples I posted upthread from 4e, which have one PC with the lowest stat 10, others with 8s, and various spreads from maxing one to near-maxing two to having multiples in the 14-ish range.



Perhaps, but 15-10-10-9-8-6 gives (or forces!) different choices than 15-15-14-14-10-10 and different again than 18-16-13-12-11-7; and in some systems e.g. 1e D&D where classes are gated by minimum stat requirements the choices also extend to a greater variety of available classes, along with how best to arrange your rolls (if arrangement is allowed).


----------



## Hussar (May 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Perhaps, but 15-10-10-9-8-6 gives (or forces!) different choices than 15-15-14-14-10-10 and different again than 18-16-13-12-11-7; and in some systems e.g. 1e D&D where classes are gated by minimum stat requirements the choices also extend to a greater variety of available classes, along with how best to arrange your rolls (if arrangement is allowed).




The problem though, is that 15-10-10-9-8-6 is either not played at all (most likely outcome) or becomes ogre chow at the first opportunity so the player can roll a different character.  Now, the 15-15 array or the 18-16 array are both pretty much possible with point buy.  Or, at least, very, very close to it.  You might have an 8 instead of that 7.

But, again, the issue is, 15-15-13-12-11-7 probably never sees the light of day, or only for a very short time.  And that's dead on 5e point buy value.  But, IME, that character?  At a die rolled table?  Not going to happen.  Certainly not going to get played at an AD&D table.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Not for the prime stat, no; but sorting out the others can be trickier with rolled stats depending what the dice gave you.
> 
> If you're a single-stat class and roll 16-11-11-11-10-10 it's dirt simple.  But if you roll 17-15-14-14-8-7 you've got some more interesting (and maybe tougher) choices to make even though on average those are nicer stats; especially when it comes to what to do with the 8 and the 7.
> 
> Edition makes a difference too: my choices would almost certainly be different in 5e (from what I can tell) than in 1e, or in 3e.




I mean, the example you offered of 17-15-14-14-8-7 is much closer to the standard array, so it almost seems like what you're actually saying is that the standard array (which is based on point buy) offers more meaningful choices? Or at least, has a certain level of meaningful choice and that random stat generation may wind up with less or more meaningful choice, depending on the results. 

I think that really, when you boil it down, all that point buy or standard array methods do is remove the fluke cases of someone with 6 great stats, someone with 6 awful stats, or someone with 6 average stats. It forces there to be some variety, which seems to be where there may be meaningful choice.


----------



## Aldarc (May 15, 2020)

lewpuls said:


> Point buy is very fair (*FRP is a game, for some people*).



I'm late to the game, but this point from the OP sticks into my mind.

For some people? What is the alternative even? What is FRP if it's not a game? Seriously. I kinda wish the OP would expand on this point. The term "game" is used in both the terms "Tabletop Roleplaying Games" and "Tabletalk Games." I don't understand why people are so skittish or derisive of the fact that roleplaying games are games. They even derived from "War Games."

That said, in regards to the rest of the post, this largely depends on the system. If you are assuming D&D where rolling stats amounts to six attributes and (possibly) HP, then there is a lot for potential variance. But there are so many games out there where you don't have to worry about the uniformity of builds, even if you don't roll.

How for example would point buy or roll for stats even really apply to games like Fate, Cortex, or PbtA? Though it's possible to consider filling the skill pyramid or using Fate points to "buy" stunts as a point buy, but it doesn't really have the same character of rolling attributes vs. point buy attributes in D&D. You're certainly "building" your character, but it's not necessarily defined about a weak character vs. a strong character (often framed in terms of combat), but about what sort of character can best engage the game world.

But what about the experienced vs. inexperienced players? In games like Fate or Cortex, there is often an explicit emphasis on cooperative character creation with players and the GM helping other players to create characters.



AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Seeing a lot of folks saying "unfair" when they mean "unequal" in the thread. Rolling is just as fair as point buy is, assuming that every player is given the same particulars and no one is using loaded dice - but rolling produces unequal results.



Insert Rawlsian argument here, otherwise absent for laziness.


----------



## Lanefan (May 15, 2020)

Hussar said:


> The problem though, is that 15-10-10-9-8-6 is either not played at all (most likely outcome) or becomes ogre chow at the first opportunity so the player can roll a different character.  Now, the 15-15 array or the 18-16 array are both pretty much possible with point buy.  Or, at least, very, very close to it.  You might have an 8 instead of that 7.
> 
> But, again, the issue is, 15-15-13-12-11-7 probably never sees the light of day, or only for a very short time.  And that's dead on 5e point buy value.  But, IME, that character?  At a die rolled table?  Not going to happen.  Certainly not going to get played at an AD&D table.



It might come as a surprise, then, to learn that one of the longest-serving characters (18 adventures, still alive) in my current campaign - a 1e-based game where stats are rolled using 5d6keep3 - started with 15-14-14-13-11-6*.  I've also had characters start with stupid-high stats (best I've ever seen was, I think, 18-18-17-17-15-15) and not make it through their first adventure.

* - I have these numbers handy as I did some starting-stat-vs-career-length comparisons a few years back and still have the files.

In 3e, where stats are even more critical, we played it roll-all-the-way: my character - who started with a mighty 15-13-12-11-10-7 (way below the party average!) - went on to a grand career and is probably the best character I've ever had.

Stats make a difference, no question there, but that difference is nowhere near as much as the theory-board would sometimes like to think.


----------



## Lanefan (May 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, the example you offered of 17-15-14-14-8-7 is much closer to the standard array, so it almost seems like what you're actually saying is that the standard array (which is based on point buy) offers more meaningful choices? Or at least, has a certain level of meaningful choice and that random stat generation may wind up with less or more meaningful choice, depending on the results.
> 
> I think that really, when you boil it down, all that point buy or standard array methods do is remove the fluke cases of someone with 6 great stats, someone with 6 awful stats, or someone with 6 average stats. It forces there to be some variety, which seems to be where there may be meaningful choice.



Agreed that there's probably more meaningful choice involved with a variety of stats; disagree that forcing it is a good thing.

With a fixed array I can't get an 18 and a string of 10-12's, for example; yet that can give a very playable character in a single-stat-dependent class. (I know 5e tends to want two high stats; but other editions don't so much - you can get by with one)

With point-buy - at least in any official version I've seen - I can't get a 7, or a 6; and sometimes a very low stat put in the right place (Wisdom!) takes a character from playable to great!  I see 8 as being only mildly below average, just as 13 is only mildly above.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 16, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed that there's probably more meaningful choice involved with a variety of stats; disagree that forcing it is a good thing.
> 
> With a fixed array I can't get an 18 and a string of 10-12's, for example; yet that can give a very playable character in a single-stat-dependent class. (I know 5e tends to want two high stats; but other editions don't so much - you can get by with one)
> 
> With point-buy - at least in any official version I've seen - I can't get a 7, or a 6; and sometimes a very low stat put in the right place (Wisdom!) takes a character from playable to great!  I see 8 as being only mildly below average, just as 13 is only mildly above.




Yeah, I’m not saying that rolling stats can’t produce viable characters. Just that it can produce non-viable ones.

And as for not having a 6 or 7....I mean, I could take an 8 Wisdom character and play them the same way you’d play a 6 Wisdom character. 

I don’t know if the specific numbers matter so much as what they represent. 

Which brings us back to what really differentiates characters; how they’re played.


----------



## pemerton (May 16, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> How for example would point buy or roll for stats even really apply to games like Fate, Cortex, or PbtA? Though it's possible to consider filling the skill pyramid or using Fate points to "buy" stunts as a point buy, but it doesn't really have the same character of rolling attributes vs. point buy attributes in D&D. You're certainly "building" your character, but it's not necessarily defined about a weak character vs. a strong character (often framed in terms of combat), but about what sort of character can best engage the game world.
> 
> But what about the experienced vs. inexperienced players? In games like Fate or Cortex, there is often an explicit emphasis on cooperative character creation with players and the GM helping other players to create characters.



Yes. I've already made this point a few times in the thread.

Perhaps it's no surprise that it seemed to get more traction with those posters whom I know (from their posting history) have a bit of experience with non-D&D or D&D-clone games!



Aldarc said:


> Insert Rawlsian argument here, otherwise absent for laziness.



I'm not one to eschew a good Rawlsian argument, having written my PhD on (among other authors) Rawls and having just given a lecture on Rawls on Thursday. But on this occasion, I go to Ron instead:

​*Balance: the sort-of issue*​"Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory. . . . [T]he assumption that Gamist play is uniquely or definitively concerned with "balance" is very, very mistaken.​​_Overall_​
Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what?
Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being used. Also, "Fair" generally means, "What I want."
Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or Effectiveness + Resource only?
Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has nothing to do with their abilities/oomph?
Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather, with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it stops) is distributed among the members of the group?
They can't all be balance at once.​​_Within Gamist play_​
Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, then that's fine.
The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken.
Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced.
In direct contrast to #1, "balance" can also mean that everyone is subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength, regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels & Trolls is all about this kind of play.)
The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking.


Edwards goes on to talk about other (non-Gamist) approaches but I think the bit I've quoted covers most of the terrain of this thread: _parity_, _equality of starting point in outcomes vs chances_, and the problematic idea of _fairness_.


----------



## aramis erak (May 16, 2020)

Eyes of Nine said:


> Old School play. Here, since player skills matters as much or more than character abilities, part of the appeal of the game is to "win" in spite of the poor odds given by the random whims of fate. Again, leaning into the poor scores is part of this - when my thief with a 10 Dex manages to steal something and *survive*, in spite of himself - that's tale for the ages!



One of the key elements of random gen old school games, especially Traveller and BX/BECMI, is figuring out who the character is via play.


Ovinomancer said:


> There are plenty of games where character build is point-buy, but system mastery will not give you an advantage.  As noted, Apocalypse World is one, Blades in the Dark another. The counter is that system mastery can aid you even in random generation -- ie, choice of character build after stats in D&D is very susceptible to system mastery.



While I've not played AW, I've run Sentinel Comics which is grounded in the same basic approaches. System mastery does matter in play ... but it's a different skillset from trad games.

In trad games, it's about knowing your odds, knowing the rounding points, knowing your character abilities, and knowing the rules well enough to make informed decisions.

In SC, system mastery is based on the knowing of how to describe so you get to use the best stats. It's much less mastery of the rules and more knowing the thresholds of the GM and other players. 

That's a lower bar than in, say, BX, where knowing the spell list is a highly useful skill for players... even non-wizards benefit from judging NPCs by the spells they cast.



FaerieGodfather said:


> I originally proposed a more heroic point buy with 3d6 or 4d6k3 to represent the better of two values from the same average and range, but the more I think about it... the more I think I prefer pairing a lower point buy with 5d4, as I think this will make the dice more exciting without drastically increasing the risk of unsatisfying characters.



Ah, the Dark Sun rolling method... 


AaronOfBarbaria said:


> The tier of play a campaign reaches is not "a roll of the dice" by design.





pemerton said:


> I don't really get the _points buy = samey _thing. Here are three reasons for that.



I've seen players literally photocopy their character sheet, and when the character died, simply pull it out, transcribe it on a new sheet, and change only the name.
It's not that the characters are the same across the group, its that the individual has ONE character they play, and they use it each and every time they play game X.
In one case, I was watching a 2E S&P D&D campaign, full point buy. Player's character died before level 2. Player erased the name, wrote in a new one, changed one language.


AaronOfBarbaria said:


> What I don't get is how rolling gets a pass just because placing scores with the same order of priority happens to result in different numbers. It's still the "same" even though the volume has been turned up or down compared to point buy depending on how well the rolls went.



Many games (not AD&D) are roll  stats in order.
D&D BX is roll in order, and only 3d6. But if you have a high score in an att other than your prime, you can trade 2 points from non PR for 1 point to the PR attribute.
D&D 3 draws far more from the AD&D side than the BX/BECMI/Cyclopaedia side...
Because the roll in order hands you a character with only some elements



pemerton said:


> In Prince Valiant, there are two abilities, Brawn and Presence, and 7 points to allocate to them. The number of points in a score represents coins tossed in action resolution (heads are succdesses). In our game we have two Brawn 4, Presence 3 (both knights) and two Brawn 3, Presence 4 (one started as a squire but is now a knight; the other is a travelling performer). There is no scope in this system for making a random roll for stats. You could toss a coin to decide whether you want to play a more physical or more mental character, but that would be like a 5e player tossing a coin to choose between fighter and wizard. That's not random stat generation.



Actually, it's very easy to scope a random gen for it... you only got halfway to looking at it.
1 point in each as a base. Grab 5 coins. toss them. each head adds 1 to presence, each tail to brawn. 15 seconds to random character... but that's also automatically keeps it within the 7 point scope of starting PCs. A hybrid of random and deterministic.


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2020)

Heh.  Isn't it funny how anecdotes are meant to be proof of things.

I mean, IME, die rolling is pretty much nothing but sanctioned cheating, but, I'm not supposed to say that because, well, lots of people are going to jump up and down and talk about how they never cheat on chargen despite the fact that you can poll pretty much any die rolled D&D group and their averages will almost always and certainly far more often than they should, will be higher than random chance allows for. 

But, @aramis erak has two bad players twenty or thirty years ago, and that's apparently proof that point buy creates cookie cutter characters.


----------



## aramis erak (May 16, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  Isn't it funny how anecdotes are meant to be proof of things.
> 
> I mean, IME, die rolling is pretty much nothing but sanctioned cheating, but, I'm not supposed to say that because, well, lots of people are going to jump up and down and talk about how they never cheat on chargen despite the fact that you can poll pretty much any die rolled D&D group and their averages will almost always and certainly far more often than they should, will be higher than random chance allows for.
> 
> But, @aramis erak has two bad players twenty or thirty years ago, and that's apparently proof that point buy creates cookie cutter characters.



Only two who simply replaced the name.

I've seen a dozen who try to build the same character in EVERY game they play.

And I've seen another dozen or so who play fairly close, but adjusted to cover the gaps that got the prior killed.

I only pointed out the two because people (clearly including you) often think that kind of asshattery doesn't happen, being too far over the edge.

But I've seen it happen with those same two players in Vampire, GURPS, and one of them tried it in Streetfighter. In that third case, I was the GM, and I  simply rejected it and said, "build something different." He got huffy about it, but decided that he'd rather play something he wasn't comfortable with than go home.

And while it happens far less often in rolled-atts D&D, at least in D&D the stats are usually not the same.


----------



## pemerton (May 16, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Actually, it's very easy to scope a random gen for it... you only got halfway to looking at it.
> 1 point in each as a base. Grab 5 coins. toss them. each head adds 1 to presence, each tail to brawn. 15 seconds to random character... but that's also automatically keeps it within the 7 point scope of starting PCs. A hybrid of random and deterministic.



That's the same as rolling for an array. I think I already said upthread that you could toss a coin for a 4/3 or 3/4 split if you're not sure what you want to play. I don't think that has much in common with rolling stats in the D&D sense.


----------



## pemerton (May 16, 2020)

The only player I know who likes to play the same character is me - I've played it in AD&D 2nd ed, D&D 4e, Dungeon World, and Burning Wheel.

If the complaint about points buy is that some players like to build the same PCs, that seems pretty mild. Get them to roll for class before they build. (Or if we're talking about Champions get them to roll for power; etc.)


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Only two who simply replaced the name.
> 
> I've seen a dozen who try to build the same character in EVERY game they play.



Seems like that this is not a point buy issue in the slightest. It's a "I have my one character type" player issue. You can easily permit point buy and say that you can't create the same character or even class. I'm not sure why obvious solutions are so easily passed over in favor of blaming it on point buy.


----------



## Ovinomancer (May 16, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Seems like that this is not a point buy issue in the slightest. It's a "I have my one character type" player issue. You can easily permit point buy and say that you can't create the same character or even class. I'm not sure why obvious solutions are so easily passed over in favor of blaming it on point buy.



Yup.  I often see rolling for stats as a fix to issues that really aren't at all about stat generation.  It's like a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 16, 2020)

I have 73 clones of my uber-fighter Zargon the Unfortunate all done up, waiting in tanks for inevitable character death. Upgraded skills and abilities are magically transferred to my clone programming crystal on a regular basis so that of I do die I only lose a day or so of hard earned XP. And then I can hire a killer out of legend to make inquiries into what sort of DM malfeasance may have caused my death.


----------



## Hriston (May 16, 2020)

As a player and a DM (limiting my remarks to D&D here), I prefer to roll the ability scores of characters I'm generating because it isn't a decision I'm all that interested in making myself. I find it's more fun to let the dice decide and play what they give me. That being said, I have on occasion used point-buy to set the scores of certain NPCs when my goal was to create a "balanced" stat-block.


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2020)

To pick up an earlier point, I'm not entirely sure why the whole idea of "rolling to find out who your character" only applies (in the context of Dungeons & Derivatives) to six attributes and not to things like your race, background, class, or skills. It also doesn't really seem like you are rolling to discover your character if you making six rolls and then building the rest. It seems less about rolling to discover and more about seeing how effective of a character you can build with the stats you stumble upon.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 16, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> To pick up an earlier point, I'm not entirely sure why the whole idea of "rolling to find out who your character" only applies (in the context of Dungeons & Derivatives) to six attributes and not to things like your race, background, class, or skills. It also doesn't really seem like you are rolling to discover your character if you making six rolls and then building the rest. It seems less about rolling to discover and more about seeing how effective of a character you can build with the stats you stumble upon.




Yeah, once assigning scores to stats is a thing....whether rolled or point buy....the “discovery through rolling” thing is pretty much out the window.

It only feels relevant if you roll scores and assign them in order, or if you roll class and race and other features as well.

Otherwise, it’s more about discovering what the dwarven fighter you’re making’s second best stat will be. 

Oooo exciting!


----------



## prabe (May 16, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> To pick up an earlier point, I'm not entirely sure why the whole idea of "rolling to find out who your character" only applies (in the context of Dungeons & Derivatives) to six attributes and not to things like your race, background, class, or skills. It also doesn't really seem like you are rolling to discover your character if you making six rolls and then building the rest. It seems less about rolling to discover and more about seeing how effective of a character you can build with the stats you stumble upon.




I believe the idea of rolling to find the character applies mostly to variants of roll-in-order. Yes, at that point there's something of a game of finding an effective character in those stats. In my mostly-theoretical (as in, building characters for my own amusement) experience, marginal stats tend toward the classic/obvious combos, whereas really good rolls maybe end up with something a little more outre.

There was some discussion earlier about system mastery, and I think there are different aspects of system mastery floating around. There's a kind of system mastery that involves getting the maximum from every build point, and there's a different kind of system mastery that involves arranging random scores into something effective and/or fun, and there's yet another kind of system mastery that involves looking at a set of rolled-in-order scores and seeing what kind of character would be fun and/or effective with those as a starting point. I can see the appeal of all three (though I find the middle one somehow lacking).


----------



## Ovinomancer (May 16, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> While I've not played AW, I've run Sentinel Comics which is grounded in the same basic approaches. System mastery does matter in play ... but it's a different skillset from trad games.
> 
> In trad games, it's about knowing your odds, knowing the rounding points, knowing your character abilities, and knowing the rules well enough to make informed decisions.
> 
> ...



As I was talking about system mastery in character creation, not sure what you're responding to, here.  

Even in play, though system mastery is not what you're talking about -- system mastery being using the in-depth knowledge of how the system works to achieve goals -- but instead just being good at manipulating play.  That's not quite the same thing as system mastery.  I can just understand my characters strengths and be just as effective at maneuvering to my advantage as I could if I understood the entire system.  There's a good argument that you don't even really need to understand the system to promote your strong character using their strength to solve problems effectively.  System mastery helps, but it's a slightly different thing than what you describe here.



> Actually, it's very easy to scope a random gen for it... you only got halfway to looking at it.
> 1 point in each as a base. Grab 5 coins. toss them. each head adds 1 to presence, each tail to brawn. 15 seconds to random character... but that's also automatically keeps it within the 7 point scope of starting PCs. A hybrid of random and deterministic.



The issue wasn't being unable to figure out a way to do it randomly -- that's easy enough.  The issue is whether or not it even makes sense to do so, and it doesn't.


----------



## TwoSix (May 16, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> I only pointed out the two because people (clearly including you) often think that kind of asshattery doesn't happen, being too far over the edge.



I think part of the problem is that you're assigning the desire to play the same character as some kind of moral failing, whereas it seems to me it's simply a case of that player having a different set of play priorities than you.  That's the sort of thing that should be sorted out by discussion, not by changing the rules.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> To pick up an earlier point, I'm not entirely sure why the whole idea of "rolling to find out who your character" only applies (in the context of Dungeons & Derivatives) to six attributes and not to things like your race, background, class, or skills. It also doesn't really seem like you are rolling to discover your character if you making six rolls and then building the rest. It seems less about rolling to discover and more about seeing how effective of a character you can build with the stats you stumble upon.



Upthread I think I mentioned the example of a player in one of our AD&D one-shots who rolled for race, class and alignment, and I think also for stats.

One reason I think Classic Traveller PC gen is different from D&D roll-for-stats (and even roll-for-stats in order) is because of its lifepath aspect.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I think part of the problem is that you're assigning the desire to play the same character as some kind of moral failing, whereas it seems to me it's simply a case of that player having a different set of play priorities than you.



I don't see what's wrong with liking to play the same character. We're talking about a leisure activity, not a test of personal fortitude!


----------



## prabe (May 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't see what's wrong with liking to play the same character. We're talking about a leisure activity, not a test of personal fortitude!




Some people tend more toward novelty-seeking, even in leisure activities, than others do. Personally, I try not to repeat character concepts (at least closely in time). There's also the thing that can happen at a table, that if you don't want characters stepping on each other's toes, if Joe always plays Joe's Type of Character, then no one else can play a similar concept if Joe is at the table.

Neither of these make it necessarily wrong to always play the same type of character--especially not to satisfy someone whose novelty-seeking extends to wanting *others* to stretch their comfort zones--but it might be courteous to allow someone else to play [character type] now and then, if asked.


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> Some people tend more toward novelty-seeking, even in leisure activities, than others do. Personally, I try not to repeat character concepts (at least closely in time). There's also the thing that can happen at a table, that if you don't want characters stepping on each other's toes, if Joe always plays Joe's Type of Character, then no one else can play a similar concept if Joe is at the table.
> 
> Neither of these make it necessarily wrong to always play the same type of character



I'm not sure what the word _necessarily _is doing in that last sentence. As to the first (putative) reason, why does the fact that person A prefers not to repeat concepts in his/her play give pwerson B a reason not to play the same character type?

As to the second, where is this idea that the game can't have two similar PCs coming from? It's not a rule I'm familiar with in any game but Apocalypse World, where at the start of the game there can be only one of each playbook so that - as Vincent Baker has said in subsequent comments - the GM doesn't have to provide multiple copies.



prabe said:


> it might be courteous to allow someone else to play [character type] now and then, if asked.



This seems something of a rabbit from a hat. Where in this thread has anyone advocated for discourtesy?

On this issue I think it also Apocalypse World that advises, hopefully redundantly, that if two people are interested in the same playbook they can sort it out like adults. (EDIT: I just checked, it's actually Dungeon World p 49, which has a similar rule about starting classes.)


----------



## prabe (May 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what the word _necessarily _is doing in that last sentence. As to the first (putative) reason, why does the fact that person A prefers not to repeat concepts in his/her play give pwerson B a reason not to play the same character type?




I was getting at it not being wrongbadfun to want to play the same type of character all the time, in spite of it not being to my own tastes.



pemerton said:


> As to the second, where is this idea that the game can't have two similar PCs coming from? It's not a rule I'm familiar with in any game but Apocalypse World, where at the start of the game there can be only one of each playbook so that - as Vincent Baker has said in subsequent comments - the GM doesn't have to provide multiple copies.




It's rarely a hard-coded rule, but it comes up in supers games; it comes up enough that there's a term for it--niche protection--and it's probably more of a table expectations thing than anything else.



pemerton said:


> This seems something of a rabbit from a hat. Where in this thread has anyone advocated for discourtesy?
> 
> On this issue I think it also Apocalypse World that advises, hopefully redundantly, that if two people are interested in the same playbook they can sort it out like adults. (EDIT: I just checked, it's actually Dungeon World p 49, which has a similar rule about starting classes.)




I wasn't saying anyone had advocated for discourtesy; I was advocating for courtesy. I was giving a reason why a player who prefers to play the same type of character might want to let someone else play that type of character.


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I don't see what's wrong with liking to play the same character. We're talking about a leisure activity, not a test of personal fortitude!




Well, when it's the EXACT same character every single time, regardless of setting, theme, campaign or anything else, it become extremely boring for everyone else at the table.  Oh, look, Bob's playing a human fighter... again.  Way to stretch those wings out there Bob.  Way to give anyone else at the table anything to work with.  And, expecially, way to screw over your DM by yet again, giving him the same steaming pile to work with in this campaign as you did in the five previous campaigns.

So, yeah, count me in the camp of strongly disliking players who repeatedly play the same character.  It's boring, and it's lazy as all get out.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> ...it become extremely boring for everyone else at the table.



Not universally.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> So, yeah, count me in the camp of strongly disliking players who repeatedly play the same character.  It's boring, and it's lazy as all get out.



I don't mind players who have a very specific tastes in characters and often play characters that resemble each other. That's more of a game to game thing though, not PC to PC in the same game. I don't like the feel of someone dropping a carbon copy of the same PC that just died. To temporize a little, if the window dressing is different, if the character feels different but plays very similarly, that's less of an issue. But when the new character might as well be a clone of the old character top to bottom I'm not a fan.


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2020)

Meh.  Having just gotten out of a group where at least two of the players played nothing but carbon copies of the same character over and over and over again, across several campaigns, my patience for that sort of thing is pretty much zero.

FFS, I get liking this or that, but, come on.  Stretch those legs a bit.  Step outside of the comfort zone with just a pinkie toe once in a while.  Yet another Man with no Name character with zero background and I want to drive a pencil into my left ear.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 17, 2020)

Yeah, I do sympathize. I like playing sneaky fighter types, for example. I play them a lot, in a lot of different games. However, they don't actually resemble each other all that much except in the mechanics, and even then not completely. There's always something new to try, a different angle, class mix, a feat, a race, background, maybe some gish, whatever._ Something._


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> count me in the camp of strongly disliking players who repeatedly play the same character.  It's boring, and it's lazy as all get out.





Hussar said:


> Stretch those legs a bit.  Step outside of the comfort zone with just a pinkie toe once in a while.  Yet another Man with no Name character with zero background and I want to drive a pencil into my left ear.



_The same character _needn't be _man with no name_.

In my own case, when FRPGing I prefer to play a religious character, sometimes a monk but normally a knight. I can create background(s) as needed.

My reason for this preference is that I don't play (as opposed to GM) all that often, and that character immediately invokes what I find are the key tropes of romantic fantasy. (Whereas _man with no name_ is quite the opposite, being a REH-esque modernist trope.)


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't mind players who have a very specific tastes in characters and often play characters that resemble each other. That's more of a game to game thing though, not PC to PC in the same game. I don't like the feel of someone dropping a carbon copy of the same PC that just died.



This is now getting into a very specific sort of play context - the D&D-esque fantasy campaign in which some PCs die and new PCs join the party.

In that context I've had players bring in different new PCs (for the change) and variants of the dead (because they hadn't finished exploring everything they wanted to, mechanically and narratively, about that sort of character). Managing this is (in my view) part of a GM's job as lead of this particular aspect of social contract.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> I've seen players literally photocopy their character sheet, and when the character died, simply pull it out, transcribe it on a new sheet, and change only the name.
> It's not that the characters are the same across the group, its that the individual has ONE character they play, and they use it each and every time they play game X.



While having heard tales of such things I've never really seen it happen, in well over 35 years at this with - during that time - dozens of players.

With the one-time exception I can think of being, in fact, me.

I had what seemed like a cool idea for a character concept, rolled it up, and tried to bring it in.  So much for that: _she died while meeting the party_! "Screw it", I said to myself, "that concept never got a chance." So I pulled out the roll-up dice and came right back with the same thing, only with lower stats this time as I'd used up all my luck on the first try.  But at least this one made it into the party.....


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 17, 2020)

I've seen the "just change the name and play the same character over again" thing happen a few times over the years. The instances all fall into 3 cases:

1) The campaign begins, and a string of die rolls going as badly as they can means someone's character is dead. Instead of sitting out of play to make a new character, just re-use the one that was just finished and has barely even seen play.

2) The campaign has been going on a while, and making a replacement character would mean spending most of the session not actually playing... but wait, your character's oddly similar cousin has just showed up.

3) The campaign is extremely lethal, and characters have been dying left and right. Making a new character every time has grown boring, so just swap a name or add another tally mark and get back in the grinder... 

And now that I've typed those out, I notice they share a trend in attitude: not wanting to spend the limited time available building a character rather than playing a character.


----------



## S'mon (May 17, 2020)

You left out standard array, which like Point Buy is fair & lacks variety; unlike Point Buy it's quick and painless to assign the numbers.

Rolling in order creates organic-looking characters who feel more like 'actual people'; it works particularly well in AD&D I find, where attribute bonuses are rare and the ethos is very much 'life's not fair'. 
Roll three characters in order then pick one is one good approach, so is roll in order then replace any one stat with a '15'.

Roll and arrange combines the worst of point buy and roll-in-order - like roll in order it's unfair, like point buy it takes time, like point buy it creates inorganic looking characters with predictable 'dump stats'.


----------



## S'mon (May 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> It's rarely a hard-coded rule, but it comes up in supers games; it comes up enough that there's a term for it--niche protection--and it's probably more of a table expectations thing than anything else.




Kinda makes sense in Superhero genre; doesn't make a lot of sense in D&D IMO.
I had a great time in a 5e Thule session where both players played Barbarians, and we hacked our way through the poor GM's scenario with great enjoyment!


----------



## S'mon (May 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Oh, look, Bob's playing a human fighter... again.  Way to stretch those wings out there Bob.




You must _really_ hate real-world settings then!


----------



## TwoSix (May 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> This is now getting into a very specific sort of play context - the D&D-esque fantasy campaign in which some PCs die and new PCs join the party.
> 
> In that context I've had players bring in different new PCs (for the change) and variants of the dead (because they hadn't finished exploring everything they wanted to, mechanically and narratively, about that sort of character). Managing this is (in my view) part of a GM's job as lead of this particular aspect of social contract.



Exactly this.  I generally move from PC to PC pretty quickly, but I did recently make a character that was similar to a character who just died (same race and class, different subclass and personality) because I hadn't explored all the aspects of that character type.  And believe me, I'm one of the last people who in the world who would be said to have a "PC type".

I understand in theory the "same PCs get boring" argument, but I generally have enough players in my group that a little repetition isn't a problem.  I have a player in one of my groups who's played a halfling rogue for the past 20 years across multiple systems, and they never get tired of it.  Who am I to tell them they need to break out of their comfort zone to satisfy my own need for variety?


----------



## pemerton (May 17, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I have a player in one of my groups who's played a halfling rogue for the past 20 years across multiple systems, and they never get tired of it.



Now there's someone who's found a niche!


----------



## prabe (May 17, 2020)

S'mon said:


> Kinda makes sense in Superhero genre; doesn't make a lot of sense in D&D IMO.
> I had a great time in a 5e Thule session where both players played Barbarians, and we hacked our way through the poor GM's scenario with great enjoyment!




It makes less sense in D&D, I'll agree, but at least at some tables (or for some players) It's a thing. I normally wouldn't want to play a character filling the same niche as another player's, so if Joe always plays halfling rogues it's going to be harder for me to play a rogue at that table (and depending on how halflings are in-setting, it might be harder for me to play a halfling, too). There are exceptions, of course, and a two-player campaign where both characters are barbarians could well be a hoot.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I've seen the "just change the name and play the same character over again" thing happen a few times over the years. The instances all fall into 3 cases:
> 
> 1) The campaign begins, and a string of die rolls going as badly as they can means someone's character is dead. Instead of sitting out of play to make a new character, just re-use the one that was just finished and has barely even seen play.
> 
> ...



Which comes right back to something I've been saying regularly: a grinder-style game doesn't work well if char-gen takes too long.

Under #2 above: "most of the session"?  That yells out "system problem" to me, even in a low-lethality game.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> It makes less sense in D&D, I'll agree, but at least at some tables (or for some players) It's a thing. I normally wouldn't want to play a character filling the same niche as another player's, so if Joe always plays halfling rogues it's going to be harder for me to play a rogue at that table (and depending on how halflings are in-setting, it might be harder for me to play a halfling, too).



Doesn't bother me - if I've got an idea for a Hobbit Thief (a.k.a. halfling rogue) that covers ground Joe hasn't, I'll play it.

Keep in mind also, that parties, if they're halfway smart, are likely to want to recruit to fill gaps rather than augment what they already have.  Thus bringing a third Thief into a party that already has two is likely to be much less useful than bringing in a Cleric, of whch they have none.



> There are exceptions, of course



Yes there are: no party can ever have too many Fighters and-or Clerics.



> and a two-player campaign where both characters are barbarians could well be a hoot.



I've seen this, though not played in it: two Barbarian (race) Rangers (class) roaming through the northlands killing every Frost Giant they could find.....


----------



## prabe (May 17, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Doesn't bother me - if I've got an idea for a Hobbit Thief (a.k.a. halfling rogue) that covers ground Joe hasn't, I'll play it.




Yeah, but Joe's character is at least reducing your range of options, even then. And even if I thought it was different enough not to step on Joe's toes (heh, heh) I might talk to Joe about it, to make sure he agreed. Depends on the table, and on Joe specifically, how much of a problem this is.



Lanefan said:


> Keep in mind also, that parties, if they're halfway smart, are likely to want to recruit to fill gaps rather than augment what they already have.  Thus bringing a third Thief into a party that already has two is likely to be much less useful than bringing in a Cleric, of whch they have none.




Oh, definitely, and if Joe always plays the Halfling Rogue, and no one else has stepped up to play, say, a Cleric, it's hard for some players (I'm one) not to fill that gap. If you're me, and you've been playing Clerics (or spellcasters more broadly) and you want a change, Joe at least is not helping (if you want to play a variety of character types) by always playing the Halfling Rogue.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> Yeah, but Joe's character is at least reducing your range of options, even then. And even if I thought it was different enough not to step on Joe's toes (heh, heh) I might talk to Joe about it, to make sure he agreed. Depends on the table, and on Joe specifically, how much of a problem this is.



You're nicer than I am.   With me, within the allowable race-class combos for the setting it's play-what-you-want; and if I bring in a Hobbit Thief then Joe's just gotta deal with it.

That said, in-character Joe has all the advantages: he's an established character in the party where I'm new, and due to that he's better connected within the group and - very likely - tons wealthier than me.  I've a big challenge in front of me just in gaining acceptance within the group.



> Oh, definitely, and if Joe always plays the Halfling Rogue, and no one else has stepped up to play, say, a Cleric, it's hard for some players (I'm one) not to fill that gap. If you're me, and you've been playing Clerics (or spellcasters more broadly) and you want a change, Joe at least is not helping (if you want to play a variety of character types) by always playing the Halfling Rogue.



Funny we're saying this, as chances are whenever next* I get to roll up a new core character it'll probably be a Hobbit Thief, as it's one archetype I've never played other than one or two long-ago one-hit wonders.

* - which might be years from now, at this rate...


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2020)

So, on-topic, and reflecing my excitement at having got in my second isolation session yesterday: we played Wuthering Heights and (as per the rules) rolled randomly for Rage, Despair, Age and Problems.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (May 18, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Under #2 above: "most of the session"?  That yells out "system problem" to me, even in a low-lethality game.



It has been my experience that a person that can make a new character in a reasonable amount of time relative to the objective level of complication the system puts into creating characters is a rarity. The "typical" player will look at a variety of options, carefully weigh them, and even if "in a hurry' take up enough time that even if it didn't genuinely take most of the session it will end up feeling like most of the session - especially with home common it is that the player  doesn't immediately resume play upon completing the character, but instead after another indeterminate period of time when the new character can be brought in to everything else that's going on.

And even the bit of role-play that happens as a new character becomes part of the party can feel like part of the "sitting out of play" experience because it is a result of a character death, not what the players would be spending that part of the session time on otherwise.

And if you, like me, only have 4 hours here or there to squeeze in some gaming and that gets trimmed down by chatting, breaks, and other normal parts of the session that aren't actual game-play, it becomes very easy for even just an hour and half turn around from death to resumed play to be most of the time that was available for actual game-play.


----------



## aramis erak (May 18, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> While having heard tales of such things I've never really seen it happen, in well over 35 years at this with - during that time - dozens of players.
> 
> With the one-time exception I can think of being, in fact, me.



I'm around 39 years and hundreds of players  I estimate about 250 or so. Not that I had trouble keeping a group; I had trouble with players being transferred out or moving due to work. I usually ran 2-3 groups at a time, too, often with entirely different playersets.

I don't mind point buy... but it's not a selling point for me.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2020)

EDIT: Wrong dead thread, sorry,


----------



## clearstream (Jul 20, 2020)

Charlaquin said:


> So, I’m really liking the idea of giving players the option to start with the standard array, an array of 14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8 and a Feat, or to spend 4 points from their point buy for a Feat... But what if players want to roll stats? Any ideas how a DM might allow players to modify their rolls and get a Feat for it? 3d6 instead of 4d6k3 maybe? Any math magicians know how that would compare statistically to the lowered array and the 23 point buy?



Do you mean they can take up to two feats, by reducing their points-buy to 23pts? Reading between the lines, I think you are valuing the feat rightly as an ASI and assuming the lost points are potentially 14 or 15 (thus 4 points can count as +2 ability score).

Anyway, to your question, you can use AnyDice to tune the dice thrown, but first you have to frame the problem. AnyDice showed that the average array with 4d6k3 is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, (average 12.3, +6). The highest average 23 point array is 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 11 (11.83, +5) and the most extreme is 15, 15, 13, 8, 8, 8 (11.17, +2). Compare that with 27 points, 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12 (12.5, +6) or 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 (11.5, +3). It seems like you want to reduce the rolled array by about 0.5.

So I think your question might be framed - what reasonable dice can I throw that averages about 11.8 and does not change the range? You suggested 3d6, but that is too penalising because it changes the average to 10.50.

*1d6+3d6k2 *gives about that, i.e. one die in the normal pool of four is rolled separately and must be kept.

[*EDITED *to fix earlier bout of slow thinking.]


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 20, 2020)

Point-buy is all I've allowed since I can't remember when. It was one of the main points that sold me on trying 5e.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Point-buy is all I've allowed since I can't remember when. It was one of the main points that sold me on trying 5e.



3rd had points buy, it just that at that time it wasn't used much. It was an option in the DMG.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 20, 2020)

clearstream said:


> 3rd had points buy, it just that at that time it wasn't used much. It was an option in the DMG.




I never really considered 3e; After quitting 1e, I didn't look back for a couple decades. I glanced over 4e, but 2019 was the first time I seriously contemplated a return to d20. 

But whatever the system, I think point-buy is the way to go.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 20, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> But whatever the system, I think point-buy is the way to go.



I think it has some strong advantages. Current I use a deck of 18 cards, from which three are distributed randomly to each ability score. (So effectively, draw and assign in order, no replacement.) The cards are marked 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5.

As you can see, the range is 6 to 15, and no more than one 6 and one 15 is possible. A possible array would be 15, 14, 12, 9, 7, 6. My aim was to shift the ability modifier left a point or so. The effect is to make encounters slightly harder: player characters fail a bit more often.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 21, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Why would one hope that?  The setting is where the campaign takes place.  It's cardboard and sawdust as soon as you peek behind the frames.
> 
> Just like everything else, the setting is in service to the campaign and the game, not the other way around.



Unless the setting itself is the reason for the campaign. As in wanting to experience the setting. Hence, all those licensed games.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 21, 2020)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> "your character is dead and never coming back" hasn't been a default caused-by-the-rules detail in a long time, so it's still very odd to try and treat that as an analog to "didn't roll good enough stats to play a paladin"



Outside D&D, "dead is dead" often is the standard. D&D and its direct emulations have had resurrection magic since before 1977.
Most of the other strains, be they fantasy, sci-fi, or historical, don't do resurrections. 

The published Sci-Fi settings that do have resurrection of "most sincerely dead" characters are few... Car Wars, GURPS: Transhuman Space, Dune, Dr Who, anything with multiple timestreams that you can drag them across from.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 21, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Seems like that this is not a point buy issue in the slightest. It's a "I have my one character type" player issue. You can easily permit point buy and say that you can't create the same character or even class. I'm not sure why obvious solutions are so easily passed over in favor of blaming it on point buy.



The player type in question can't pull that kind of ‹expletive›head behavior  if the GM is insisting on random rolls in order. They can play what's rolled, walk away, or sit there and fume.

Point buy enables that particular form of ‹expletive›hat behavior.



Aldarc said:


> Seems like that this is not a point buy issue in the slightest. It's a "I have my one character type" player issue. You can easily permit point buy and say that you can't create the same character or even class. I'm not sure why obvious solutions are so easily passed over in favor of blaming it on point buy.



The first step in discovering the character is "what races do I meet the requirements of" - right along with class the same way.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Jul 21, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Outside D&D, "dead is dead" often is the standard. D&D and its direct emulations have had resurrection magic since before 1977.
> Most of the other strains, be they fantasy, sci-fi, or historical, don't do resurrections.
> 
> The published Sci-Fi settings that do have resurrection of "most sincerely dead" characters are few... Car Wars, GURPS: Transhuman Space, Dune, Dr Who, anything with multiple timestreams that you can drag them across from.




Don't forget Paranoia, where you have a bunch of clones. And Eclipse Phase, If your stack can be reclaimed or you have a backup of your mind. Then it is only the problem of geting a new body.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 21, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> The player type in question can't pull that kind of ‹expletive›head behavior  if the GM is insisting on random rolls in order. They can play what's rolled, walk away, or sit there and fume.
> 
> Point buy enables that particular form of ‹expletive›hat behavior.
> 
> The first step in discovering the character is "what races do I meet the requirements of" - right along with class the same way.



I can't say that I agree, and I doubt that anything we say will change either of our minds.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Point buy is certainly fairer. However, you get a very limited number of character builds -- they all have a maximum primary attribute, and they all tend to look the same.




To me this is a reflection of how bland D&D 3.X and earlier were that you get such a limited number of character builds and that mechanical +1s are arguably the biggest point of difference between two characters of the same class.

If you look at two AD&D fighters they are almost mechanically the same other than their weapon proficiencies and possibly their weapon specialisation (and/or mastery). The only thing that's different about them is their equipment and their favourite weapons. Worse than that the weapons aren't equal and it's a deliberate design decision that swords are the best and also the most common sort of magic item, so any sensible fighter is going to be a sword wielder. About the only mechanical things they _can_ be different in that's not pure equipment is where +1s go - their stat selection and (in 2e) their non-weapon proficiencies. Oh, and their alignment and race.

By contrast in 5e a Battlemaster is not an Eldritch Knight is not a Champion. They've different mechanics and special abilities - and that is the primary "next level" of character differentiation beyond the build. The third level is (or at least should be) the traits you pick and are mechanically incentivised to pick out. Race comes in probably fourth  and sometimes third. Skills are more generally relevant than NWPs and are again about who your character is and the choices they make - and choices are far more important for RP than generalised talent.  This pushes attributes way down the list.

Even where the AD&D classes have subclasses it's little different. A 2e illusionist (a 1e illusionist was an entirely separate class) differs from a 2e evoker in that they get more spells in their specialty and there's a subset of spells they can't cast. A 5e illusionist on the other hand is good with illusions to the point a high enough illusionist can make parts of normal illusions real.  Meanwhile even a low level 5e evoker can control their evocations in ways that a non-evoker archmage would struggle to, and protect their allies from their spells. Your specialty is an active change in what you do - far more impactful.

The more viable character options, the less similar PCs of the same class look - and so the less benefit there is in rolling stats.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 21, 2020)

I think the whole "they all have a maximum primary attribute" makes me question the point of having the attributes at all, skipping over that part would make for a cleaner rules set. Then again it could be set for PC's are max'ed out, and NPC's attributes are lower; depending on how "heroic" of tone of the game one wants to play.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 23, 2020)

I play HERO by preference. So I'm all about point buy. ;-)


----------



## Campbell (Jul 23, 2020)

I have said this elsewhere, but I tend to prefer either fully deterministic ability scores (if character design is an important feature of play) or organic rolled in order ability scores. I think roll and assign gets you the worst of both worlds. I also believe games should be designed for one or the other.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 25, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> To me this is a reflection of how bland D&D 3.X and earlier were that you get such a limited number of character builds and that mechanical +1s are arguably the biggest point of difference between two characters of the same class.
> 
> If you look at two AD&D fighters they are almost mechanically the same other than their weapon proficiencies and possibly their weapon specialisation (and/or mastery). The only thing that's different about them is their equipment and their favourite weapons. Worse than that the weapons aren't equal and it's a deliberate design decision that swords are the best and also the most common sort of magic item, so any sensible fighter is going to be a sword wielder. About the only mechanical things they _can_ be different in that's not pure equipment is where +1s go - their stat selection and (in 2e) their non-weapon proficiencies. Oh, and their alignment and race.



And none of this matters in the slightest provided players bother to give their Fighters enough character and personality to set them apart from the other Fighters. (one can replace "Fighter" both times here with any other class name, the point remains the same)

Ideally you could have two characters mechanically be exactly the same - same class, stats, race, proficiencies, everything - and yet be immediately able to tell in play which is which by their personalities, quirks, mannerisms, voice, speech patterns or catchphrases, etc. etc. to the point where the mechanical similarity would become invisible and the characters wouldn't look similar at all.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 25, 2020)

Campbell said:


> I have said this elsewhere, but I tend to prefer either fully deterministic ability scores (if character design is an important feature of play) or organic rolled in order ability scores. I think roll and assign gets you the worst of both worlds. I also believe games should be designed for one or the other.



To me roll-and-assign is the compromise that gives the best of both worlds - your numbers are random but you've some control over which goes where.

Roll in order can be OK too.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 26, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> And none of this matters in the slightest provided players bother to give their Fighters enough character and personality to set them apart from the other Fighters. (one can replace "Fighter" both times here with any other class name, the point remains the same)
> 
> Ideally you could have two characters mechanically be exactly the same - same class, stats, race, proficiencies, everything - and yet be immediately able to tell in play which is which by their personalities, quirks, mannerisms, voice, speech patterns or catchphrases, etc. etc. to the point where the mechanical similarity would become invisible and the characters wouldn't look similar at all.




Indeed. You don't actually need rules for roleplaying. You can just go freeform.

That said if I'm going to pay for rules I expect them to do better than that and to actively enhance characters.  When the biggest mechanical difference between fighters isn't how they move or how protective they are but what weapons they use then I find it fails the "improves on freeform" bar.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2020)

At the end of the day though, roll and assign, or roll in order is no different from point buy.  The class you play will have the highest score(s) in the ability that makes the most sense for that class.  So, if you roll a 15 or 16 in Int, and all your other scores are lower (which, if you're rolling 4d6-1, they should be) you play a wizard.  If your highest roll is Strength, then you play a fighter type.  So on and so forth.

After the characters are created, it is virtually impossible to tell if that character was die rolled, placed in order or uses point buy.  Well, except for those characters who are created using "creative" die rolling methods resulting in higher powered characters.


----------

