Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. Fine. How many players would look at that and be perfectly fine playing that character? IME pretty bloody few.

I haven't encountered any except among optimizers. Nothing wrong with optimizers, that is a legitimate style of play in my opinion, and I can see why that stat array would be regarded as hopeless for such a group.

Still let's assume your right, that very few would (I do not believe this but let's assume it here). That doesn't prove they don't like random or that they are trying to be sneaky and using rolls to get higher stats (if they were using point buy they would certainly be picking a higher value as base). It proves they want random but within a certain range considered acceptable to them. You can't take that and attribute additional motives to people just because you like point buy and they still don't want it for some reason (and point buy is totally fine I am not complaining about point buy).

Now, could there be some more perfect random way to achieve what they want? Possibly. Certainly 4d6 drop the lowest gives a more suitable range of values for them than a d20 would. Both are random methods, but a d20 has an equal chance for all possibilities from 1-20. I am sure if you were to propose a method that had both the randomness they wanted and the range of values they would go for it. The fact that folks are not switching to point buy suggests there is some element here that draws them beyond the ranges themselves (and I believe the randomness is the most likely thing).

One can like random, but also negotiate what ranges within a random method are acceptable for an adventuring party. They still like the surprise it creates, the excitement, etc. If they didn't they'd be all over your point buy method because obviously that would give them the exact ranges they want by just setting the buy value to the right number.

 

[Janx]

But, if you reduce the probability range, aren't you, by definition, making things less random? A d6 is less random than a d100. By defining "hopeless characters" you're removing the bottom 20% or so of results while retaining the top 80%. Since the odds are pretty heavily stacked at the higher end of the scale, and because you arrange rolls to taste, you are making the results even less random as well.

This doesn't make any sense. A d6 is random within the statistical range of a d6. a d100 is random within the range of a d100.

Why does Battletech use a 2d6 instead of a 1d12? Because the design wants the results to trend in the middle.

It's not a crime to design the game to generate results with statistical trends. It is the point of designing the game.

It's not like we're talking about rolling 1d2+16 for stats. We're talking about following the ACTUAL rules in D&D 3e.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This doesn't make any sense. A d6 is random within the statistical range of a d6. a d100 is random within the range of a d100.

Why does Battletech use a 2d6 instead of a 1d12? Because the design wants the results to trend in the middle.

It's not a crime to design the game to generate results with statistical trends. It is the point of designing the game.

It's not like we're talking about rolling 1d2+16 for stats. We're talking about following the ACTUAL rules in D&D 3e.

And even if we were to call it less random, that doesn't make it not random. Point Buys are not random. One could formulate an argument that certain methods of 4d6 drop the lowest with measures in place to ensure a certain range are "less random" than a d20 roll but they are still random. People can still enjoy the randomness, even if they don't want a d100 roll with no modifiers (which they may find too unpredictable or too broad). It is a false choice. We are told you either like random in its purest form or you must like point buy. There is no in between. I am sorry but there are endless shades in between and I think it is bit insulting for folks to suggests those of us who like 3d6, 4d6 or even 5d6, secretly want to bust the system, and are lying when we say we like the randomness.

Now obviously one can drill down into what a person means by the statement "like the randomness". But rather than say "LIAR!" maybe just ask, "what do you mean by that?" For some it may have to do with the excitement. For others it may have to do with the surprising shape their character takes as they roll. For others it might be the hope of rolling high against the possibility of rolling low. For others it might be it seems the most fair (I know a lot of people on the other side don't accept this but many of us feel random stats to help block optimization). Could be any combo.

The aim here isn't for any side to win but for people to find the best system for use at the table. If you genuinely believe point buy is the way to go, and people here would be happier using it, I can assure you that accusing them of either idiocy or deception won't persuade anyone.

 

[Umbran]

But, if you reduce the probability range, aren't you, by definition, making things less random?

Pie.

As several of us have already mentioned several times - it isn't an all-or-nothing choice. There are nuanced positions that aren't about the extremes. There are reasons to have randomness in character generation that have little to do with character power.

I'll riff a little on something I think Janx mentioned upthread, that may demonstrate the point.

Some players love "blue sky" generation. They thrive and are most creative when the GM says, "Play whatever you want - any book, any class, any race," and they'll come up with wild and wonderful ideas, and they are aided if given the ability to determine all the details themselves.

I am not one of those players. Given the blue sky, I tend to suffer from option paralysis. I like too many things to be able to jump to one specific idea strongly. I will eventually resolve to something, but the choice may well be uninspired or arbitrary. I become more creative and driven when I am slightly restricted - tell me the party needs a specific race represented, or a specific combat role filled. Tell me you need me to play a character type you've heard me mention I really don't like playing. Now, I have a specific challenge, how to make this thing work in an entertaining, effective, and coherent way, and I draw inspiration from the restriction. If I were a poet, I would do much better with highly structured forms like sonnets and haiku than with free verse.

A randomly rolled set of stats helps in that kind of creative process. It isn't the rote determinism of a standard array (which, after you've used it once or twice, isn't giving you any new restrictions or variations to work with), but restricts available choices to the point where creativity kicks in. You may not want that randomly rolled set to have too much danger of being unplayable, but having a 6 stat in there that you have to work into your story and played personality may be seen as an excellent challenge. You want some randomness, some swinginess, to give you new combinatiosn you have to work with, but you would like some assurance that the thing will be effective - thus, a probability distribution like 4d6 drop low makes a lot of sense.

Now, you may not be such a player, so you may not understand this - it may sound strange to you. But that doesn't make it unreal.

 

[billd91]

.Some players love "blue sky" generation. They thrive and are most creative when the GM says, "Play whatever you want - any book, any class, any race," and they'll come up with wild and wonderful ideas, and they are aided if given the ability to determine all the details themselves.

I am not one of those players. Given the blue sky, I tend to suffer from option paralysis. I like too many things to be able to jump to one specific idea strongly. I will eventually resolve to something, but the choice may well be uninspired or arbitrary. I become more creative and driven when I am slightly restricted - tell me the party needs a specific race represented, or a specific combat role filled. Tell me you need me to play a character type you've heard me mention I really don't like playing. Now, I have a specific challenge, how to make this thing work in an entertaining, effective, and coherent way, and I draw inspiration from the restriction. If I were a poet, I would do much better with highly structured forms like sonnets and haiku than with free verse.

A randomly rolled set of stats helps in that kind of creative process. It isn't the rote determinism of a standard array (which, after you've used it once or twice, isn't giving you any new restrictions or variations to work with), but restricts available choices to the point where creativity kicks in. You may not want that randomly rolled set to have too much danger of being unplayable, but having a 6 stat in there that you have to work into your story and played personality may be seen as an excellent challenge. You want some randomness, some swinginess, to give you new combinatiosn you have to work with, but you would like some assurance that the thing will be effective - thus, a probability distribution like 4d6 drop low makes a lot of sense.

I tend to approach games (but perhaps not poetry) in a similar way. It's one of the reasons I tend to be the last player at the table to decide on what type of character to play. I'll fill in the perceived gaps and build to fit the structure that has serendipitously appeared and work out how to be creative in that structure.

I look at rolled stats in much the same way. How is the character being revealed to me through this process not entirely under my control?

 

[Janx]

A randomly rolled set of stats helps in that kind of creative process.

As usual, Umbran has expressed my point in a far better fashion than my own.

I absolutely agree with Celebrims way early beginning points about the flaws of "rolling" compared to point buy. But I still hate point buy and I still like my random method.

Because the rolling method gives me a challenge to work with and inspiration. Point buy is dead boring accounting to me.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As usual, Umbran has expressed my point in a far better fashion than my own.

I absolutely agree with Celebrims way early beginning points about the flaws of "rolling" compared to point buy. But I still hate point buy and I still like my random method.

Because the rolling method gives me a challenge to work with and inspiration. Point buy is dead boring accounting to me.

I wonder if there's some sort of roll you can come up with to help with inspiration that then uses point buy. Like, roll random stats, and then go on to use that as inspiration with your point buy distribution.

For example:
(1) I just rolled Str 11, Dex 7, Con 8, Int 15, Wis 8, and Cha 14.
(2) According to an online calculator, 25 points gets me Str 11, Dex 8, Con 8, Int 16, Wis 8, and Cha 16.

Another example:
(1) I rolled Str 13, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 5, Wis 15, Cha 13.
(2) Calculator at 25 points: Str 12, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 7 (with permission), Wis 14, Cha 12.

Final example:
(1) Rolled: Str 8, Dex 11, Con 8, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 12.
(2) Calculator: Str 8, Dex 13, Con 8, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 13.

I'm not trying to convince you to stop rolling, Janx, because I like rolling and the inspiration it brings. But maybe this method will help (or make it tolerable?) if you ever find yourself playing in a group that uses point buy? Just a thought.

 

[Aura]

Some players love "blue sky" generation. They thrive and are most creative when the GM says, "Play whatever you want - any book, any class, any race," and they'll come up with wild and wonderful ideas, and they are aided if given the ability to determine all the details themselves.

I am not one of those players. Given the blue sky, I tend to suffer from option paralysis. I like too many things to be able to jump to one specific idea strongly...

I have that kind of issue, as well. I spend a lot of time entertaining various ideas, and usually end up with something very vanilla at the end of it all. However, I don't feel the effect you are promoting until you throw in the assumption that the stats, once rolled, are assigned for you (roll in order). Otherwise, I am still just as overwhelmed by the options, to be honest. That's the way it feels to me, anyway.

(Sorry for the hair splitting on the issue of placement of numbers, I can't remember if you mentioned one way or another on that regard so I didn't want to make false assumptions.)

 

[Celebrim]

I absolutely agree with Celebrims way early beginning points about the flaws of "rolling" compared to point buy. But I still hate point buy and I still like my random method.

I'm not completely happy with either method. I'm just convinced random doesn't work and makes for a worse game. My problems with point buy have more to do with how players choose to play though than anything inherently wrong with it.

Because the rolling method gives me a challenge to work with and inspiration.

Rolling up characters is fun, but its not very functional for PCs (and non-functional for NPCs as well if it deprotagonizes the PCs). The fun of rolling up characters - not knowing what you are going to get, in a nutshell - is more than counterbalanced by the fact that usually someone is going to get what they don't want, the method isn't fair, the fact that it makes it harder to give advice on how to balance scenarios to a group's abilities, and the pressure it puts on the metagame. The better someone else's results, the less satisfactory your own results look. The better results you've had in the past, the more disappointing a bad roll is. The more difficult it is to engage the main game through your character's abilities, the more likely you are to be tempted to make your own fun and play a different game than everyone else is playing. And so forth.

I feel the justifications for that tend to be pretty weak.

Balance is not an inherent property of randomness. Randomness produces an arbitrary result. Fairness requires that players get about the same thing. Justice requires that they get what they deserve. Randomness misses both marks. This isn't a game show. We aren't randomly selecting winners and contestants. We are playing a game together.

Diversity is not an inherent property of randomness. We expect if we flip 5 heads in a row the next coin is less likely to be heads, but that's not true. If Diversity is your goal, you can guarantee diversity simply by choosing not being like the last X characters.

If inspiration is what you need because you are suffering from choice overload, there are plenty of ways to manage that that don't end up with the lack of balance of true randomness. A functional random chargen would be randomly picking between things that are balanced. For example, randomly selecting a class and race (assuming those are balance). Or randomly selecting a highest ability score, then randomly selecting your second highest, and so forth. Or you could randomly order your stats, generate 5 stats in order, and then buy the sixth one with your remaining points. Or you could roll up random stats and then match them as closely as possible using point buy. This wouldn't be purely random, but has the aspect of the producing the unknown and would generally not have strong balance problems in the outcomes. So people get the thrill of not knowing what they are going to get, and they get the inspiration to play something that they might not have considered, but they don't break the Fundamental Law of Roleplaying.

Gambling is an inherent property of random levels of resources, but not I think a functional one in the context of a cooperative or competive game. Winning is fun, but losing is not. Gamblers gamble to win. If they lose, this puts even more pressure on the metagame - chargen is becoming a competition. The person motivated primarily by the thrill of gambling is going to compulsively gamble trying to win 'the jackpot' - I lost, but I'll win the next time. What that tends to mean is you are setting your balance at the jackpot, and then going through frustration before getting what you actually want - the win. And I think that some people who say that they like random, are probably actually saying that they don't like point buy for some reason or the other. For example, if they've been used to playing 34 point buy characters (or higher!) using some random generation method (Method 1 with multiple rerolls, Method 3, Method 5, cheating), setting point buy to 25 feels like a rip off beyond any other aspects of rolling you miss. If point buy limits you beyond what you are used to getting from 'random', then it feels like point buy is saying, "You can never win."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

A randomly rolled set of stats helps in that kind of creative process. It isn't the rote determinism of a standard array (which, after you've used it once or twice, isn't giving you any new restrictions or variations to work with), but restricts available choices to the point where creativity kicks in. You may not want that randomly rolled set to have too much danger of being unplayable, but having a 6 stat in there that you have to work into your story and played personality may be seen as an excellent challenge. You want some randomness, some swinginess, to give you new combinatiosn you have to work with, but you would like some assurance that the thing will be effective - thus, a probability distribution like 4d6 drop low makes a lot of sense.

I would recommend "4d6ish without replacement".

(1) Take the Ace to 6 from a deck of cards (24 cards) and shuffle.
(2) Deal into 6 piles. Assign stat order.
(3) Best of three (obviously)
(4) [Optional] Swap two stats.

The nice thing about this is that having a very high stat correlates with having a very low stat. There are some variances, some arrays are absolutely better than others, but typical results will be the equivalent of 25-28 points (3e).