Things I Miss....

[Water Bob]

I don't need dice to build my character for me. We don't determine race randomly, or class, or name, or gender, or background. Why are stats the exception? Why can you choose to be a dwarf but you can't choose whether you're strong or not?

Would it surprise you to know that, in my current campaign, I limited class choice to a single class? And, I gave the players a rough background of each of their characters--a solid foundation for them to build upon. I even gave each character a name. We don't pick our own names in real life. Our parents do. And so it is with the PCs in my campaign.

It's up to the player to take what I've given them and make something great out of it.

Random dice throws do something similar. They give you a skeleton to be creative upon.

I find that, more often than not, point-buy characters are (forgive me, but the moniker seems to fit) "cardboard". They're 2D. They don't feel like real people.

With random roll, you get what you get, and then you start trying to figure why a character is like the way he is--and this usually leads to a lot of fantastic character development.



One of my favorite chargen schemes is to allow a player to roll 4D6, drop lowest, for each stat. You might get something like this:

STR 9
DEX 15
CON 16
INT 18
WIS 10
CHR 15

Then, I allow what I call "The Slide". A character can change his stats, but he must keep them in the same order. For example, if he wanted that 18 in his STR because he was going to run a fighter, his stats would look like this:

STR 18
DEX 10
CON 15
INT 9
WIS 15
CHR 16

If he wanted to run a thief, he might put that 18 into DEX, and his stats would look like this

STR 16
DEX 18
CON 10
INT 15
WIS 9
CHR 15

This gives players a decent amount of choice with creating their characters while still keeping randomness involved.

Plus, it avoids a "dump" stat, so that all your fighters don't always have low CHA or WIS scores.

That's how I look at it now. Lots of people love random stats, but there's an argument against them.

Absolutely there is. I can see the appeal of point buy. Point-buy just seems to blow my suspension of disbelief. People are different. They look different. They're different sizes. Some will be stronger than others.

If you give five people a point buy system and tell them to create a fighter, you end up with five very similiar fighters. If you have those same five people the task of creating a fighter from random roll--now we're talking about some diversity. We'll end up with five individual fighters.

That's why I'm not too keen on point buy. I don't want all the PCs to be grown from the same slate. I'd like to be 6' 1" and look like Brad Pitt, but I don't. I've learned to enhance what's special about me, socially. If life were a point-buy system, there'd be a lot more Brad Pitt's out there.

It is? Holy crow, I'm doing it wrong then!

Thumbs up!

 

[Water Bob]

Because I don't enjoy it. It's not necessarily the idea of needing to have good stats, it's more the idea that someone else might have better stats than me.

Just out of curiosity, why does that matter to you so much? I ask that because, in my games, I've had a few situations where a mediocre player rolled a fantastic character stat-wise but didn't have the chops to play the character well. In the same game, there were players who had entirely inferior characters mechanically but were strong personalities in the game--the guy with the lowest stats was the leader! Not unlike Professor X with the X-Men. He's got the whole psychic power thing, but he's stuck in a wheel chair.

That's fine. Different people have different tastes. I'm not knocking yours.

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking your choice, either.

I would love to try Traveller sometime.

It's a fantastic game. Truly amazing. Classic Traveller may be my favorite RPG of all time.

Lots of randomness in it, though. And, in CT, at least, characters don't get a lot of skills. Some only get 2 skills.

There is a point-buy system in one or two of the later editions of Traveller. And, there's a d20 version of Traveller, too (plus a Hero version, and a GURPS version.). This is not to mention all the other versions of Traveller: Classic Traveller, MegaTraveller, Traveller The New Era, Marc Miller's Traveller, d20 Traveller, Traveller Hero, GURPS Traveller, Traveller Interstellar Wars (GURPS new edition), Traveller Fith Edition (about to come out), and Mongoose Traveller.

Whatever your gaming taste, there's probably a Traveller version for it. And those are just the "official" versions. There's plenty of home-conversions for other types of games: Traveller based on the Top Secret/SI system; Savage Traveller; Traveller based on the James Bond RPG...those are just the ones that come to my head.

And, there are a couple of very good fan created rule sets using Classic Traveller in a new genra. There's Wanderer, which is a Conan-esque swords and sorcery version of the rules. And there's Mariner, which is set among the coastlines of the ancient Greeks.

I miss a lot of the old 2e-era art too.

Preaching to the choir, here. While I like some of the fantasy-punk art we've been seeing since 3E came out, I do tend to like the more realistic looking stuff. The art in Pathfinder is a good example. Sure, it's slick, but God, does it turn me off the game.

I mean...this is a goblin?

Looks more like a smurf with hemorrhoids to me.

This, my friends, is what a goblin should look like...

Or even this...

Or this...

But not that stupid thing at the top that looks like a mean smurf.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Because I don't enjoy it. It's not necessarily the idea of needing to have good stats, it's more the idea that someone else might have better stats than me. And it's not even necessarily the stats themselves, it's more the effect that having good or bad stats can have. When the lucky PC continually succeeds at his tasks more often than the unlucky PC, that's just not fun. I'd prefer all PCs to be created equal. Randomness can be factored in in other ways.

So do I. But I like to be in control of how that character is created. I can see the appeal of creating a "completely random" character, rather than trying to build a character according to a predetermined concept, but I don't like the idea that certain aspects of a character may be chosen (race, class, gender, etc) while others are random.

I really do not like point buy, conceptually, but for making characters, it is a good way to do it, because stats have too much control over the effectiveness of the character mechanically.

Overall I would like stats to be less important, but in the games I play, that is jsut not how things work.

As for having things pre-determined by the DM, I don't mind restrictions to fit the campaign, or even restrictions based on the DM's book budget, but having them based too much on randomness, or even to the extent of the DM assigning names (!!!!!!!) is way too much for me. Yes, it is realistic, I assume, but why would character creation be so when the rest of the game is not?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I mean...this is a goblin?

It could be a goblin, or it could be something else...

 

[scourger]

...I limited class choice to a single class...I even gave each character a name. We don't pick our own names in real life. Our parents do. And so it is with the PCs in my campaign.

Then, I allow what I call "The Slide". A character can change his stats, but he must keep them in the same order.

This gives players a decent amount of choice with creating their characters while still keeping randomness involved.

Plus, it avoids a "dump" stat, so that all your fighters don't always have low CHA or WIS scores.

Do all the PCs have the same class (like the Explorer in Omega World d20 or the Judge from Judge Dredd d20) or do you not allow multiclassing? I like it either way, and I have considered restricting classes, too. For Sons of Conan, there will be no PC spellcasters (Conan would not name a magic user as his heir); but I would allow them to multiclass (barbarian, fighter, monk & rogue are pretty narrow choices). For Slaine, the PCs can be a barbarian, bard, druid, fighter or rogue; but there is only 1 of each (semi-randomly assigned) and no multiclassing as character class has social implications.

I like "The Slide" with the idea of preserving some randomness and preventing dump stats.

I think the player should choose the character's name, though. I get your point, however.

 

[Water Bob]

Do all the PCs have the same class (like the Explorer in Omega World d20 or the Judge from Judge Dredd d20) or do you not allow multiclassing?

I allow multiclassing, if it "makes sense". My game is set in Conan's Hyborian Age, and all the PC's are Cimmerian (Race) Barbarians (Class). They're all members of the same clan. I built a sandbox for my players to explore, and it's up to them where we go from the beginning I put together.

Now, I won't allow multi-classing if one of my Cimmerian Barbarians wants to become, say, a Barbarian/Pirate, not unless they get their butts out of Cimmeria and onto the deck of a ship for a while. In order to multi-class, they've got to go "live" the class type for a while. If they spend time with the Hykanian Steppe Nomads, then I'd allow Barbarian/Nomad multiclassing. If they leave Cimmeria and join a mercenary group or a formal army, I'd allow multiclassing into Barbarian/Soldier.

Some multiclassing may require a sponsor or mentor or teacher. For example, my Cimmerians don't read. In fact, they are suspicious of the written word, thinking it some form of sorcery that someone can make marks and communicate detailed ideas. It's like magic to them, and it scares them. But, people grow. Conan did. After he left Cimmeria he picked up all sorts of skills that he shunned as a Cimmerian native--like using a bow (not a "manly" way to fight) and horseback riding (not many horses in rocky/hilly Cimmeria). Let's say, somehow, the PCs get tight with the village Oracle. That could be the start of a road towards a Barbarian/Scholar character.

As long as it "makes sense", as I said above, then I'll allow it. I don't want them multi-classing out of the blue.

There are some multiclass combinations that they can do on their own, too. For example, I might allow a Barbarian/Thief class if the character invests himself into doing "thiefy" things, practing picking locks and stuff like that--living the life of a thief.

But, also remember, in Conan, it's not necessary to have a class in order to be a certain type of character. Conan only ever got to Thief level 1, but he became a master thief. He stole a bunch of stuff and was a type of "2nd story man", capitalizing on his native skill at climbing. In this game, anybody who steals is a thief. They don't need to be classed as a thief in order to be one.

For Sons of Conan, there will be no PC spellcasters (Conan would not name a magic user as his heir); but I would allow them to multiclass (barbarian, fighter, monk & rogue are pretty narrow choices).

What is "Sons of Conan"? The name of your campaign?

For Slaine, the PCs can be a barbarian, bard, druid, fighter or rogue; but there is only 1 of each (semi-randomly assigned) and no multiclassing as character class has social implications.

I've got a pretty detailed backstory for the PCs, so I wanted them all to be Barbarians.

Plus, the Conan game is a new game for us. It makes it easier to learn if all characters start out the same class. That way we're avoiding a lot of issue and shortening the learning curve. It's mostly a story-based decision.

I started every PCs out at Age 11 (the day before their 12th birthday). We played a game session. Then, at the next session, I skipped ahead a year. The boys were Age 13. The session after that, I skipped ahead another year, with the boys at Age 14.

This type of thing has really built up the PC's "character". We know a lot about them.

I plan on keeping this pattern as I want to eventually live through these characters' entire lives. We know about their childhood, then we skip to their teens, play a bit, skip again to their 20's, play some more, and so on.

I like "The Slide" with the idea of preserving some randomness and preventing dump stats.

Yeah, glad you like it. I've used it for a long time. It's a good way of doing things.

With this Conan game, I gave the players a choice. They could do 4d6, drop lowest, and arrange stats to taste. Or, they could do 4d6, drop lowest, and use The Slide. If they did the Slide, their characters started with double Fate Points (which are highly valuable in the Conan game)--stuff that can keep their characters' alive.

So, it's a good incentive to use the Slide, but I kept the "arrange to taste" option in there--at a decent opportunity cost.

I think the player should choose the character's name, though. I get your point, however.

This is the first time in a campaign where I've told the players their character's names. I have a reason--the names are part of my plot. The PCs were all named with "special" names, and as the game progresses, the players are starting to learn just how important their names are.

They have a destiny.

 

[pukunui]

Just out of curiosity, why does that matter to you so much?

As I said, I have a heightened sense of fairness. But also, this:

I really do not like point buy, conceptually, but for making characters, it is a good way to do it, because stats have too much control over the effectiveness of the character mechanically.

Overall I would like stats to be less important, but in the games I play, that is jsut not how things work.

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking your choice, either.

Really? It seemed to me like you were knocking pretty hard on point buy just a few posts above. But it's all cool. I don't mind.

As I said, if the premise was to play a totally random character, I'd be all for it. I wouldn't even care if the GM named my character for me in that instance. But I wouldn't want that sort of thing imposed on me against my will. You say we don't get to choose our own names in real life, so why should we get to choose our characters' names? Well, for starters, while we may not be able to choose the names we are given at birth, we can choose to reject those names and take on other names throughout our lives. That aside, though, part of the reason many people play RPGs in the first place is so they can pretend to be something they are not in a world that is not the real world. Saying that we shouldn't be able to choose our characters' names because we don't get to choose our names in the real world is a rather weak argument. If your players are all cool with it, no worries. But I wouldn't go around saying that's the way it ought to be done (which is the impression I got from your post). EDIT: I didn't read all the way to the end of your post just above this one. Sounds like maybe it's not your SOP, it's contextual. Which is totally cool. Don't mind me.

Anyway ...

 

[Water Bob]

Really? It seemed to me like you were knocking pretty hard on point buy just a few posts above. But it's all cool. I don't mind.

I really wasn't. That's the trouble with e-mail and forum posts sometimes. You can't "hear" tone of voice or inflection or pick up on body language.

Well, for starters, while we may not be able to choose the names we are given at birth, we can choose to reject those names and take on other names throughout our lives.

I would allow this in a game where I chose the PC's names for the players. Heck it might make for a good character trait--the young fighter not liking his name of Virgil, which was also his father's name. It'd be interesting what that reaveals about the character.

 

[The Shaman]

When I started missing things from older games, I went back to playing those games again.

Now I don't miss them anymore. I play with them instead.

 

[Ringlerun]

While I'm finding that a lack of randomness is causing me dissatisfaction with "modern" gaming, this is one bit of randomness that I do not miss in the slightest. I have a heightened sense of fairness, and rolled stats are so unfair it's not even funny. I've been at the receiving end of the unfairness of rolled stats, whereby my PC had crappy stats while another PC or two had really awesome stats. It's not fun. At all.

I have always found that rolled stats are completely fair. Everyone has the same chance to get good or bad stats. In a point buy system if you dont know the ins or outs of the system and make a bad choice at character creation your screwed. I find that to be unfair.