Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[prosfilaes]

because they chuck characters that are completely hopeless they can't enjoy randomness at all.

I see the point about liking a little randomness, but I think there's a point here about the net effect of chucking characters that are "completely hopeless". For many of these groups, running in systems with standard point buy, I think it would be instructive to ask the DM what point buy they would use if they were to use point buy. If the random characters are higher, especially significantly higher, then that, it feels like one of the reasons may be because they couldn't get the DM to sign off on 40 point buy, or even that the DM would use 15 or 20 point buy, thinking himself running a gritty campaign, when actually the characters are the equivalent of 25 or 30 point buy.

I think for some groups, random stats is a way of feeling hardcore without actually having to have low stats. The check would at least be interesting.

 

[Celebrim]

That is a pretty extreme conclusion to take this to.

Not really. You said you were fine with bad results. I just wanted to see how highly you valued bad results. Turns out you value fairness and good results more highly. You don't actually want the short end of the stick.

I do like everyone using the same method so that there is fairness

You keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. Random results will produce results that are inherently unfair. Yes, there is equal possibility of good and bad outcomes, but once those outcomes are actually realized, once they cease to be mere potentialities, they will be distributed unequally. One person will have a result that is bad and another will have a result that is good, and for no good reason. They didn't deserve to have a weaker character than everyone else. Dice aren't fair. Randomness isn't fair. Randomness is capricious. It distributes outcomes unevenly. It doesn't work out in the long run. If you got a bad character this time, it doesn't mean you'll get a good one next time or the next time or the next time. When I offer you a situation where there is a strong possibility you'll be the loser at the table saddled with bad stats, you don't like it. You don't think it is fair. So why should anyone at the table settle for that outcome?

You said you were fine with bad results. But you aren't fine with bad results. You are fine with bad results until your realize they are actually going to happen.

I also don't want every stat to be low.

So don't use random. Because when you accept that random is the method, you are accepting that you actually want as a possible outcome every stat being low. If you don't want that possibility, use a method the precludes it not from happening only rarely, but entirely. Of course in point of actual fact, even those that do say they like random do preclude it. The real method they use is not 'random', but 'random, and if results < expectation, proceed to complex metagame negotiations and rules evasion'

This is the fundamental reason I don't give players the option of either using 4d6 take the best 3 or point buy. Some gamblers will take the chance on that thrill of an 18, but it never ends there if they don't get it. I know that what I'm really doing is giving players the option to play with more points than they could get with point buy. They'll just keep rolling until they get what they actually want.

I guess I just don't know why it is so hard to accept someone might like this and they are not trying to pull a fast one over you.

I don't believe you can pull anything over on me. And the answer is, "Lots of experience with players."

 

[Celebrim]

I see the point about liking a little randomness, but I think there's a point here about the net effect of chucking characters that are "completely hopeless". For many of these groups, running in systems with standard point buy, I think it would be instructive to ask the DM what point buy they would use if they were to use point buy. If the random characters are higher, especially significantly higher, then that, it feels like one of the reasons may be because they couldn't get the DM to sign off on 40 point buy, or even that the DM would use 15 or 20 point buy, thinking himself running a gritty campaign, when actually the characters are the equivalent of 25 or 30 point buy.

I think for some groups, random stats is a way of feeling hardcore without actually having to have low stats. The check would at least be interesting.

This is pretty much exactly my experience with offering both point buy and random - which I did for about the first three sessions the summer I was running open dungeon crawls for all comers at the local gaming store. Randomly generated characters that came in above the point buy were keepers. Randomly generated characters below the point buy were sacrifices or one shots. No one ever said, "Yippee, I got interesting unexpected results that are much less than what I could have gotten from point buy!" In fact, I'll go so far as to say, no one ever says that.

I now run 32 point buy standard. That proves to be about the level where players feel like they are getting what they want, and opens up a wide range of possible stat arrays - from 18, 18, 8, 8, 8, 8 to 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 10 and everything in between. If a player really wanted to have a 6 or 7 or even a 4 or 5 and they had a good reason, I'd let them buy down to that as well. There is no result that you could get from 4d6 keep the best three that you couldn't get from 32 point buy, except for very bad and very good results. So, if a player said, "I like not knowing what I'm going to get.", I see no reason why they should not roll 4d6 keep the best 3 and then build that character with point buy, boosting their best stat with the left over points or buying slightly less in their best stat in the event of great luck. In most cases, it's practically the same outcome, just one stat shifted up or down a bit to make the outcome actually fair.

But I never see anyone actually do that. As I said, the attraction here is the thrill of gambling on the above average outcome. About 5-6 times in 40 rolls, you'd get 35 or even 40 point buy with 4d6 take three. They'll keep rolling until they get that. They'll never go, "Oh look, I got a 9 point buy character! Yippee!", and stop there.

As I said, those people who claim that they like randomness, have very short term memories regarding all the stats they manage to discard. But they are very proud of being hardcore.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I just rolled up 4d6 take 3 in order, it was: 10, 5, 10, 11, 6, 8. Second was 15, 12, 17, 6, 10, 7. Third was 7, 8, 13, 5, 15, 11. Fifth was 12, 13, 15, 4, 13, 13. Sixth was 15, 9, 12, 10, 13, 13. That's what 4d6 really looks like. Random. Actually freaking random. You take some random samples, and you'll get anything from like 9 to 40 point buy.

I think the only thing I feel I can add to this thread is more random (4d6) rolls. Because rolling is fun!

1. 15, 10, 10, 11, 13, 7
2. 7, 13, 12, 9, 8, 7
3. 17, 10, 11, 10, 15, 11
4. 11, 12, 15, 16, 16, 11
5. 15, 11, 12, 16, 11, 11
6. 12, 11, 13, 15, 16, 10
7. 12, 13, 7, 14, 10, 6
8. 11, 15, 10, 8, 11, 13
9. 12, 13, 9, 8, 12, 9
10. 16, 10, 17, 13, 14, 14
11. 16, 14, 13, 10, 13, 14
12. 13, 11, 13, 11, 14, 13
13. 14, 13, 9, 14, 6, 7
14. 15, 10, 13, 16, 9, 14
15. 10, 13, 17, 15, 15, 11
16. 9, 10, 12, 12, 15, 11
17. 13, 10, 16, 11, 11, 12
18. 15, 14, 9, 14, 17, 12
19. 12, 14, 13, 14, 14, 14
20. 6, 10, 15, 15, 16, 14

I'd suggest that anyone that wants random stats use mine, but add more randomness! Roll 1d20 and 1d6 six times in order, taking your stats as you roll them. For example, rolling a 14 and a 3 for Strength would give you a 13 Strength! Even more randomness! Yay!

 

[Celebrim]

I think the only thing I feel I can add to this thread is more random (4d6) rolls. Because rolling is fun!

Yes. Yes it is. It just happens to be unfair, and since it is unfair the actual results get evaded because players don't like unfair results - unless they are to their advantage.

• 15, 10, 10, 11, 13, 7 = 21 point buy
• 7, 13, 12, 9, 8, 7 = 8 point buy
• 17, 10, 11, 10, 15, 11 = 31 point buy
• 11, 12, 15, 16, 16, 11 = 38 point buy
• 15, 11, 12, 16, 11, 11 = 31 point buy
• 12, 11, 13, 15, 16, 10 = 32 point buy
• 12, 13, 7, 14, 10, 6 = 14 point buy
• 11, 15, 10, 8, 11, 13 = 21 point buy
• 12, 13, 9, 8, 12, 9 = 15 point buy
• 16, 10, 17, 13, 14, 14 = 42 point buy
• 16, 14, 13, 10, 13, 14 = 34 point buy
• 13, 11, 13, 11, 14, 13 = 27 point buy
• 14, 13, 9, 14, 6, 7 = 15 point buy
• 15, 10, 13, 16, 9, 14 = 32 point buy
• 10, 13, 17, 15, 15, 11 = 39 point buy
• 9, 10, 12, 12, 15, 11 = 22 point buy
• 13, 10, 16, 11, 11, 12 = 27 point buy
• 15, 14, 9, 14, 17, 12 = 38 point buy
• 12, 14, 13, 14, 14, 14 = 33 point buy
• 6, 10, 15, 15, 16, 14 = 32 point buy

My point exactly. When you say you are happy with 4d6 take the best three, you are really saying you are happy with your DM assigning you 8 point buy and your neighbor at the table 42 point buy just because. That is the reality of random results. You can romanticize it however you like. But that is what you are actually saying you prefer.

Of course, the reality is that the people 'happy' with 4d6 take the best three or other randomness are really saying, "I want 42 point buy, and the only way I can pull that off without letting my DM or myself know that is what I really want is to roll dice until I get that result, and then say, "Luck!".

Try grouping the above into parties of 4 or 6 and thinking about the idea that that is 'fair'

Party #1 contains a guy with 8 point buy playing with a guy with 38. Party #3 contains a guy with 15 point buy playing with a guy with 42. You think those are fair results? You think those make for happy parties? What happens when that poor guy with 8 point buy takes his lumps, and then the next time he's on the short end of the stick again. I'll tell you what happens. He starts finding ways to evade the basic unfairness of the rules being used at the table - asking for do overs, cheating, killing off his character, etc. And back when I was younger, I used to think that was his problem. Now I realize its just an expected and perhaps rational result to being mistreated by a DM that thinks random is 'fair'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't believe you can pull anything over on me. And the answer is, "Lots of experience with players."

And I too have lots of experience with players. Your experience doesn't prove anything. I've met plenty of people who like what I like here. We are certainly not a majority in the hobby but we do exist. If you can't even believe that I like what I am telling you I enjoy, I don't know what to say honestly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So don't use random. Because when you accept that random is the method, you are accepting that you actually want as a possible outcome every stat being low. If you don't want that possibility, use a method the precludes it not from happening only rarely, but entirely. Of course in point of actual fact, even those that do say they like random do preclude it. The real method they use is not 'random', but 'random, and if results < expectation, proceed to complex metagame negotiations and rules evasion'

This is the fundamental reason I don't give players the option of either using 4d6 take the best 3 or point buy. Some gamblers will take the chance on that thrill of an 18, but it never ends there if they don't get it. I know that what I'm really doing is giving players the option to play with more points than they could get with point buy. They'll just keep rolling until they get what they actually want.
"

Okay. When I said "I don't want every stat to be low" I was responding to your claim that I because I can accept low stats I should therefore use 3d4 instead of 3d6. I wasn't saying I can't accept it if all my stats are low. I was not saying my goal, my desire, is to have a character with stats all under 12. I was saying my goal is to have the range of 3-18 be possible for all stats and not know what I am going to get: hope for an 18 but accept that a 3 could be the result. I enjoy that. I find that exciting, and interesting. I am fine with you not liking it. i have acknowledged many, many times that lots of people don't like it. But i do genuinely like this method and nothing you can say here, changes how I enjoy the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. Random results will produce results that are inherently unfair. Yes, there is equal possibility of good and bad outcomes, but once those outcomes are actually realized, once they cease to be mere potentialities, they will be distributed unequally. One person will have a result that is bad and another will have a result that is good, and for no good reason. They didn't deserve to have a weaker character than everyone else. Dice aren't fair. Randomness isn't fair. Randomness is capricious. It distributes outcomes unevenly. It doesn't work out in the long run. If you got a bad character this time, it doesn't mean you'll get a good one next time or the next time or the next time. When I offer you a situation where there is a strong possibility you'll be the loser at the table saddled with bad stats, you don't like it. You don't think it is fair. So why should anyone at the table settle for that outcome?

Fair can be applied to a lot of different points in a system. But I don't think fair has to mean equal outcomes for all. if it did, then a fair system would make sure no character ever dies and all characters hit when they attack. I am applying fairness to the method of rolling, because to me it is fair if we are all using the same method with the same chances of getting good and bad results. Now I agree, that can lead to disparity in play, but going in we all had the same chances of success and failure, which is fairness.

You said you were fine with bad results. But you aren't fine with bad results. You are fine with bad results until your realize they are actually going to happen.

I don't know why you keep insisting on this. I am fine with bad results. Of course I prefer high results. That is part of the fun, hoping you get an 18. But I can accept it when I don't. You seem to be projecting things onto me that just are not there. When I roll a 7 I keep it, when I roll a 5, I keep it and I continue making my character. How is this being "fine with bad results until realize they are actually going to happen"?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I see the point about liking a little randomness, but I think there's a point here about the net effect of chucking characters that are "completely hopeless". For many of these groups, running in systems with standard point buy, I think it would be instructive to ask the DM what point buy they would use if they were to use point buy. If the random characters are higher, especially significantly higher, then that, it feels like one of the reasons may be because they couldn't get the DM to sign off on 40 point buy, or even that the DM would use 15 or 20 point buy, thinking himself running a gritty campaign, when actually the characters are the equivalent of 25 or 30 point buy.

I think for some groups, random stats is a way of feeling hardcore without actually having to have low stats. The check would at least be interesting.

There is a big difference between chucking completely hopeless characters and rolling sets of 4d6 until you get overall higher stats. In the former case you are rolling and accepting what you get, but you might roll a new set if you got like three 6s and nothing over 12 (definitions of hopeless vary though). That doesnt ean your using 4d6 to somehow game a point buy you were never employing in the first place.

Again, i understand that you might prefer point buy. That is cool. Why insist people who don't prefer point buy misunderstand their true motives. Isn't the more likely explanation that they simply like something different than you?

 

[Aura]

I think said the argument was good because I have seen people meet with a lot of difficulty refuting his points. That doesn't mean his conclusion is supported by his argument. I definitely think there are serious issues with his conclusion and I feel like there is a bit of sophistry at work in how he gets there. I suspect if we drill down we will find serious flaws in his reasoning (for example much of it rests on his definition of RPG and I don't think that definition is an accurate one that reflects how people in the hobby use the word).

OK, this both clarifies the issue and lines up a bit closer to what I feel on the subject as well. We are just a little different on opinions concerning what constitutes a 'good' argument, but end up in agreement on the issue of judging whether the argument supports the conclusion.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. I'd add it seems as if the only thing he is accomplishing with his declared position is to argue himself into an opinion-based niche.