Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AverageTable" data-source="post: 4356208" data-attributes="member: 71718">Why the hell would someone suddenly revive a thread that’s been dead for five and a half years? Nonetheless, since I (like, doubtlessly, most other people here) have witnessed this same debate numerous time before, I’ll speed things up and offer a summary of what’s about to be said.  (I apologise if the post seems long; but I promise it's much shorter than all the other repetitive posts combined are going to be.) Note also, as an aside, that every point I’m about to make also applies to the debate of rolling hit points versus taking some fixed value – the arguments and conclusions are all the same. Those who prefer point-buy methods will argue that they:- maintain equality between PCs.- maintain balance between the PCs and the mathematics of the game system.- reduce work for the DM (since it’s easier to build appropriate encounters for a group of equal and balanced PCs, rather than unequal and unbalanced ones).- allow players to play the characters they want rather than the ones the dice are “kind” enough to permit.- prevent a few, completely random die rolls from affecting an entire campaign to an immense degree.- eliminate cheating and allow ability scores to be generated without DM supervision. Each of these is a real and objective advantage of point-buy methods over rolling methods. None of these are merely someone’s “opinion”. As such, one would expect that RPG enthusiasts would overwhelmingly favour point-buy methods once they’ve had these advantages explained to them. Yet this is far from the case. Many continue to insist that rolling ability scores is preferable. Here are the arguments that proponents of rolling will offer for their position and why each one either insufficient or outright fallacious. This list is, essentially, exhaustive, since the dozens upon dozens of posts I’ve seen on this subject have never offered an argument other than the following four: 1. Rolling ability scores is more fun than using a point-buy method. Is this claim true? For most people the answer is probably “yes”; but only from a very narrow and short-sighted perspective. Rolling ability scores is “fun” in the same way that blackjack and slot machines are fun. Most people enjoy the thrill of crossing their fingers, rolling the dice, and seeing what fate has in store for them. The agony and the ecstasy of watching those random results appear is, admittedly, thrilling in its own little way. In the context of RPGs, however, this period of fun is extremely short-lived. Most people will roll a complete set of ability scores in only a minute or two. Yet they will, thereafter, have to live with those utterly random results for the entirety of their characters’ careers. Thus, if the rolls are bad (which they are as often as not), then the player ends up exchanging 60 seconds of “fun” generating his random ability scores for an entire campaign of negative consequences. Not to mention the loss of enjoyment that typically results for the other players as well while they try to cope with a sup-par character in their group. Moreover, even if the player gets lucky and rolls excellent scores, this only serves to unbalance the game in the opposite direction. While having excellent scores might be fun for the player himself, it typically lessens the enjoyment of the game for the other players who feel overshadowed and incompetent by comparison. In fact, even the player with the excellent scores may well find himself enjoying the game less since it becomes, for him, so much less challenging. The result is that even though rolling ability scores is, admittedly, “more fun” (in a certain, narrow, sense) than using point-buy, the extremely short period of fun this brings is nowhere near sufficient to outweigh the many negative consequences it can inflict on the entire campaign thereafter.  2. Rolling ability scores is more “realistic” or “organic” because it produces characters with different degrees of quality and aptitude. In the real world some people simply are superior while others simply are inferior. The game should reflect this. First of all, why? The entire point of a game like D&D is to have fun, not to simulate reality. Moreover, D&D is a game of cooperative, not competitive, play. In turn, players enjoy the game more when they feel their characters are comparable to the others in the group and able to contribute fully. Since this is heavily undermined by granting some characters major advantages over others based on nothing but their inherent “superiority”, it naturally follows that doing so is going to detract from the game much more than the “realism” of disparate characters will enhance it. After all, when has a player ever said, “My character sucks; but that’s okay because I’m balancing out the curve. It’s more fun to play in a game where someone realistically sucks, even if that person is me, than to endure a game of unbearable equality.”? The reason no one ever says this is because some vaunted sense of “realism” is no consolation to the player with the short end of the stick. Secondly, the degree to which rolling methods are more “realistic” than point-buy is highly exaggerated, anyway. It’s certainly true that in the real world some people are naturally superior to others; but not to the extent that any rolling method would suggest. The variance in capabilities that random sets of die rolls will produce is much greater than the variability in the capabilities of real people. In fact, when you consider that only people of a certain calibre would even consider becoming adventurers in the first place, the point-buy method may well be the more “realistic” alternative. Point-buy creates characters that, while differing in their particular abilities, all fall within the same “adventurer-worthy” group of people. To have a guy with crappy ability scores in the party is, arguably, the most unrealistic thing of all since such a person would never have dreamed of becoming an adventurer in the first place. 3. Point-buy methods favour “SAD” character-types. That’s right, they do. But so do rolling methods and every other method. What the hell is your point? The claim that multiple-ability-dependent (“MAD”) characters are worse off under point-buy methods than single-ability-dependent (“SAD”) characters is quite true. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with point-buy methods. This claim is only true because every ability-score generation method suffers from the same problem. It doesn’t matter how you produce your ability-score numbers, you’ll always be able to make a stronger character if you only need one high number than if you require two or three. This point is so obvious it’s barely worth the effort of writing it out. This particular “argument” is so fallacious I’m ashamed to have to respond to it at all. 4. “I’ve always rolled ability scores and you can’t make me change; so there!” I’ll be the first to admit that this formulation of this last “argument” is not very charitable; but, since it’s impossible to phrase something this foolish in a way that doesn’t sound stupid, I figured I might as well just drive the point home. Here we have the final “argument” in favour of rolling ability scores. In fact, this particular “point” is strongly implicit in just about any argument given when someone tries to defend rolling over point-buy. The number-one reason why so many people insist on rolling ability scores, even in light of the many objective advantages of point-buy (and the complete lack of any real advantage for rolling) is that they’ve always rolled in the past and they just don’t want to change. Be it due to a sense of tradition, a sense of ritual, or plain old stubbornness; people generally dislike doing things differently than they’ve done them before. They fear that to change now is to disvalue everything they did before (i.e. “All of our past games are now meaningless since we were using an ‘inferior’ rolling method to generate ability scores!”) and to guard against that fear they simply refuse to admit that what they’ve done in the past could EVER be improved upon. Newsflash: Things change. And in the context of gaming they almost always change for the better. Changes aren’t introduced for no reason. They don’t appear out of nowhere. Changes occur in printed rules because people who develop these games professionally, who understand them much better than we ever will, and who want to make the best game possible decided, on impartial and objective grounds, that those changes would make the game better than it was before. Combine that with how thoroughly most have embraced that change and how easy it is to argue in favour of it (see above), and it seems a very safe bet that they were correct.</blockquote>

Verification