Fairness Point-Buy and rolls other than stats

[Desdichado]

Are you a player or a DM?

Oh, you know diaglo. He doesn't so much comment on anything on the boards so much as he never misses an opportunity to point out that he only plays OD&D and doesn't much like anything more recent than 1975 or so.

 

[bwgwl]

And in truth, I can't blame them. I wouldn't like to play a fighter who has the same strength as the rogue. You know, everyone likes to shine. But with the "all 14s" that Point Buy stimulates, you get less chance to do so. It is VERY predictable. Different people have shown up at the game with the exact same stats (the only differences were the feats).

all i can say is that it hasn't been my experience in three years of 3e using point-buy character creation. (or for that matter, for the ten years previous to that when i played GURPS, also a point-buy system.) point-buy lets you more easily design the character you envisioned, instead of having to come up with a character idea after you roll the dice.

i've seen fighters with Charisma scores higher than their Strengths, and rogues with Wisdom scores higher than their Dex's. but just like your experience, this is purely anecdotal.

The thing is that everytime soemone criticizes rolling, they say that there are power discrepencies - which is simply not the case. You just need a DM who knows that you can't have one person with 20 points more or less than the other players. force him to reroll. You don't need something as uniformalizing as Point Buy to do that.

but doesn't that amount to pretty much the same thing? saying that no one can have a character below 25 points or above 40 points vs. saying everyone starts with a 32 point character. what's the difference? besides, with that system, you're going to get players who rolled 26 or 27 begging for a re-roll and players who rolled 41 or 42 begging to keep their rolls. what's the aversion to a uniform, level playing field?

But I have found that there are basically 3 paladins in 32 point buy. (25 point buy is IMO, a silly thing. Some classes will not be able to shine because they are more stat vs ability dpendent than others.)

again, not in my experience. best paladin character i ever saw played had a 12 Charisma and a better Dex than Wisdom. under a point-buy system. the player made the character he wanted, because he had the freedom to do so.

btw, for those who complain that point-buy disfavors monks, paladins, and other characters who need multiple high ability scores, you do realize that 4d6 drop lowest averages to a 25 point buy? now, how many "rolled" characters have you seen that actually had stats that low?

 

[Crothian]

Forget dice, forget point buy. Let the players choose their ability scores. If you can't trust the players to do this and still allow everyone to have fun, then you might need new players.

 

[cptg1481]

Yea....my first Hero

Forget dice, forget point buy. Let the players choose their ability scores. If you can't trust the players to do this and still allow everyone to have fun, then you might need new players.

Really, man though I have read an liked your posts and stuff in the past THIS is exactly what I do in my campaign.

I love my players and I trust that they'll bring something good but not too good (I'm sure you know what I mean here) to the table.

Funny (or sad depending on one's POV) story though, even though I specifically said (in writting) to my players ANY method could be used to create a character's stat's including picking them oneself and that I don't "witness" rolls if one choose a random method I had one guy (a relative novice BTW) insist that he roll in front of me. It was almost like he thought it was some sort of trap or something.

I'm all for our method for one primary reason....I want to play what I want when I want. I assume that others do too, I mean the game is a hobby and supposed to be fun. I want my players attached in the most personal and possessive way of "thier" character consept becasue then they are suitably afraid of loosing it in game. It raises the suspence and tension of the sessions outcomes.

 

[Umbran]

If you can't trust the players to do this and still allow everyone to have fun, then you might need new players.

Yes, well, to take that logic one step further, if you really trust your players, why have any game rules at all?

Even if you trust your players, there are reasons to impose exterior limitations (be they of dice or of points, or something else) upon the players.

For one thing, many players find themselves a bit lost when told "make up anything you want". There are simply too many possibilities, and it becomes difficult to narrow them down to one you happen to like. Restricting the stats in some way can help them focus, as some things are possible, and others not.

There's also something to be said for imposing a framework, so that the players need to make choices and decisions and compromises. There's a level of interaction with the system to be found in such processes.

 

[jgbrowning]

Forget dice, forget point buy. Let the players choose their ability scores. If you can't trust the players to do this and still allow everyone to have fun, then you might need new players.

I like this idea a lot. I think I'll make my guys do that when we begin a new campaign for the summer.


joe b.

*loves to watch the greed/conscience fight in their little beady eyes*

 

[Technik4]

Re: Choosing Your Stats

As I said above, this is my preferred method for making my own PCs. As far as others in my group, well as others have said (and will no doubt say again) it is important to give some people those restrictions.

For someone like myself, I start thinking of a character by picturing a face and then a background, thinking about early life. A class starts to develop, and then how they use that class, how their stats interact, which skills and feats they would have. By the end, the character is finished and its just paperwork. Usually, I then have to try and fit my concept within point-buy or my random rolls

Technik

 

[Ravellion]

btw, for those who complain that point-buy disfavors monks, paladins, and other characters who need multiple high ability scores, you do realize that 4d6 drop lowest averages to a 25 point buy? now, how many "rolled" characters have you seen that actually had stats that low?

Not true, more like 28-29 point buy (yes,I know the DMG says otherwise. Monte Cook can't count as well as he does game design apparently).

And the quotation marks are nice and all that, but I have only once encountered a DM who didn't look while people rolled their characters.

I sincerely doubt your claims that the High Dex, low Cha paladin was the "best" paladin you have ever seen. In any case, your argument just proves my point. Since uniformity in stats is not important ("A high Dex low Cha paladin works great!"), you might as well roll.

Rolling allows you the chance to play some oddball characters. Such as the massively strong wizard, or the extremely charismatic cleric, or the tough as nails Rogue. The sacrifices you would have to make to achieve these concepts in PB (even 32) would make these concepts mostly unviable. You wouldn't be able to play such a character all the time, but most of the time it shoudln't be a problem.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, well, to take that logic one step further, if you really trust your players, why have any game rules at all?

Because people want them. Besides, that's as absurd as the above suggestions of not using dice at all.

Even if you trust your players, there are reasons to impose exterior limitations (be they of dice or of points, or something else) upon the players.

For one thing, many players find themselves a bit lost when told "make up anything you want". There are simply too many possibilities, and it becomes difficult to narrow them down to one you happen to like. Restricting the stats in some way can help them focus, as some things are possible, and others not.

Only imposs limits on those that want or need it. If a player needs a direction, I can easily give them that. But not all players do, so I like to encourage their creativity of those who feel they can handle it.

There's also something to be said for imposing a framework, so that the players need to make choices and decisions and compromises. There's a level of interaction with the system to be found in such processes.

Yes, there is. But only if needed and if the players want that. I don't limit the players because I feel they need to be limited, I limit them because they want to be limited. It's all about doing what is best for your game and your players. Know the group and sit down and see what they want to do. This isn't about one right way, this is about the right way for each particuliar group.

 

[Umbran]

Because people want them. Besides, that's as absurd as the above suggestions of not using dice at all.

Yep. And there are diceless RPGs. Not my personal cup of tea, but I know a few people wholike them a great deal.

If it's really about finding what your players want, don't call it absurd out of hand. Maybe your players would like to experiment with somethign more in the line of collaborative storytelling. Have you thought to ask explicitly?

I don't limit the players because I feel they need to be limited, I limit them because they want to be limited.

Slow down a bit with throwing aroudn the word "limit" there. I mean, you're "limiting" them if you ask them to only play races or classes found in the PHB, but that's hardly unreasonable. It's "limiting" to ask them to write stats down before game start, too.

You may again say I'm being absurd, but this only illustrates the point that the place where "reasonable structure" ends and "limiting" starts is hardly well defined. I seriously doubt that asking people to stick by a point-buy method is an unreasonable limitation on their creativity.

It is only limiting insofar as any framework you use for character generation is limiting.