Fairness Point-Buy and rolls other than stats

[The_Gneech]

Gimme a game with high-powered point buy and throw out magic buffers, and I'm a happy guy.

-The Gneech ("What's with those goofy stones whizzing around your head?")

 

[Wayside]

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.

Best. Advice. Ever. Seriously.

Because experience has taught me that, even when everyone wants to play fair, some people want a higher-powered character/game than others, or that different people (especially those converting frmo 2E to 3E for the first time) view what makes a "cool" stat differently. Point buy ensures, basically, that everyone is using the same ruler.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you're using point-buy, you might still end up with min/maxers wanting a highpowered game, while some others create more balanced characters. If you roll for stats you can't powergame on purpose, at least. Anyway, as my players would routinely have points left over that they didn't want to spend, I let them pick their own stats. If I were to roll low stats myself, I would work with the DM to compensate the character in other (and imo more fun and interesting) ways. I'd rather play Bob the Average, heir to a vast shipping empire, with lots of cool connections and history, than some elf that can fire 8 arrows a round for 10 million damage.

I don't get the (standard) dice in-game either though. What is this d20 everybody talks about? I play a little game called 5d4, occasionally 2d10

 

[Umbran]

Ok, but if you are going to moderate the rolls for the sake of fairness, why not use a system that is inherently fair in the first place?

Well, for one thing, it's not as if moderating for fairness is difficult or time consuming. For another, what counts as "fair" is actually subjective. What works and what doesn't, what's under or overpowered, depends upon the group and the game involved. If you want to keep as many possibilities open to your players as possible, it is better to work by moderation than by a strict system.

I think that the DM ought to be keeping an eye on things, even in a point-buy game. Character generation is at it's best when it is an interactive process between player and DM, rather than a systematized process for which the DM is unnecessary.

Also, there's value to be found in the randomness - the dice can inspire you to build and play things that you would not have thought of on your own.

 

[seasong]

In my Light Against the Dark campaign, I had the players roll the character's ability scores, 4d6/drop lowest, in front of me. I did this because it was reasonably fun (in a shooting craps kind of way), the results were interesting, and it forced the players to take a sort of "will of the gods" approach right from the start in a Grecian Gods kind of campaign.

And it was D&D, right? I have some unresolved nostalgia issues .

But nowhere in that list of reasons to do it was "fairness" or "play balance". When I want "fairness", I negotiate with the players for what method both they and I will be happy with. When I want "play balance", I laugh heartily and go hunt other, easier-to-find mythical beasts, like violet, winged half-dragon unicorns.

Most of the time, I just let the players use the system to describe their protagonists, after I give as thorough a description of the power level/competency level I want to run the game at. For example, in the Book of Runes campaign I'm running right now, it's semi-pulp adventurers who are wealthy, experienced, and certifiably crazy to be doing the sorts of things they do. So the players picked one or two strong talents to define themselves with, explained their skill sets to me, and off we went.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

We use a moderated form of this in one campaign. The final character (inlcuding gear etc.) is subject to DM/player approval, and there is an upper limit for the total of the stat modifiers. Works out pretty well.

Another option would take this to the next step -- just eliminate the attributes altogether, and only use modifiers. You'd have to tweak a couple of mechanics (stat increase every 4 levels, some feat pre-reqs), but the you could have a character generation system where you have, say +8 modifiers total, distribute as you will ( maybe take up to -2 for an additional +2).

Of course, then we could have an argument about whether it was better to have +8 modifier "point buy", or roll 2d6 ...

 

[schporto]

To me the biggest reason to use point buy v. rolling is weather they have a character concept or not. Fairness can be enacted through rerolls (for crummy or uber chars), and proper disposition of magical items. So why not let the players use multiple methods:

"I have a full background written for my character" -> ok use point buy.
"I have some background but need some more" -> ok roll 4d6 and arrange as you want.
"Dunno. I wanna play a wizard." -> Roll 4d6 change any 2 stats.
"I wanna play." -> Roll 4d6 in order, reroll if character is not gonna be playable. Reroll any 1 stat.

Although I really like the idea of let them pick.
-cpd

 

[maddman75]

Rolling is fine for AD&D, but not in 3e. The stats influence too much to allow one character to have greater stats than another. Remember that D&D does not seek to emulate real life. It seeks to emulate fantasy fiction, where a group of heroes, all roughly equal in strength but each with their own specialization.

In AD&D, you got negatives for an ability of 6 or 7 and positives for 15-16. In 3e, negatives start at 9 and positives at 12. What this means is that it takes a much smaller deviation from the average to drastically affect the character.

Someone said that a 9 compared to a 14 would perhaps give you a +3 difference in Bluff. Assuming that Bluff is an important skill for this character, that is three levels worth of difference (all other things being equal). Not to mention the extras high stat characters get. Higher saves, higher attack bonuses, higher AC. Better stats == better at everything.

I would be more comfortable with letting the players roll 1d4 for their starting level than rolling to randomly generate ability scores. At least those who got unlucky at generation this way could eventually catch up. If you HAVE to roll dice, go ahead. But they'll be raised or lowered to meet the average.

 

[mooby]

Point buy!

Select the same starting number for the player, and add a d4 points.

Everybody will be pretty close on starting ability points, but not completely equal.

I'd also suggest an extra 2 points for players of Monks, Paladins, and Rangers (but maybe not 3.5 Rangers).

 

[Henry]

Rolling is fine for AD&D, but not in 3e. The stats influence too much to allow one character to have greater stats than another.

In AD&D, you got negatives for an ability of 6 or 7 and positives for 15-16. In 3e, negatives start at 9 and positives at 12. What this means is that it takes a much smaller deviation from the average to drastically affect the character.

I disagree with that statement because although you have a neutral range that is wider, the ranges for exceptionally good scores is VERY narrow. In Strength and dexterity alone, bonuses range from +1 to +2 to hit, and +2 to +6 to damage, over just four steps. For that reason, everyone and their brother came up with outlandish multiple-dice rolling options to increase the chances of getting high scores in every ability. I had to work overtime to "train" my players that a 15 was not a terrible score, because a 15 was effectively "no bonus" in AD&D. If there ever was a system that needed a graduated point buy, it was AD&D.

We use random rolls simply because the players can't stand point buy. It feels too "cookie cutter" to them, where they prefer to see what outcome they get by rolling and playing with it.

I can, however, see why someone would want to eliminate random rolls - those twenty-four rolls (six rolls each in a 4-person party) are THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLLS OF THE ENTIRE GAME, because their results directly figure into every action taken in the ongoing campaign. Unlike a saving throw or a to-hit roll, or the damage from a fireball, those rolls will not skew the results of every future action down the line for good or ill. At worst, a Fireball might kill several members in a party; a damage roll might cut one PC's career short. But the fighter's strength score will affect every combat for as long as he is in the campaign, hence a desire to minimize their results.

I would prefer point-buy if nothing else to ensure that all players can build characters without the DM being present at character creation. I consider rolling just as fair as point buy for the same reasons of the original poster - they have the same average, and the same maximums and minimums, therefore, they are at least as fair as a powerball lottery pick to me.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

In the campaign I'm starting up I gave the players 3 options:
No Random) straight 32 Point Buy
All Random) 4D6 drop the Lowest
A little Random) 26 + 2D6 Point Buy

The group mostly went with 32, however one adventrous player went with option 3 and got 30 points to spend. I've always loved the idea of rolling for stats, but when given the option I have to feel really brave to actually take it since chances are you definitely are getting one or two bad stats, since crappy rolling will hamper you for the rest of the game.

I also liked the dice pooling idea, I may have to swipe that for some other game.