I played a crappy character...and it was great!

[Alzrius]

I have a lot of differences of opinion with my gaming group in regards to the "how" of gaming.

I attribute this to my having started with Basic D&D and Second Edition, whereas most of them started with either Third or Fourth Edition.

One of these areas of friendly disagreement is over the method of determining ability scores. They strongly perfer point-buy, to the point of being extremely wary of any method of random stat generation that doesn't slant things in favor of higher scores.

I, personally, eschew this method of ability score generation, as I find it leads to a degree of optimization that I don't care for. As such, for a while I had been ribbing them about how we did it "old school." This was somewhat ironic on my part, as my "playing" during those times had largely been isolated events with one or two other people, punctuated by very long periods of reading and re-reading the books over and over (and GMing a rather ill-fated campaign in college). To put it another way, I was familiar with old-school character generation, but had never experienced it.

This reached a head in the middle of last year, when I boldly declared "the next time I run a PC" - I was GMing at the time - "I'll use the 3d6-in-order method."

This earned several chuckled, and was quickly forgotten. Or at least, forgotten by most.

You may think, at this point, that someone whipped out that little goblin of a phrase I had so proudly trumpeted and used it against me, but you'd be wrong. In the new campaign we started last week, I actually brought it up myself, despite everyone else having largely forgotten about it.

So I sat down to roll my character, and everyone held their breath, waiting for my boasting to come back to bite me in the ass as I rolled up my scores:

Strength...5
Dexterity...9
Constitution...6
Intelligence...11
Wisdom...15
Charisma...11

The laughter was deafening, from myself along with the rest of the group, but I got some smiles and fist-bumps when I announced that I was going to play the character anyway, instead of abandoning the whole experiment. Against some advice, I put the +2 human racial bonus (we're playing Pathfinder) into Wisdom instead of trying to bump up my lower scores.

Since I didn't really see a druid with those stats, I decided to play to the one class that otherwise relied on Wisdom heavily: a cleric. Already this was new for me, as I'd never played a divine spellcaster before - I'll admit that I was intimidated by how that class had a stronger tie to the campaign world, via his religion, than other classes (we were playing in the GM's homebrew world, which I don't know very well).

Much to my surprise, I had a fun time playing my first cleric. The even bigger surprise was that my character survived his first night of adventuring, even though he was involved in two fights (one of which saw him attempting to melee, albeit only for a round before the heavy-hitters moved in).

The best part, though? My character was actually useful over the course of the night - when we got into a tough fight almost immediately his healing ability kept the party's barbarian from dying...something extraordinary, since he went below 0 hit points four times during that first fight (and a fifth time in the second one).

Now, there's no guarantee that my cleric will survive the second session of the campaign, but I figure that's true of any character, particularly after the near-slaughter of our barbarian right out of the gate. In the meantime, I'm having a great time playing a character that, given his stats and his class, I would never have played otherwise.

I don't know if I'm bringing the rest of the group around on random stat generation, but I'm having an absolute blast with really experiencing it for the first time myself.

 

[Desdichado]

I have a lot of differences of opinion with my gaming group in regards to the "how" of gaming.

I attribute this to my having started with Basic D&D and Second Edition, whereas most of them started with either Third or Fourth Edition.

I haven't noticed any difference in attitude based on what edition you started with. Attitude towards the game has much more to do with the group you started playing with, and your own natural tastes.

To claim otherwise treads perilously close to passive aggressive edition warring.

One of these areas of friendly disagreement is over the method of determining ability scores. They strongly perfer point-buy, to the point of being extremely wary of any method of random stat generation that doesn't slant things in favor of higher scores.

See, I prefer a more point-buyish method because that way I can get the character I want to play. I've never bought into the notion that I'll just roll up some stats and then make a character based on what I got. To use your example, I hate playing clerics. I can't stand the very concept. I don't even like that they exist in D&D at all. I don't even like it if someone else in the group plays one, because I hate seeing the stupid class around (although far be it from me to tell someone else what he should or shouldn't play, regardless of how I feel about his choice.)

So, if I had rolled up those stats, I wouldn't have had any fun playing that character. And not because the stats were crappy; but because I couldn't possibly have come up with a character concept that would have interested me enough to play based on those stats. And there's nothing that kills my enthusiasm for a campaign like playing a character I can't get interested in playing.

 

[Joshua Randall]

What Hobo said.

I'm cool with people who want to roll 3d6 in order and play the character the dice gods grant them... but I'm not one of those people.

Free power-gaming tip: see if you can hit some kind of trap that ages your PC so he picks up bonuses to his mental stats and more penalties to his physical stats. The 3e aging rules are always a good place to fish for benefits that outweigh their drawbacks.

 

[Alzrius]

I haven't noticed any difference in attitude based on what edition you started with. Attitude towards the game has much more to do with the group you started playing with, and your own natural tastes.

To claim otherwise treads perilously close to passive aggressive edition warring.

I'm sure those things are part of it, but from what I recall (I haven't read Basic or 2E in many years), the various editions did push certain methods of stat generation harder than others, even if it was just which one was listed as the primary way to do so while the others were secondary.

Simply pointing out the differences between editions, and saying what you think about them, isn't by itself edition warring. It's only when you start bashing other people's choices, and/or crowing about how yours is objectively superior, that you've crossed that line.

To claim otherwise treads perilously close to simply being passive aggressive.

See, I prefer a more point-buyish method because that way I can get the character I want to play. I've never bought into the notion that I'll just roll up some stats and then make a character based on what I got. To use your example, I hate playing clerics. I can't stand the very concept. I don't even like that they exist in D&D at all. I don't even like it if someone else in the group plays one, because I hate seeing the stupid class around (although far be it from me to tell someone else what he should or shouldn't play, regardless of how I feel about his choice.)

Most of my group would agree with you. They tend to come up with character ideas and then want the power to mold their characters around that. I think that that's a fine idea, at least in theory.

Where I become wary is that I've seen players become so married to their ideas for characters that it potentially becomes player entitlement. It can turn into "no, this isn't enough to let me play the character I want; give me the means to do so, or I walk."

Admittedly, issuing an ultimatum like that is rare, but that's mostly because all randomization has already been removed from character generation in contemporary D&D(-inspired) games. Again, that's not a bad thing unto itself, but I think that sometimes it's nice to see where the randomness takes you - sometimes the surprise is pleasant.

Free power-gaming tip: see if you can hit some kind of trap that ages your PC so he picks up bonuses to his mental stats and more penalties to his physical stats. The 3e aging rules are always a good place to fish for benefits that outweigh their drawbacks.

Thanks, but I'm okay with him being twenty-three (I randomly rolled for his age) - the whole point of this exercise was to showcase how much fun can be had by not powergaming and just working with what the dice give you.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm sure those things are part of it, but from what I recall (I haven't read Basic or 2E in many years), the various editions did push certain methods of stat generation harder than others, even if it was just which one was listed as the primary way to do so while the others were secondary.

I don't remember 1e or B/X, and I never played 2e or 4e, but 3e and 3.5 had arrays, rolled stats and pointbuy and didn't push any of the methods over any other of the methods.

Simply pointing out the differences between editions, and saying what you think about them, isn't by itself edition warring. It's only when you start bashing other people's choices, and/or crowing about how yours is objectively superior, that you've crossed that line.

Or when you start claiming that playstyle preferences are somehow tied to edition. In my experience, the playstyle preference came first. When 3e intorduced point buy (if it wasn't in 2e; like I said, I don't know. It wasn't in 1e or B/X that I recall at all, though) it wasn't because the designers of 3e wanted to push it as an option. It was because it had become prevalent in most systems other than D&D that were getting a fair bit of play in those days, and there was already strong demand for alternatives to rolling stats. That combined with the fact that several alternatives were given, with equal "weight" in the PHB, makes it seem extremely unlikely that which edition you started with somehow drove preference for a certain playstyle.

Anyway, perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant by passive aggressive. If you're actively crowing about how yours is superior, that's not really passive aggressive. If you're implying it--with caveats that the alternatives are perfect fine in theory or whtaever, but leaving yourself plausible deniability when called on it--that would be passive aggressive. Otherwise, it's just aggressive aggressive.

Anyway, I just mentioned it because it seemed close to the line of implying superiority, not because I was trying to call you on anything. And I really don't want to get sucked into a debate about what is or isn't passive aggressive, so... meh, whatever.

Where I become wary is that I've seen players become so married to their ideas for characters that it potentially becomes player entitlement. It can turn into "no, this isn't enough to let me play the character I want; give me the means to do so, or I walk."

Issuing ultimatums like that is a problem with the player, not the method of stat generation! Are you suggesting that point buy causes people to act like jerks to their supposed friends? If so, that turned into strawman so large it's a fire hazard really fast.

Admittedly, issuing an ultimatum like that is rare, but that's mostly because all randomization has already been removed from character generation in contemporary D&D(-inspired) games.

No, it's rare because most people aren't willing to be entitled, confrontational spoiled brats around their friends. It doesn't have anything to do with how the rules of the game have changed over editions. And, like I said, the rules for point buy originated mostly outside of D&D, and then came back to it with 3e anyway, not the other way around.

Again, that's not a bad thing unto itself, but I think that sometimes it's nice to see where the randomness takes you - sometimes the surprise is pleasant.

Sometimes. And sometimes it's not. It's a gamble. I'm fine with it for shorter campaigns, or one-shots. Sure, why not? But if I'm expected to play this character for a long time? Not a chance. If I have to because the GM insists on it, then I'll wonder exactly who is being the entitled one by trying to make me play a character I'm not interested in playing (a sure sign of terrible GMing, by my definition) just to prove a point. And if I'm really not getting into the character, he'll most likely end up dying after attempting something ludicrous, or my attention might just wander out of the campaign over time.

Thanks, but I'm okay with him being twenty-three (I randomly rolled for his age) - the whole point of this exercise was to showcase how much fun can be had by not powergaming and just working with what the dice give you.

See, curious, I greatly prefer more tailored chargen for the exact opposite reason, and I never build optimized, power-gamer friendly characters. In fact, I frequently get chided by the more power-gamery players (really just one in our group now) for my suboptimal characters who are built to replicate flavor issues that I've come up with for the character, rather than for any other reason.

So, yeah... I'd say that in my experience playing crappy characters can be a blast. I actually prefer it to playing the charOp game within a game, and weird weaknesses and strange character features are what make characters interesting. But playing a character that I don't like? That's a whole 'nother issue entirely.

 

[Karak]

I can't remember the last time I bought stats rather than rolled them and had to play them. I know the couple of times I GM'ed or played in a point buy style game it was ok, nothing against it at all. Seems like most of the players around me and in my game sort of like the "roll what you get" kind of characters.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Props, Alzrius, for sticking to what you said you'd do. We did this back in AD&D too, and it was fine. We had great fun. I'm simply boggled by folks who say that the game isn't fun unless every class and character is balanced down to the last nanogram. In my experience, it just isn't true.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of these areas of friendly disagreement is over the method of determining ability scores. They strongly perfer point-buy, to the point of being extremely wary of any method of random stat generation that doesn't slant things in favor of higher scores.

Have you seen the Traveller character that Morrus is playing at the moment?

Check out http://www.enworld.org/forum/tablet...traveller-rpg-mongoose-version-fans-here.html

He is a bitter old guy in a wheelchair that can't even shoot a stationary target with a pistol. Even given that Traveller uses 2d6 for each ability, they are scores to make you weep!

Cheers

 

[vagabundo]

For the DND next playtest I got the players to roll 3d6 in order and they all got 3-5 in Charmisa. We now have a very social dysfunctional group. They are loving it, some great RP hooks too.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't remember 1e or B/X, and I never played 2e or 4e, but 3e and 3.5 had arrays, rolled stats and pointbuy and didn't push any of the methods over any other of the methods.

Hence why I said "even if it was just which one was listed as the primary way to do so while the others were secondary."

Or when you start claiming that playstyle preferences are somehow tied to edition.

Except I never said that. I said that I think they are an influence on it, but not the only influence.

In my experience, the playstyle preference came first. When 3e intorduced point buy (if it wasn't in 2e; like I said, I don't know. It wasn't in 1e or B/X that I recall at all, though) it wasn't because the designers of 3e wanted to push it as an option. It was because it had become prevalent in most systems other than D&D that were getting a fair bit of play in those days, and there was already strong demand for alternatives to rolling stats.

3E didn't introduce point-buy, it had already been listed (not primarily, but as an alternative, IIRC) in previous editions. Which was sort of the point - it was easy to see how point-buy went from not being listed, to being listed as an after-thought, to being listed as an alternative, to being listed as the primary, as editions changed.

You can say that that was a reaction to what people wanted, and that's probably true. You can also say that that helped shape perceptions among those who started playing the game in a given edition, and I think that's true also.

That combined with the fact that several alternatives were given, with equal "weight" in the PHB, makes it seem extremely unlikely that which edition you started with somehow drove preference for a certain playstyle.

If the point-buy option was listed last among six options, it was easy to see it as being an after-thought, and that the "right" way to do it was with the way listed first. I don't see why my saying that seems to upset you so much.

Anyway, perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant by passive aggressive. If you're actively crowing about how yours is superior, that's not really passive aggressive. If you're implying it--with caveats that the alternatives are perfect fine in theory or whtaever, but leaving yourself plausible deniability when called on it--that would be passive aggressive. Otherwise, it's just aggressive aggressive.

I'm glad we agree that I'm not doing that, then.

I think you've misunderstood what I meant in my previous posts, as I'm simply saying that I think the various editions have sent different messages on different aspects of game-play - somehow you think that's passive-aggressive edition warring, which seems silly to me.

Anyway, I just mentioned it because it seemed close to the line of implying superiority, not because I was trying to call you on anything. And I really don't want to get sucked into a debate about what is or isn't passive aggressive, so... meh, whatever.

I always enjoy hearing people talk about how they don't want to get sucked into a debate on something one paragraph after they start debating it.

Issuing ultimatums like that is a problem with the player, not the method of stat generation! Are you suggesting that point buy causes people to act like jerks to their supposed friends? If so, that turned into strawman so large it's a fire hazard really fast.

Almost as large as the strawman of putting words into someone else's mouth!

Please feel free to start debating what is and isn't a strawman, and then say how you don't want to start debating it.

No, it's rare because most people aren't willing to be entitled, confrontational spoiled brats around their friends. It doesn't have anything to do with how the rules of the game have changed over editions. And, like I said, the rules for point buy originated mostly outside of D&D, and then came back to it with 3e anyway, not the other way around.

The issue with where point-buy originated is relatively meaningless for people who weren't paying attention to the whole of the RPG hobby, the way designers were. I'm more talking about people who started with D&D, and the impressions that were made by the first set of rules they read and gamed with.

Sometimes. And sometimes it's not. It's a gamble. I'm fine with it for shorter campaigns, or one-shots. Sure, why not? But if I'm expected to play this character for a long time? Not a chance. If I have to because the GM insists on it, then I'll wonder exactly who is being the entitled one by trying to make me play a character I'm not interested in playing (a sure sign of terrible GMing, by my definition) just to prove a point. And if I'm really not getting into the character, he'll most likely end up dying after attempting something ludicrous, or my attention might just wander out of the campaign over time.

But of course, you'd never adopt a "my way or I don't play" attitude.

See, curious, I greatly prefer more tailored chargen for the exact opposite reason, and I never build optimized, power-gamer friendly characters. In fact, I frequently get chided by the more power-gamery players (really just one in our group now) for my suboptimal characters who are built to replicate flavor issues that I've come up with for the character, rather than for any other reason.

That's nice, but this isn't about you. I'm only noting that my personal opinion is that most people who want to power-game find that point-buying their stats is more conducive to that.

So, yeah... I'd say that in my experience playing crappy characters can be a blast. I actually prefer it to playing the charOp game within a game, and weird weaknesses and strange character features are what make characters interesting. But playing a character that I don't like? That's a whole 'nother issue entirely.

Which is sort of the heart of my post...by the conventional wisdom, I wouldn't like playing a character with poor stats in a class I don't like. But I tried it anyway, and found out that I enjoyed it after all. There's value in trying something you don't think you'll like, is all I'm saying.