Point Buy vs. Die Rolling Ability Scores

[Victim]

The guy who rolls poorly should play a cleric. If the lucky guy isn't playing a cleric, then things even up a bit.

It worked for me.

 

[Dash Dannigan]

Ahem, for those punks who don't like randomness and prefer the rigidity of point-buy system, why roll dice at all then? Just sit down and roll out the Ol' game mat and start moving those minis around playing chess, er a more systematic version of D&D with thousands of charts to look up and no die rolls.

Alright, well that would be silly. So what I'm seeing here is that point-buyers think that "super-lucky" stats unbalance characters and provide an unfair advantage. Plain and simple, that's it. And in case we have a group of folk that are competative and a little petty (admit it, we all can be sometimes eh? ) we no longer have to worry about those silly complaints: "he's uber, look at him! He SO, well, Uber and I'm......not!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So with the advent of point-buy we prevent this disastrous inequity, we can NOW:

-All characters will have equivalent bonuses and minuses for their stats at the beginning of play to make things perfectly fair!


Gee that makes about as much sense as curtailing the numerous other variables and chance inequities that crop up during play.
Hmmm, what other bits of randomness must we curtail to enhance this so-called "balance-of-characters"?? How about:

-We must have an even magic item distribution at ALL times!

-All crits and fumbles MUST be equally distributed amongst the party members during the same encounter!

-All skill successes and failures should be equal over time and in proportion to the importance of the skill checks!

-All hack must be provided in direct proportion to drama, the hack/drama proportionality must remain constant through the average play period (being 4 hours). This balances those players who are extremely capable at either hack or drama, those in-betweeners receive both in equal amounts and inherently balance themselves.


Okay, I had a little fun there, but in all seriousness the situation is jokingly analagous to the beginning of a hundred meter dash!
There they are, our players lined up at the starting line, each geared up and ready for play but a couple of the players see that one or two other players have started a foot or two ahead of them, they point and loudly cry FOUL!

So, point-buyers, we'll assume it is perfectly alright to point-buy to ensure equity at the start of play, but realize that once the game has begun it's every PC for themselves! Afterall, this is how D&D is run, chance weighs heavily. So we accept the fact that inequities may or may not crop up during play and take it with a mug of ale and a grin, again it's "the game".

What these players don't realize is that during character generation the game (or the race) has already in fact begun. The same "random chance" and every PC for themself mentality should already be in effect (as it is dutring the "game"). And yet it is not.

It's as if the game doesn't begin for some groups until the DM announces "The dwarf, the cleric, and the elf walk into a bar..." and yet, once character generation has started hasn't the game already begun? If the "no-holds barred" , "can't help chance, it's just the way the game is played man", and "that's life dude, you get citted and your dead..." attitude is accepted as part of game play why not during character generation?

Why? I'll tell you why, because we believe as active participants we influence the game with our character's actions and that THIS combined with random chance provides us with a result that may not be equitable to each player's character but remains somehow to be "fair". During character generation we do not get a "chance" to act or take an action or in any way influence our die roll with modifiers due to an eloquent speech or a cover bonus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nay, I don't believe this is really about point-buy versus random dice roll. It's more about the way individuals view ourselves, believe it or not, and our attitude:

Those who believe inherently that their character's actions more often than not takes precedence over chance (the paladin, as long as he stays true, and makes all the right decisions will in the end prevail or the loathsome rogue that calculates his every move in the end will triumph over traps and adversity!). These are the point-buyers.

Those folk who believe that random chance cannot be helped, and that more often than not chance takes precedence over action (the fighter, an excellent tactician, understands that even if she battles the giants with precision she may still fall to the lucky goblin with the spear that her name written all over it, or the battle mage that prepares his complex assortment of spells and executes them in powerful order may yet fall to the lucky halfling that weathered his spells balancing a dagger in hand!). These are our lowly random dice rollers.

Neither one is more correct than the other. I personally believe that random dice rolling is truer to the spirit of the game and heroic (that a lowly beggar halfling could some day rise to topple the terrible despot despite the odds!). But that's just me.

I think with the advent of D&D 3e we have a better constructed and balanced game system that provides a fair framework that now allows for independent actions to carry more weight with greater freedom than previous editions of D&D. As a result we see the preponderance of point-buyers who enjoy this new found freedom and don't want to part with it (and yet retain the Ol' dangerous feel of D&D random chance!) even during character generation which technically is "before" the game really starts so...


Eh, perhaps I'm just blowin' smoke though...


Die rolling forever!!! *the paladin shouts as he is overwhelmed by the "hoard" of point-buyers!* Haha!!

 

[Crothian]

Turn it into an apples-and-apples comparison instead.

What if you had BOTH beenplaying fighter-types? You a Ranger, him ... a Paladin, perhaps? IOW, if you had BOTH been melee types, rather than the (IMO) somewhat apples-and-oranges comparison of warrior-spellcaster pairings ...

It still doesn't matter. Sure one melee type might be better then the other, but they ar estill two different players with different ideas and different focuses. Unless, 2 players make the exact same character the stats are not going to matter that much. One character might be better then the other but that doesn't destroy the fun of everyone.

 

[Skaros]

So, point-buyers, we'll assume it is perfectly alright to point-buy to ensure equity at the start of play, but realize that once the game has begun it's every PC for themselves! Afterall, this is how D&D is run, chance weighs heavily. So we accept the fact that inequities may or may not crop up during play and take it with a mug of ale and a grin, again it's "the game".

What these players don't realize is that during character generation the game (or the race) has already in fact begun. The same "random chance" and every PC for themself mentality should already be in effect (as it is dutring the "game"). And yet it is not.

I'd say pretty much everyone knows that already. Looks to me like you are taking as simple debate over the relative pros and cons of point buy versus die rolling for stats, and trying to blow it up into some kind of battle between two extremes of personalities, which is a little overblown and off topic.

Those who believe inherently that their character's actions more often than not takes precedence over chance (the paladin, as long as he stays true, and makes all the right decisions will in the end prevail or the loathsome rogue that calculates his every move in the end will triumph over traps and adversity!). These are the point-buyers.

Those folk who believe that random chance cannot be helped, and that more often than not chance takes precedence over action (the fighter, an excellent tactician, understands that even if she battles the giants with precision she may still fall to the lucky goblin with the spear that her name written all over it, or the battle mage that prepares his complex assortment of spells and executes them in powerful order may yet fall to the lucky halfling that weathered his spells balancing a dagger in hand!). These are our lowly random dice rollers.

A vast over-generalization trying to put everyone into one of two extreme groups...I don't see the point in doing so in ths thread.

Neither one is more correct than the other. I personally believe that random dice rolling is truer to the spirit of the game and heroic (that a lowly beggar halfling could some day rise to topple the terrible despot despite the odds!). But that's just me.

In the spirit of what you believe, perhaps you could go ahead and post your extensive rules on dice rolled character creation. I supposed that in the 'true spirit' of D&D 3e you must roll dice for a random race, random class, random personality quirks, randon feat selection, random skill purchasing.

After all, you belong to the extreme that apparently includes all those who believe as you do, that dice rolling rules us all, or something equally over-generalized.

Lets put it this way. My group doesn't fall into either extreme, and I simply prefer point-buy as a starting point because it allows everyone to plan character concepts, such as your lowly beggar halfling, without worrying about dice rolls will support such a character.

In the end it has nothing to do with whether we like random chance during our games, or whether we consider the game to have 'begun' during character creation or not. I has to do with the make-up of each individual group, and their preferences for one small part of character creation.

-Skaros

 

[Dash Dannigan]

I'd say pretty much everyone knows that already. Looks to me like you are taking as simple debate over the relative pros and cons of point buy versus die rolling for stats, and trying to blow it up into some kind of battle between two extremes of personalities, which is a little overblown and off topic.
-Skaros

Overblown? Ouch, that hurts. Man you didn't even look for it eh? My point, to wit: the irony of the juxtaposition of point-buy (rigid point-scale) and D&D (a game of random generation of numbers) in my post. The insult, nah I can live with that, but just missing the point, ack, my weak heart!

In the spirit of what you believe, perhaps you could go ahead and post your extensive rules on dice rolled character creation.
-Skaros

Sorry, I'd love to respond to this but this is not very clear here.

I supposed that in the 'true spirit' of D&D 3e you must roll dice for a random race, random class, random personality quirks, randon feat selection, random skill purchasing.-Skaros

Yes. It's called random stat generation, we roll dice to determine our stats. These stats in turn determine how many skill points (Int), personality quirks (Cha, Int, Wis), whether we become capable fighters, well-rounded mages, or devout but clumsy clerics. Sorry, I've got nothin' on race.

Besides you've obviously missed my point: Why not random stat gen when there are so many random elements already a part of the game? Why do we need a "level" playing field when we start when the playing field (the game we play) itself is not at all level and is in fact played entirely on a hilly and pockmarked surface of random die rolls (heh, it's why it is so fun)? The need for a "balance" at the start and just allowing the "imbalance" of characters to play out (the way D&D is played of course) seems kinda pointless to me. It's like saying I'm going to measure this plank of wood here on the ground to make sure it's level and flat. Nice and even. Then I pick up the board and toss it in a ditch. Does anyone else see this?

After all, you belong to the extreme that apparently includes all those who believe as you do, that dice rolling rules us all, or something equally over-generalized.
-Skaros

Now, as far I've seen you're the only one touting extremes and calling people this. *sniff* I think I'm offended now. I like coke....

Lets put it this way. My group doesn't fall into either extreme, and I simply prefer point-buy as a starting point because it allows everyone to plan character concepts, such as your lowly beggar halfling, without worrying about dice rolls will support such a character.-Skaros

Point-buy allows everyone to plan character concepts...hmm. How does random generation prevent folk from planning character concepts? A little weak here.

You mention worrying about dice rolls. What's to worry about? How do randomly generated stats fail to support a particular character concept? Standard stat gen does not yield rolls all that bad. Pardon my obtusness in this matter but what kind of concepts do you create? Sure random rolls get some high or low rolls on occasion but are they enough to limit your concepts? Hmmm, it seems to me it's likely (and I apolgize if this is not the case) that your concepts may be what is limited here...

In the end it has nothing to do with whether we like random chance during our games, or whether we consider the game to have 'begun' during character creation or not. I has to do with the make-up of each individual group, and their preferences for one small part of character creation.
-Skaros

Hmm, clear as...I like Coke!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Besides you've obviously missed my point: Why not random stat gen when there are so many random elements already a part of the game? Why do we need a "level" playing field when we start when the playing field (the game we play) itself is not at all level and is in fact played entirely on a hilly and pockmarked surface of random die rolls (heh, it's why it is so fun)? The need for a "balance" at the start and just allowing the "imbalance" of characters to play out (the way D&D is played of course) seems kinda pointless to me. It's like saying I'm going to measure this plank of wood here on the ground to make sure it's level and flat. Nice and even. Then I pick up the board and toss it in a ditch. Does anyone else see this?

I think you are missing the logic of your own argument.

First of all, you are implicitly picking an arbitrary amount of randomness and declaring that "good" without an iota of justification. If that much randomness is "good" maybe more or less randomness could be "better", hmm?

Second of all, most games we play (except chess & go) inject measured amounts of randomness to add the possibility of interesting surprises. It is rather subjective how much randomness is good in a game. Rolling dice for stats is not inherently any more logical or illogical than rolling dice for starting cash when playing Monopoly. Would that make Monopoly a better game? Undeniably it would be more realistic because different people start have different amounts of cash in their bank account. To my mind there is no point in doing so: the game already has so much randomness that I don't see how it would be an improvement.

As a matter of game design, IMNSHO it is rarely worth bothering to throw randomization on top of randomization. That is why I dislike rolling for AC and the d20 + stat + power level method for determining psionic DCs. One of the main points of using a level based system is to create a degree of predictability -- increasing bookkeeping for the sake of adding randomness doesn't seem like a useful strategy.


As for dice vs. point buy, each group is different. All I can say with certainty is that my group of friends seem to have had more fun with point buy, and we can name specific reasons why we like it (well described elsewhere in this thread by others). We understand we are at the mercy of the dice once the game begins. We just don't happen to randomness outside of the actual playing of the game to add to our enjoyment. YMMV.

 

[Dash Dannigan]

I think you are missing the logic of your own argument.

First of all, you are implicitly picking an arbitrary amount of randomness and declaring that "good" without an iota of justification.

I'm sorry about that. I don't think I declared any kind of randomness "good". I thought the statement that "D&D is a game of randomnly generated numbers" was just the nature of the thing. A simple fact, we are agreed on this corrrect?

If that much randomness is "good" maybe more or less randomness could be "better", hmm?

Goodness I hope folk don't think I'm trying to say more randomness is better? I don't believe I infered anywhere that random stat generation was any better. In fact, I explicitedly stated: "Neither one is more correct than the other." And that's what I meant.

Second of all, most games we play (except chess & go) inject measured amounts of randomness to add the possibility of interesting surprises.

Exactly why I like it in my char gen.

As for dice vs. point buy, each group is different. All I can say with certainty is that my group of friends seem to have had more fun with point buy, and we can name specific reasons why we like it (well described elsewhere in this thread by others). We understand we are at the mercy of the dice once the game begins. We just don't happen to randomness outside of the actual playing of the game to add to our enjoyment. YMMV.

Yes, each group is different, and you have more fun with point buy, but I want to know why? I've gone over the reasons given so far and I find them lacking. Why do you throw yourselves at the mercy of the game but not char gen? Why do you differentiate?

The arguments that I think lack for point-buy:

Allows you to build char concept better - this one should fail because the rolls in std char gen should not restrict char concept development. Do they? (not to mention the potential hazard of players min/maxing stat modifiers)

Evens out the party - perhaps but only at start. As the game progresses the party becomes less even. If just party balance bothers you enough to have to even it out with point-buy then how do you manage game play?
- The second aspect to this one is underdog versus bigdog, does it really bother folk to be overshadowed in some situations than other characters? Shouldn't in-game situations vary allowing diff characters to shine at different times to balance this?

Prevents cheating - if point-buy is implemented because of this then the group has a much bigger problem. Trust is a vital factor for rping.


So a general call to all participating in this interesting thread. What other reason do folk prefer point-buy that I missed? What faults lie in my reckoning for the reasons for point-buy I cited above? I really want to know, afterall I am interested and was contemplating trying point-buy out for my players in the next campaign.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Well, as long as you understand that you have increased the ECL of the party by one or two so that the challenges will be more in line...

When I hear comments like this about stats, I wonder if I am playing the same game system as other people. Stats never lessen the challenge of the game. It simply isn't so.

Monsters are much tougher than players. There stats our outrageously high the majority of the time. Even a simple battle with an Ogre can be difficult for a party of four characters with a single fighter, even if that fighter has good stats.

Stats only do so much to save a person's bacon in a fight. It is my experience that high or low die rolls happen at the most inopportune times. You can have the best stats, but one bad crit or key bad save will destroy the best statted character.

Personally, I have found that if the characters don't have decent stats, I end up killing them all too often. This is using set module encounters and what I consider reasonable tactics.

I don't believe my tactical choices make that much of a difference in the outcome of a given battle. Who knows, maybe they do, but I would be hard pressed to believe that other DM's don't employ similar tactics when running enemies.

I haven't played in any other gaming group for a number of years. I don't know how most gaming groups play.

I just know stats don't lessen the difficulty of games I run. Never have, never will.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So a general call to all participating in this interesting thread. What other reason do folk prefer point-buy that I missed?

I'll just add that I think point buy is the best system to use for PbEM.

I like PbEM games where the DM rolls all in-game dice, since I loathe dice servers, and while as you point out that trust is an important part of gaming, you're usually PbEMing with people you've never met.

Point buy gives people more control over their characters, without the hassle of dice servers or the worry over trust issues.

And as for concepts... there are times when you want to play the specialist concept - a high stat, some averages, and a couple of lows - and the dice give you a nice, solid, flat spread. Which is not unplayable, by any means... but it's not playable as the concept you had in mind.

-Hyp.

 

[Crothian]

I'll just add that I think point buy is the best system to use for PbEM.

That's the biggest reason to use it in my mind.