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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 769656" data-attributes="member: 545">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.</blockquote>

Verification