What's the big deal with point buy?

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'm one of the group that prefers pt. buy.

I do so because, honestly, chargen is down low on my list of things I want to spend an afternoon doing. It's always gotten on my nerves, from either side of the table.

So, for my games, I use point buy ... and averaged HP to boot! There are rules in place for purchasing items ... so everything can be done in the comfort of the player's own home before the first session.

I don't play with people I don't trust, usually, so I don't go over people's papers or anything before play. It's just a convenience. There's nobody at the table that can say: "Hrm, Bob rolled an awful lot of 18s at home ... and great HP ... I WONDER."

Which has, so far, worked well for me. I've had some people that dug in their heels for a moment and said: "But I LIKE rolling!" but after I explained that we weren't going to have a character creation session and the first game night would be spent GAMING ... they all decided that it wasn't such a bad idea that they'd not want to play. Never had any complaints after the game started, that's for sure. Nobody saying: "Man, this point-buy character sucks and all the other point buy characters are the same!"

I've only had one unworkable situation with point buy. We were putting together an online game and one player just said: "Point buy? Hate it, no thanks, don't want to play." Which is totally their choice, but was sort of bizarre and annoying. Had never before encountered somebody who literally walked away from the game at the word "point buy".

--fje

 

[RFisher]

But, RFisher, it's not really about whether or not lower stats are more satisfying. That's a personal preference.

I completely understand that some people prefer to "craft" a PC & therefore prefer point buy.

The claim--in support of point buy--that the exact ability scores make a huge difference is what doesn't hold water with me. I'm not saying I prefer to play underpowered characters; I'm saying that I don't measure the strength of my character by his ability scores.

The only dead weight character at a table has a dead weight player attached to him.

Exactly!

 

[Glyfair]

The claim--in support of point buy--that the exact ability scores make a huge difference is what doesn't hold water with me. I'm not saying I prefer to play underpowered characters; I'm saying that I don't measure the strength of my character by his ability scores.

How about this for an argument...?

Don't measure the strength of a character by his ability scores. A player can have fun with low stats. A character can be effective with low stats if he has an excellent player behind him.

Of course, an excellent player will probably be even more effective if he has a character with great stats. His being effective with poor stats doesn't mean that stats don't factor into your effectiveness. It just means that he can be more effective with poor stats than a poorer player (in the sense of being an "effective" player) will be with better stats.

What about the poorer player? Is this only a game for the good players who can overcome poor stats? Maybe a better system would be to give a stat handicap for poorer players, to counter their less effective playing skills?

 

[Nellisir]

How about this for an argument...?
Don't measure the strength of a character by his ability scores. A player can have fun with low stats. A character can be effective with low stats if he has an excellent player behind him.

I think it's...misdirected. Subjectively, any character can be as fun as any other character. Objectively, the higher the ability scores in a character's class-relevant abilities, the more effective that character is in his class functions. All other factors (skill point allocation, feats, racial mods, etc) being equal, a rogue with an 18 Dex is a better rogue than one with a 12 Dex. A wizard with an 18 Intelligence is a better wizard than one with an 11 Intelligence.

The problem with disparate ability scores come to the fore not when the party is a rogue, wizard, cleric, and fighter; it's when the party is two fighters, or two clerics, or two rogues -- in other words, when there's overlap in the iconic roles.

Cheers
Nell.

 

[Glyfair]

The problem with disparate ability scores come to the fore not when the party is a rogue, wizard, cleric, and fighter; it's when the party is two fighters, or two clerics, or two rogues -- in other words, when there's overlap in the iconic roles.

I think the problem is magnified then, not that there isn't a problem elsewhere. When you take it outside of two fighters, for example, you have other factors that apply as well.

Let's say that we have a fighter & wizard in a game at low levels. If the fighter has much higher stats, and is clearly a more effective character you'll have arguments that it makes sense because a fighter is a more powerful class at low levels than a wizard. And it has merit. That doesn't mean the fighter's stats are giving him an advantage, it just means the class advantage applies as well and it's harder to compare where it's coming from.

At 6-8 level if you create a fighter and a wizard, give one stats with 50 point buy and one with 20 point buy, and I have no doubt the one with 50 pt. buy will be clearly better than the 20 point buy in a balanced game.

 

[Nellisir]

I think the problem is magnified then, not that there isn't a problem elsewhere. When you take it outside of two fighters, for example, you have other factors that apply as well.

I agree completely. I didn't say it wasn't a problem elsewhere; I said "the problem comes to the fore", meaning it's clearest and most visible.

Alot of this thread has been objective views vs subjective views. It's not balanced vs it's still fun. You can't effectively argue subjective viewpoints, and the best way to argue an objective point is to eliminate all points of disparity except for the point under contention. So, given two characters identical in all respects except ability scores, which is more effective in fulfilling its iconic role? The one with better ability scores. This wouldn't be an issue except that many parties do have characters that overlap in those roles, and rolling for ability scores, by its nature, generates a broad range of ability score sets.

I've got no problem with rolling for scores. I've done it before, and I'll do it again. But when considered objectively and in the context of a party of characters, it's a less equitable system than point-buy.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Point buy favors powergamers. That is undisputable. Truth is, the game favors powergamers. And the more randomness you take out of the game, the more powergamers claim the upper hand. Point buy is not JUST for powergamers, but it certainly lets them min/max a lot more than random ability score generation does.

I think the most virulent powergamers flourish best under randomness. The worst ones I've gamed with cheated on their dice rolls. The real problem in this case is of course the player, not the system, and the best solution is not to play with people like that, which I no longer do. Nonetheless I dispute your assertion that point buy favors powergamers.

 

[Crothian]

Nonetheless I dispute your assertion that point buy favors powergamers.

With point buy a player can powergame by min maxing his stats. With random rolls one can't do that becasue they don't have control over the numbers. They can try to min max with what the dice give them, but that is never as easy as doing it with point buy.

 

[Glyfair]

I think the most virulent powergamers flourish best under randomness.

I 100% agree*. I've never known a power-gamer to play poor to average stats for long. Random characters don't seem very random, a poor witnessed rolled character gets whining and complaining, those that must be played usually last less than a session. Every pure powergamer doesn't do all of these things, but usually at least two (and sometimes other variations).

*I'm specifically separating out the min-max player from the power-gamer definition, since they flourish under any type of character generation system, but prefer point buy.

 

[shilsen]

Oh hey, I agree 100%. What annoys me is being called a powergamer, or saying that point buy is somehow wrongbadfun because it links to powergaming. I disagree with that entirely.

Fair enough. I figured out a long time ago that spending an iota of energy getting irritated by what some random stranger on a messageboard thinks about my gaming preferences is a waste of time and energy.