What's the big deal with point buy?

[Cedric]

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.

I'm of the opinion that if you need to institute rules like Point Buy just to keep your players in line, you may need to consider playing with a different group of people.

 

[Ranes]

...A character that I am likely going to play for several hundred hours.

Wow! I never anticipate a character of mine lasting that long.

I'm not saying that this has anything to do with the point that you were making but I do not understand the idea I've seen repeated several times in this thread that a character's ability scores have anything at all to do with how compelling a character it is to play.

Anyway. Gimme random. Thanks.

 

[drothgery]

Wow! I never anticipate a character of mine lasting that long.

100 hours is only 4 a week for half a year (well, with one week off). In my group, campaigns typically last 9-18 months before a reset, and until recently I'd had pretty good luck keeping the same character from start to finish (though in the last game, I lost two, and I'm on my second in the current one).

 

[Nellisir]

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.

There's this undercurrent in alot of this discussion that "powergaming" and "min/maxing" are automatically evil; that you're a crappy gamer and don't really "get it" if you "powergame". That's probably not the intent, but it's implied when it's used as an argument against something.

I wonder if what you call min/maxing I call optimizing, or playing to a character's strengths. I created a 12th level wizard last year. He was joining an existing group, one that lacked any arcane spellcasting ability whatsoever, and they were facing magical foes - undead, fiends, and the like. Was it powergaming and min/maxing to build the best, most useful, wizard I could? A wizard's wizard? Did I have "dump stats"? Sure. Str, Cha, and Dex, in that order. If this guy was in melee, something was seriously wrong (hit points are always useful, so his Con was 17...after taking a hit for being old). Did I build the character around the optimal prestige classes? Depends. The whole -idea- of the character was a top-notch, professional, expert spellcaster; the most powerful prestige classes made the most sense to the character.

I just don't buy that I was a worse gamer because I maximized my character's strengths and minimized his weaknesses. I think I did a pretty fair job of role-playing him and his tutu-wearing coure eladrin familiar.

And, yeah. His stats were rolled.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think the most virulent powergamers flourish best under randomness. The worst ones I've gamed with cheated on their dice rolls.

That is simply called cheating and is an altogether different issue from powergaming. The very notion that you would associate the two so closely is offensive. Powergamers are not cheaters and that kind of attitude is prejudice, pure and simple.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I don't see that "powergaming" or "min/maxing" can't go hand-in-hand with good playing, skillful roleplaying, or having a really good time.

I'm probably a "powergamer" or a "min/maxer", or an "optimizer" or "characterist". When I'm the guy on the playing end of the game (which had been, until recently, very seldom) I like to take enjoyment from ALL aspects of playing the game ... I like the roleplaying. I like making an optimized character. I like interacting with the other people at the table. I like kicking monster kiester. Getting levels, powering up, making a memorable table presence, all of it.

I've played to-the-hilt killing machines (my current bbn1/clr12). I've played oddly weak characters (a dwarf bard, a craftsman specializing in making magical weapons, not the optimal path for a bard).

As far as stats go, I think they're largely unimportant to fun table-time. I can play a really great character who is a fighter with 18Str. I can play a really great character who is a fighter with 8Str. I don't think it makes me a better person than other people that I can make an 8Str fighter fun to be. Nor a worse person than others that I can have fun playing a fighter with 18Str.

In the end, it depends on the campaign. I, and everybody at the table, liked my garrulous old dwarven craftsmen (my bard singing took the form of topical anecdotes ... the inspirational ones usually involved an exceptionally large troute named George). Unfortunately the campaign was Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and eventually things got so tough that a non-optimized character put the whole group in jeopardy of wipes regularly and the guy playing the tank had to drop out ... so I retired the bard and brought in a totally optimized fighter type that was a killing machine. He too was very fun to play.

I had a rolled character with unbelievably high stats. We rolled at the table and there he was. I think I had, hands down, the best stats at the table. That character was as fun as any other. I enjoyed optimizing him, with his really good stats. The only downside was that he ended up being so good that when the GM started writing encounters specificially to deal with HIM he ended up pulping other PCs. Among our group that became known as "The Rob's Paladin Maneuver". At one point an encounter obviously meant for my character brought another character (Rob's Paladin) from 83hp to -57hp in one round. Unfortunately my guy was a dwarf and it took him until the next round to stump over there on them short little legs and resoundingly trump the rest of the encounter.

So, of them all, the most abusively overpowered character I ever built was rolled. Point buy, at least, gives me the choice of what I want to do ... if the rest of the group is good on power and killing, I can make a fun little goblin rogue (Grimbold the Mighty!) who makes the best of a bum deal (in that case, starting with crappy goblin adjustments) or I can make something to plug a hole ... and both are totally fun, rounded, enjoyable characters for me and everybody at the table.

I don't see where one generation type makes anybody a superior gamer. Or where optimizing makes you a poor gamer. Or not optimizing makes you a poor gamer.

To summarize ...

If you're a crappy gamer, rolling stats will not force you to improve (by making the best of a bad hand, or forcing you to play something different than you usually do).

If you're a good gamer, point buy will not make you a crappy gamer (by engendering you to take up with the devil Minmax, or letting you always play a paladin).

Real Role Players are not "better gamers" than Powergamers ... they don't even have to be different people!

All of the games I run are point buy because it suits my particular tastes (everybody comes to the game with a character ready). It doesn't particularly make me feel like a better or worse person that I do so. I wouldn't walk out on a game where we rolled 3d6 in order, even. I think that would be as fun as anything else.

--fje

 

[Hussar]

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.

It is exactly as easy as point buy, unless you are forcing them to take the rolls in order.

Sure, I might not have exactly the same numbers, but, they're going to be very close. If I'm making a fighter, my highest score is going into my Str (or possibly Dex) with Con and Dex following next. My lowest number is most likely getting dumped into Cha. Which is precisely what Airwalkrr's Dwarf did. This is a perfect example of a min/maxed character. Str highest to dump stat Cha.

While the numbers may be slightly at variance, at the end of the day, a random roll character or a point buy character of equivalent value will likely look very, very close.

This is why I reject the idea that point buy leads to powergaming. Yes, I'm sure that someone out there played a fighter with an 18 Int and a 10 Str, but, again, I'm willing to bet that they are in a vanishingly small minority.

 

[Crothian]

It is exactly as easy as point buy, unless you are forcing them to take the rolls in order.

Sure, I might not have exactly the same numbers, but, they're going to be very close.

Very close isn't the same. With point buy one can avoid useless odd stats, scores lower then 8, and have greater control over what scores they have. Point buy is a lot more versatile. With the rolls one has to work with six set numbers, that just isn;t true with point buy.

 

[Hussar]

Very close isn't the same. With point buy one can avoid useless odd stats, scores lower then 8, and have greater control over what scores they have. Point buy is a lot more versatile. With the rolls one has to work with six set numbers, that just isn;t true with point buy.

That's true. One can. However, one doesn't have to. I've seen more than a few characters with odd numbered stats, although, to be fair, it doesn't happen all that often. Stats under 8 I've never ever seen in a die rolled character because dice tend to fall off the table when that happens. Characters who wind up with sixes IME, are pretty much automatically rerolled. Never mind that with 4d6 drop the lowest, your odds are pretty good that all your scores are going to be 10 or higher.

 

[Glyfair]

There's this undercurrent in alot of this discussion that "powergaming" and "min/maxing" are automatically evil; that you're a crappy gamer and don't really "get it" if you "powergame". That's probably not the intent, but it's implied when it's used as an argument against something.

It might be an undercurrent, but I believe most here are talking about "powergaming" and "min/maxing" taken to extremes. I think a little of each is quite reasonable (and in fact, I fit that mold), but taken too far is very bad. However, if I have to put that caveat in every post, the main point gets lost quickly.

While I think there are a few posters who believe any powergaming or min/maxing is bad, I believe most here are only talking about those who take those tendancies too far. Of course, then you get dozens of opinions on what is "too far."