What's the big deal with point buy?

[LostSoul]

I used to dislike rolling, but now I think it's pretty cool. I could go either way.

Just for kicks, I rolled up (standard 4d6) some stats:

14 11 14 8 4 16 13

I think that could be a fun Barbarian:
Str 16
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 8
Wis 13
Cha 4

 

[wayne62682]

I like point buy for this simple reason: It lets me create a character concept BEFORE I generate ability scores, and thus choose the scores to fit the concept. If I want a frail but intelligent Wizard (i.e. Raistlin-type) I can MAKE one without waiting to see how the dice favor me; I have nothing against rolling but sometimes your concept doesn't come out quite the way you want it (for good or ill) and you are then forced to tweak your concept to fit your ability scores. Point buy lets you tweak the ability scores to fit the concept.

Do players have the right to make the characters they want?

... Of course they do. I've run into my share of players who will only play a certain character type.. while I don't agree with it, it's not my place to make them play something they won't have fun with. As both a player and a DM I'd rather let Suzy play a Wizard for the umpteenth time than let her become bored with the campaign because I'm trying to make her play a Fighter or a Rogue to "broaden her perspective".

 

[Doug McCrae]

Seriously. What is the big deal?

Balance and player choice.

 

[FireLance]

Seriously, this is just another outward sign of the whole "PCs are significant and precious by virtue of being a PC" school of thought (a.k.a. "protagonism") - as opposed to the "PCs may become significant and precious by surviving and doing heroic stuff" baseline that used to be dominant. The same is apparent in thinking about PC death, the destruction of equipment (by rust monsters, for example), the shift from splats in the hands of the DM to splats in the hands of the players… a lot of different things.

All that ends in a culture clash. It is hard to say whether you will be able to reconcile the different attitudes in the group. I could easily do it with my former group (as they mostly shared my preferences, at least subconsciously), but had to give huge concessions to the current one... and in the end, I burned out and stopped DMing, because the players weren’t playing the game I was DMing. To tell the truth, I am quite pessimistic right now, but again, who knows.

I generally agree with your analysis, although I am in the happy position of liking "protagonism". My experience with earlier editions of the game is that PCs usually become significant and precious by surviving or doing heroic stuff, because doing heroic stuff simply was not conducive to survival.

In a way, I believe that RPGs have changed in much the same way that computer games have changed. The first computer games had pretty much disposable characters, such as the pellet-guzzling PacMan or the laser platform in Space Invaders. You got caught, or hit, you died, and you started over. Every once in while, you'd get a really good run, and it was immortalized as a "high score" that you'd brag about. Ironically, I think it was computer RPGs like Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale and so on that introduced the idea of the non-disposable protagonist and a plot centered around him (or them).

I believe some of this thinking must have bled back into table-top RPGs because the majority of players I know don't want characters that are "disposible" any more. They have invested a lot in their characters, and want them to succeed and grow in power and influence.

I can definitely see the potential for a culture clash between gamers who think "PCs are precious" and gamers who think "PCs are disposible".

 

[Nellisir]

Seriously, this is just another outward sign of the whole „ PCs are significant and precious by virtue of being a PC” school of thought (a.k.a. „protagonism”)

Riiight. That's why I randomly roll all NPC stats.

Not.

My PCs get +8 in ability modifiers. Classed NPCs get +8 in ability modifiers.

 

[arscott]

If you really wish to blow their minds, mention rolling ability scores in order. After their jaws have dropped, concede that „okay, okay, you can roll two series”.

Seriously, this is just another outward sign of the whole „ PCs are significant and precious by virtue of being a PC” school of thought (a.k.a. „protagonism”) - as opposed to the „PCs may become significant and precious by surviving and doing heroic stuff” baseline that used to be dominant. The same is apparent in thinking about PC death, the destruction of equipment (by rust monsters, for example), the shift from splats in the hands of the DM to splats in the hands of the players… a lot of different things.

All that ends in a culture clash. It is hard to say whether you will be able to reconcile the different attitudes in the group. I could easily do it with my former group (as they mostly shared my preferences, at least subconsciously), but had to give huge concessions to the current one... and in the end, I burned out and stopped DMing, because the players weren’t playing the game I was DMing. To tell the truth, I am quite pessimistic right now, but again, who knows.

I find it hard to accept the idea that point-buy is a symptom of a "PCs are super special" attitude when point buy and other ability generation methods such as arrays are used more often for NPCs than for PCs.

Emphasis on point buy is certainly evidence of a more systematic approach to the game, but systematic doesn't automatically equate with mollycoddling.

 

[diaglo]

3d6 in order. str, int, wis, con, dex, cha

 

[Nellisir]

It seems like every other DM I know uses point buy and I cannot help but feel that point buy has spoiled a lot of players into thinking they can create a character with no holes. This isn't chess. It's D&D. There is randomness in the game and I think players need to get over it.

There is player choice in the game, and DMs need to get over it.

Point buy doesn't eliminate holes or character weakness. I give PCs +8 in ability mods, starting at +0, and they can swap up to 2 points. Max +4 before racial bonuses. 3 out of 4 characters in the most recent round of creation (after a near TPK on their old point-buy characters) opted for a swap, guaranteeing they started out with at least one negative modifier.

The deathblow for random rolling for me was having to roll 12 sets of stats, until the DM found one that was "acceptable". That's not random, that's the DM picking and choosing.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I am a huge advocate of point buy. Our group used to roll for stats and I was fine with it at the time. That was until we started our last campaign where we rolled the stats.

We had a session where we created our characters before the campaign actually started. We used the 4d6 drop lowest and arrange as desired method. One of the players rolled a set of stats where his lowest score was a 14. It took me six tries to even get a viable character (as per the rules, a minimum of a +1 total bonus and high score of at eleast 14 or something like that). Six tries! And my highest was a 15 or 16 with my second highest being a 14. The total bonuses of my character (after taking into account my stats below 10) came out to a +2. The other player's lowest score was a +2 by itself. (Everyone else ended with fairly average stats.)

I ended up playing a rogue and the other guy played a fighter type. With his INT being high, the other player put his extra skill point into rogue style skills (if I wasn't there he would back up the rogue since he has skill points to spare). If it wasn't for his armor check penalty his character would almost have been as good of a rogue as I was. (Yes, I maxed out my rogue skills - at low levels the difference between maxed class skills and maxed cross-class skills is NOT that big a difference.)

At least I had a nitch in the group, right? I could Open Locks better than anyone, right? Well, after I rolled less than 10 a few times Mr. 14 comes in and rolls a 20. This happened on more than one occation. It made me feel like he was a better rogue than my rogue was. I had lost my nitch when he could come in repeatedly and do my job better than I could (I admit - this was when I rolled poorly. That happens. Didn't make me feel any better though). Why was my character even there?

Inside combat, Mr. 14 dominated. It wasn't a team based combat style, it was Mr. 14 along with his sidekicks that kept him alive. I'm sure that over the course of the campaign that others had a chance to get in some cool kills and great shots. I simply don't recall any.

I can sneak attack in combat, right? That would require me to hit, and with my low stats I'm not going to go into melee and flank for that extra +2. Anything in comabt that would challange Mr. 14 would slaughter me. Anything built to fight me in combat would have a heart attack after Mr. 14 looked at him cross-eyed. And you can't have split combats (so Mr. 14 and myself are fighting seporate monsters) all the time.

It also wasn't a case that Mr. 14 was better at everthing than anyone else was. It was a case that his fighter was almost as good as the runt of the litter that was a rogue. There was such a difference in starting power levels and the character level was so low that the rogue was practically redundant. If my character had lived to... say... 10th level, he might have been able to get himself out of Mr. 14's shadow. Even then, 13 skill ranks in something isn't that far off from 6 ranks - but hopefully by then my DEX and magic equipment would hopefully make the gap be larger.

After Mr. 14 and the Runt Rogue - our group started using point buy. We started in the middle of that campaign after my rogue croaked in a method than would have left him with no equipment had I brought him back. No gear to help my runt stand out against the big guy in the party? I'll start over... thanks.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

3d6 in order. str, int, wis, con, dex, cha

Are you sure? Coulda sworn that was str, int, wis, dex, con, cha...