• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Worlds of Design: Rolls vs. Points in Character Building

Let’s talk about methods of generating RPG characters, both stochastic and deterministic.

Let’s talk about methods of generating RPG characters, both stochastic and deterministic.

cube-4716670_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
"Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will." Jawaharlal Nehru

When creating character attributes, there are two broad approaches to generating them: stochastic and deterministic. The stochastic method involves chance, while the deterministic method does not. Most any other method is going to be one of the other, whatever the details. The pros of one method tend to be the cons of the other.

Stochastic
The classic method is rolling dice, usually D6, sometimes an alternative like percentage dice. There are various ways do this. For example, some of the old methods were to sum the roll of 3d6 six times in a specific order of six character abilities. A variation was 3d6 and change the order as desired, another was roll 4d6, don’t count the lowest die, and then you might be able to change order or not; and so forth.

What are the pros of rolling the dice? First of all and primarily, variety (barring cheating). You get a big range of dice rolls. Dice rolling promotes realism, you get a big variation in numbers so you get some 3s, in fact you get as many 3s as 18s, and with some methods you have the opportunity to play characters with “cripplingly bad" ability numbers. Further, it's always exciting to roll dice, whether you like it or not. (Keep in mind, when I first saw D&D I said “I hate dice games.”)

One of the cons of rolling dice is that it's unfair in the long run, a player can get big advantages lasting for years of real-time throughout the campaign just by getting lucky in the first dice rolls. This can be frustrating to those who didn't get lucky. Perhaps even more, rolling dice encourages cheating. I've seen people roll one character after another until they get one they like - meaning lots of high numbers - and then they take that to a game to use. That’s not possible with point buy. Another con is that you may want to play a particular character class yet the dice just won’t cooperate (when you’re rolling in specific order).

Deterministic
The other method which I believe has been devised independently by several people including myself (I had an article for my system published a long time ago) is the one used in fifth edition D&D. A player is given a number of generic points to buy ability numbers. The lowest numbers can be very cheap, for example, if you are using a 3 to 18 scale, when you buy a 3 it may cost you one point, while an 18 may cost 20-some points. You decide what you want, for which ability, and allocate until you run out of points.

Point buy is very fair (FRP is a game, for some people). No one need be envious of someone who either 1) rolled high or 2) rolled many characters and picked the best one. It prevents the typical new character with sky-high abilities, it prevents cheating, so the player has to supply the skill, not rely on bonuses from big ability numbers. Of course, the GM can choose the number of points available to the players so he/she can give generally higher or lower numbers on average as they choose.

But point buy lacks variety for a particular class. The numbers tend to be the same. It's not exciting, it’s cerebral, and as such it takes a little longer than rolling dice. That's all the cons I can think of. Keep in mind I'm biased in favor of point buy. It's clean, fair and simple.

I haven’t spent much time trying to figure out yet another method of generating a character. The only other method I can think of that isn’t one or the other is to have some kind of skilled contest determine the numbers, such as pitching pennies or bowling. Then the question becomes why use one kind of skill over another?

Do you favor one method over the other? And has anyone devised a method that is not stochastic or deterministic?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
Kinda makes sense in Superhero genre; doesn't make a lot of sense in D&D IMO.
I had a great time in a 5e Thule session where both players played Barbarians, and we hacked our way through the poor GM's scenario with great enjoyment! :D

It makes less sense in D&D, I'll agree, but at least at some tables (or for some players) It's a thing. I normally wouldn't want to play a character filling the same niche as another player's, so if Joe always plays halfling rogues it's going to be harder for me to play a rogue at that table (and depending on how halflings are in-setting, it might be harder for me to play a halfling, too). There are exceptions, of course, and a two-player campaign where both characters are barbarians could well be a hoot.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I've seen the "just change the name and play the same character over again" thing happen a few times over the years. The instances all fall into 3 cases:

1) The campaign begins, and a string of die rolls going as badly as they can means someone's character is dead. Instead of sitting out of play to make a new character, just re-use the one that was just finished and has barely even seen play.

2) The campaign has been going on a while, and making a replacement character would mean spending most of the session not actually playing... but wait, your character's oddly similar cousin has just showed up.

3) The campaign is extremely lethal, and characters have been dying left and right. Making a new character every time has grown boring, so just swap a name or add another tally mark and get back in the grinder...

And now that I've typed those out, I notice they share a trend in attitude: not wanting to spend the limited time available building a character rather than playing a character.
Which comes right back to something I've been saying regularly: a grinder-style game doesn't work well if char-gen takes too long.

Under #2 above: "most of the session"? That yells out "system problem" to me, even in a low-lethality game.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It makes less sense in D&D, I'll agree, but at least at some tables (or for some players) It's a thing. I normally wouldn't want to play a character filling the same niche as another player's, so if Joe always plays halfling rogues it's going to be harder for me to play a rogue at that table (and depending on how halflings are in-setting, it might be harder for me to play a halfling, too).
Doesn't bother me - if I've got an idea for a Hobbit Thief (a.k.a. halfling rogue) that covers ground Joe hasn't, I'll play it.

Keep in mind also, that parties, if they're halfway smart, are likely to want to recruit to fill gaps rather than augment what they already have. Thus bringing a third Thief into a party that already has two is likely to be much less useful than bringing in a Cleric, of whch they have none.

There are exceptions, of course
Yes there are: no party can ever have too many Fighters and-or Clerics.

and a two-player campaign where both characters are barbarians could well be a hoot.
I've seen this, though not played in it: two Barbarian (race) Rangers (class) roaming through the northlands killing every Frost Giant they could find.....
 

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
Doesn't bother me - if I've got an idea for a Hobbit Thief (a.k.a. halfling rogue) that covers ground Joe hasn't, I'll play it.

Yeah, but Joe's character is at least reducing your range of options, even then. And even if I thought it was different enough not to step on Joe's toes (heh, heh) I might talk to Joe about it, to make sure he agreed. Depends on the table, and on Joe specifically, how much of a problem this is.

Keep in mind also, that parties, if they're halfway smart, are likely to want to recruit to fill gaps rather than augment what they already have. Thus bringing a third Thief into a party that already has two is likely to be much less useful than bringing in a Cleric, of whch they have none.

Oh, definitely, and if Joe always plays the Halfling Rogue, and no one else has stepped up to play, say, a Cleric, it's hard for some players (I'm one) not to fill that gap. If you're me, and you've been playing Clerics (or spellcasters more broadly) and you want a change, Joe at least is not helping (if you want to play a variety of character types) by always playing the Halfling Rogue.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah, but Joe's character is at least reducing your range of options, even then. And even if I thought it was different enough not to step on Joe's toes (heh, heh) I might talk to Joe about it, to make sure he agreed. Depends on the table, and on Joe specifically, how much of a problem this is.
You're nicer than I am. :) With me, within the allowable race-class combos for the setting it's play-what-you-want; and if I bring in a Hobbit Thief then Joe's just gotta deal with it.

That said, in-character Joe has all the advantages: he's an established character in the party where I'm new, and due to that he's better connected within the group and - very likely - tons wealthier than me. I've a big challenge in front of me just in gaining acceptance within the group.

Oh, definitely, and if Joe always plays the Halfling Rogue, and no one else has stepped up to play, say, a Cleric, it's hard for some players (I'm one) not to fill that gap. If you're me, and you've been playing Clerics (or spellcasters more broadly) and you want a change, Joe at least is not helping (if you want to play a variety of character types) by always playing the Halfling Rogue.
Funny we're saying this, as chances are whenever next* I get to roll up a new core character it'll probably be a Hobbit Thief, as it's one archetype I've never played other than one or two long-ago one-hit wonders.

* - which might be years from now, at this rate... :)
 


AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer
Under #2 above: "most of the session"? That yells out "system problem" to me, even in a low-lethality game.
It has been my experience that a person that can make a new character in a reasonable amount of time relative to the objective level of complication the system puts into creating characters is a rarity. The "typical" player will look at a variety of options, carefully weigh them, and even if "in a hurry' take up enough time that even if it didn't genuinely take most of the session it will end up feeling like most of the session - especially with home common it is that the player doesn't immediately resume play upon completing the character, but instead after another indeterminate period of time when the new character can be brought in to everything else that's going on.

And even the bit of role-play that happens as a new character becomes part of the party can feel like part of the "sitting out of play" experience because it is a result of a character death, not what the players would be spending that part of the session time on otherwise.

And if you, like me, only have 4 hours here or there to squeeze in some gaming and that gets trimmed down by chatting, breaks, and other normal parts of the session that aren't actual game-play, it becomes very easy for even just an hour and half turn around from death to resumed play to be most of the time that was available for actual game-play.
 

aramis erak

Legend
While having heard tales of such things I've never really seen it happen, in well over 35 years at this with - during that time - dozens of players.

With the one-time exception I can think of being, in fact, me.
I'm around 39 years and hundreds of players I estimate about 250 or so. Not that I had trouble keeping a group; I had trouble with players being transferred out or moving due to work. I usually ran 2-3 groups at a time, too, often with entirely different playersets.

I don't mind point buy... but it's not a selling point for me.
 


clearstream

(He, Him)
pic2897087.png

So, I’m really liking the idea of giving players the option to start with the standard array, an array of 14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8 and a Feat, or to spend 4 points from their point buy for a Feat... But what if players want to roll stats? Any ideas how a DM might allow players to modify their rolls and get a Feat for it? 3d6 instead of 4d6k3 maybe? Any math magicians know how that would compare statistically to the lowered array and the 23 point buy?
Do you mean they can take up to two feats, by reducing their points-buy to 23pts? Reading between the lines, I think you are valuing the feat rightly as an ASI and assuming the lost points are potentially 14 or 15 (thus 4 points can count as +2 ability score).

Anyway, to your question, you can use AnyDice to tune the dice thrown, but first you have to frame the problem. AnyDice showed that the average array with 4d6k3 is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, (average 12.3, +6). The highest average 23 point array is 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 11 (11.83, +5) and the most extreme is 15, 15, 13, 8, 8, 8 (11.17, +2). Compare that with 27 points, 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12 (12.5, +6) or 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 (11.5, +3). It seems like you want to reduce the rolled array by about 0.5.

So I think your question might be framed - what reasonable dice can I throw that averages about 11.8 and does not change the range? You suggested 3d6, but that is too penalising because it changes the average to 10.50.

1d6+3d6k2 gives about that, i.e. one die in the normal pool of four is rolled separately and must be kept.

[EDITED to fix earlier bout of slow thinking.]
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top