Worlds of Design: Rolls vs. Points in Character Building

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

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?

 

[lewpuls]

I prefer the method that is fair in game terms, not in life terms - life is clearly not fair.

If the excitement of rolling characters is a significant part of your campaign, there's something wrong with your campaign.

Your character is the accumulation of what he/she/it does, and chooses not to do, not of the ability numbers.

In the only RPG I ever designed, there are no character ability numbers.

LP the OP

 

[R_Chance]

In 1977 Gygax wrote:

Quote: AD&D : As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy — which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can’t or won’t identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:

Method I: All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

Method II: All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method I. 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 scores are retained.

Method III: Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH, INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA. 3d6 are rolled 6 times for each ability, and the highest score in each category is retained for that category.

Method IV: 3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, for 12 characters. The player then selects the single set of scores which he or she finds most desirable and these scores are noted on the character record sheet.»

So, as stated by Gygax, D&D is not a game in which you have to play the character you don't want to play and characters that are barely viable because of quirks of the dice.

Again, if you are going to go through all kinds of dice shenanigans the push towards to upper end of the median, to create viable and interesting characters for the player to engage with, just use Point Buy and be done quickly and fairly.

Have a good day.
/mic drop.

Pick up your mic! Litterbugs.

Ahem, not to be too picky but the Dungeon Masters Guide was published in 1979. The Players Handbook was 1978. The Monster Manual was 1977 Exactly when EGG wrote those words, page 11 of the DMG specifically, is subject to question but I gather he spent about a year on the manuscript of the DMG before editing and publication . Ymmv.

All four of these methods give a player a chance at better ability scores for their character. Method I was the one we used, but we had been using it since about 1975 anyway, to avoid really low rolls. Survival was not a given None of those methods guarantees that you will get the scores needed for the class you want. No 17Charisma, no Paladin. Assassins and Monks had three and four requisites respectively and falling low in any of them meant no Assassin / Monk. Rangers and Illusionists had their requirements (but not as high as a Paladin or in as many areas as the Assassin or Monk). Other classes required a 9 in the prime requisite. Not much of a barrier given the various rolling methods you enumerated. What these methods did do was give you a decent character who could play most, but not all, classes without too many issues.

There was no guarantee you would get exactly what you wanted. And what you ended up with mattered. I remember choosing to play a Paladin once because it seemed like a waste to not make use of that 17 Charisma I ended up with. Despite not "wanting" a Paladin I had a blast playing him until he died, heroically saving the other PCs, at 4th level. You rolled your dice and made your choices from what chance gave you.

I suspect the high mortality rate of PCs in those days and the emphasis on exploring the DMs world made it easier to "put up with" characters who were not exactly what you wanted. The level limits for many non-human races were probably less of an issue because death often came before the level cap was hit. You explored your character options, the world the DM presented and had a blast. We were, of course, all miniature and board wargamers, so fatalities just seemed par for the course Players tend to assume, and plan for, the run up to level twenty in more recent editions.

Point buy will give you exactly what you want / need for the class you have chosen. There is a right and a wrong way to build characters (within certain bounds perhaps). Player control is total, choices do not result from an outside agency (like chance), but from what the player wants. It's an attractive option, but personally I prefer choices based on options and consequences presented by chance. Roll those dice!

As for which is "better", neither I think. It depends on the game, the players and the DM.

 

[Inanity]

Point Buy/Deterministic:
More Control over result.
Fairer.

 

[Darth Solo]

I've lost track of what your point is. You seemed to start by saying that, because the world isn't fair, random rolls can fit any game if a grouip chooses to use them.

Now you seem to be saying that, if a group enjoys random rolls, and if a game provies for them, then a group can use them.

The first claim was interesting and, in my view, false, because there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with what a group chooses, nor with the (un)fairness of the world.

The second claim seems to be uninteresting and bordering on the tautological.


There are points-buy systems that don't manifest the sort of system mastery and kinky munchkin twists you describe here.

One example would be (again) Prince Valiant. Another would be spending XP to change or improve your character in Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP. Another, I think, would be choosing a new PC option in Apocalypse World.

In those systems, player skill - to the extent that it is a thing at all in those games - manifests primarily at the moment of resolution, not in PC building.

In your examples of PB games that don't favor player skill could you provide examples outside your play group of this? I only ask because given any opportunity to 'game the system', why wouldn't the player do so since such a micro-game confers benefit?

Your dismissive attitude of how groups others than yours plays games is revealing of your entire point. But, to be fair, I'd enjoy you sharing examples of how "there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with what a group chooses, nor with the (un)fairness of the world."

Again, call me rude and/or disruptive, but, I need clear examples of play to win me over. Only because running games for a while has shown me my opinions.

 

[Hussar]

In your examples of PB games that don't favor player skill could you provide examples outside your play group of this? I only ask because given any opportunity to 'game the system', why wouldn't the player do so since such a micro-game confers benefit?

Your dismissive attitude of how groups others than yours plays games is revealing of your entire point. But, to be fair, I'd enjoy you sharing examples of how "there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with what a group chooses, nor with the (un)fairness of the world."

Again, call me rude and/or disruptive, but, I need clear examples of play to win me over. Only because running games for a while has shown me my opinions.

There are many, many reasons why players don't "game the system". Not caring about powergaming is probably the highest on the list. Creating to concept would be a big reason as well. Systems where the stats really don't make that much of a difference would be high on the list.

Benefit =/= bigger numbers.

 

[univoxs]

Rolling is fun, point allocation is sensible. Both are fine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In your examples of PB games that don't favor player skill could you provide examples outside your play group of this?

How, exactly, do you propose that someone provide you examples of play from outside their own play?

There are plenty of games where character build is point-buy, but system mastery will not give you an advantage. As noted, Apocalypse World is one, Blades in the Dark another. The counter is that system mastery can aid you even in random generation -- ie, choice of character build after stats in D&D is very susceptible to system mastery.

I only ask because given any opportunity to 'game the system', why wouldn't the player do so since such a micro-game confers benefit?

It isn't a question of if they wouldn't, it's a statement that some games exist where it not really possible.

Your dismissive attitude of how groups others than yours plays games is revealing of your entire point. But, to be fair, I'd enjoy you sharing examples of how "there are many games where random rolls don't fit in ways that having nothing to do with what a group chooses, nor with the (un)fairness of the world."

@pemerton didn't dismiss anything -- he followed up on what you said. You're the one, if anyone is, dismissing other's play. And, he gave you examples. Random stat generation in some games is just silly, not because of any unfairness in the world or because of what a group chooses, but because the very structure of the game would make that pointless. Take Blades in the Dark -- random stat generation doesn't make a bit of sense for this game. It accomplishes nothing and actually skews the resolution mechanic in play. There's no sense to doing random stat generation in Blades, and it has nothing to do with unfairness or choice.

You should really get out an try some other games before making blanket assertions about how games play. Sure, you play the 800 lb. gorilla game, D&D, and it's a great game (I happen to really enjoy 5e), but it's not the apex because how it does things are the bestest of all ways ever. It's the apex because it does enough things well that many people can enjoy playing it. And, that means that there's many ways to play it, not just yours.

Again, call me rude and/or disruptive, but, I need clear examples of play to win me over. Only because running games for a while has shown me my opinions.

I don't think anyone actually cares to win you over. Why would they? They aren't playing with you, nor does what happens at your table impact them. There's an opportunity to discuss how games work, though, which doesn't require anyone to change how they actually play unless they choose to. Don't confuse a willingness to explore how games can play with any attempt to get you to change how you play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

D&D can be many things to many people - but at least through the classic lens as I read those books the fundamental element of PC build is class. Stats are a soft funnel into a class, and I suspect that very few players build their first or even second classic D&D PC as a low-STR high-INT fighter or a vice versa MU.

So rolling for stats is, in a real way, rolling for class. The power variation, especially in the earliest versions with almost flat stat-mods, is modest. It gets greater in AD&D and Moldvay Basic, but the latter also has rules for boosting your main stat at the expense of two other stats.

What distinguishes different instances of the same class in classic D&D tends not to be stats but (i) how they are played at the table, and (ii) what their gear (and, for casters, spell) load-out is.

In contemporary D&D stats aren't just or even mainly a soft funnel for class, if only because there are multiple classes with the same prime requisite, and they are also the foundation of non-combat resolution. Using random generation would be a bit like, in classic D&D, rolling for potency of class abilities. AD&D has a bit of this - percentile strength and chance to know spells - but I don't know many people who point to these as highlights of that system!

Yeah, absolutely. When I was a kid and was playing the older editions of the game, we'd roll our stats, and those would determine what kind of character we'd make. But even then, we quickly started adopting alternative methods that allowed us to build the kinds of characters we wanted to play. The first of these was to roll six scores and then assign them as you wanted. Then we started rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest. And so on.

And then once you start doing that, then I feel the point of rolling is mostly gone.

It depends on the point, flavour, focus etc of play. Part of the appeal of Classic Traveller is that the characters are (in some relative sense) ordinary - they have ordinary origins, they age, they had careers and have bank accounts and pensions, etc. Rolling for stats, for lifepath, for skills etc is part of this. A big part of PC gen is finding out who you are going to be in the world of the far future. Probably no one is going to buy Steward skill, but with random rolling you might discvoer that your character is really good at waiting tables and keeping passengers happy!

At least in my experience one result is a degree of distance or 3rd-person persepctive between player and PC. Though we also use multiple PCs, and while I tend to think that works becusae of the distaincing, maybe I'm confusing cause and effect!

Another thing about stats in Traveller is that they are not super-important in resolution. The standard consideation in resolution is skill level - each skill has its own resolution framework (not as clunky as it sounds, I assert!) and stats often don't factor in at all and even when they do are not normally determinative.

Yeah, the tone and style you're going for can matter a lot. Five Torches Deep, let's say, compared to 5e D&D....one is more about struggling to survive, and the other is about being nigh super-heroic. Rolling makes more sense in Five Torches because of the tone. However, they also mitigate the risk of rolling so poorly as to wind up with a non-viable character, and the way the stats are generated still allows players to pick class and race ahead of time.

In Burning Wheel first the GM after consulting with the players sets a lifepath limit. (Typically 3 to 6.) Then you choose your LPs - this determines your skill options and skill points, your trait (roughly, feat) options and feat points, your starting wealth (wizard spells are something you have to buy with this), and your starting age. Startig age plus modifications from LPs determine your starting physical and mental stat pools, which you then allocate to your stats. Stats are sometimes used in resolution (at different frequencies for different of the 6 stats), and for untrained checks; if you're trainined in a skill then your starting value is derived from the relevant stats but checks are made off your skill rank and your stat is now irrelevant.

It just woudln't make any sense to even look at injecting random rolling into that framework.

In Apocalypse World your playbook gives you four options to choose from for your five stats (Cool, Hot, Sharp, Hard, Weird). Each of those options will set one of those stats (the one that is most important for that sort of character) at +2 (+3 for a couple of playbooks) while the rest will be set between -2 and +2 depending on which option you choose. Character improvement can include raising stats.

Given that most resolution in AW involves rolling 2d6 and adding the appropriate stat, it would be silly - game-breaing - to roll randomly. And the idea of (say) a low-Hard Gunlugger would be even more ridiculous than the low-INT MU that some D&D player somewhere has surely built and played.

But the idea that every Gunlugger is the same because they all have +2 Hard (or +3 if a particular starting move - Insano like Drano - is chosen) is silly. An AW character is not defined by his/her stats, nor even by his/her moves although the latter start to at least establish an outline.of who the character is

Right, this is one thing I touched on earlier. If you have two 16 Wisdom Clerics in D&D, I'd hope that there would still be enough about each of them to make them stand out. There should be enough about the characters that is different so that we don't confuse them simply because they're both wise. I suppose it's easier for a class like Fighter or maybe Rogue, where the focus is even tighter....but then I think that sameness may be more a flaw with the stats themselves, rather than stat parity. If I want my Fighter to be as effective as the other Fighter, than I need to have a Strength score equal to his.

If there were other ways to make them equally effective mechanically, but different in flavor, then perhaps there would be more variety. So something like what 5E allows with a Dexterity based Fighter. You can picture the Strength Based one as clad in heavy armor and swinging a heavy weapon around, and the Dexterity based fighter is a duelist with a rapier. 4E Also promoted this kind of diversity in stats.

This is to say nothing of all the distinction that can be made with personality and goals and so on. I think that games like Apocalypse World promote the non-mechanical differences so much more heavily, that parity in stats among members of the same class or playbook just isn't a concern.

 

[DammitVictor]

And there there are the groups I've been in that didn't just roll scores, they had some specific scheme like 4d6 drop lowest, re-roll 1s and 2s, make 3 sets and choose your favorite (that is the most extreme I've seen, but it's an actual example, not an exaggeration)...

Roll 5d6 (best 3), reroll 1s and 2s unless you roll five of a kind. Any five of a kind is equal to 18 plus the face value of the dice (thus 19-24). Roll seven times, drop lowest. Players had to roll their abilities in front of the DM, while the DM's own DMPCs all had statistically questionable results.

This approach may have had long term consequences on my perception of what kind of game D&D was, but I think D&D also has a problem with its own perception of what kind of game it is: compare any of its own ability generation methods for PCs-- deterministic or random or in-between-- with the ability scores it gives named PCs. Has anyone ever done a comparison of the relative point-buy values of every named PC in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for 3.X, or a statistical analysis of the rolls they had to have made?

The point buy math in modern D&D is balanced around the idea that to have the scores you need to function in your primary and secondary attributes, one or more of your tertiary attributes has to be below average for a standard memeber of your race... but with the exception of Caramon and Raistlin Majere, I can't think of any canonical D&D protagonist heroes for whom that's the case. As someone with multiple dump stats in real life, playing someone with similarly diminished capacities... isn't an enjoyable roleplaying challenge, and it doesn't really fulfill the need for escapism that I want D&D to provide me.

It was mentioned upthread that I like systems that combine deterministic and random elements. I like them because they combine that guarantee that your character will be minimally viable with the possibility of happy surprises from randomized mechanics.

The method mentioned upthread-- which I didn't invent-- is taking a standard (or low) point buy, and then rolling for your stats in order, taking the better of the point-buy value or the rolled value for each ability. This means both that while you have a chance at a "happy surprise" on your primary abilities, you're more likely to end up with better scores in your secondary and tertiary abilities-- which is what makes organic rolling methods more interesting. It also introduces some measure of risk-reward to the process, as rolling over your high scores "wastes" the points you spent on them and, while you're more likely to roll over your low scores, dumping them imposes the risk of having to play them that way.

I originally proposed a more heroic point buy with 3d6 or 4d6k3 to represent the better of two values from the same average and range, but the more I think about it... the more I think I prefer pairing a lower point buy with 5d4, as I think this will make the dice more exciting without drastically increasing the risk of unsatisfying characters.

Another method I've proposed on multiple occasions is based on TSR's Alternity Science Fiction Roleplaying Game, which is a standard class/race/level system: the default method in the PHB is unweighted point-buy, but there are three random systems in the GMG. The first is just a standard rolling method, but the second two are interesting: you pick your species or your profession first, and then each ability score has its own rolling method that guarantees you meet requirements. You're guaranteed to meet minimums and you're unlikely to roll catastrophically low for abilities important to your concept. Only hitch in Alternity is that it doesn't make provisions for rolling above species maximums on your profession rolls, which is easily solved.

Could easily do the same thing with D&D. Each race and class gets its own little table, pick your race and class, pick which formula you want to use for each ability. (Default is, of course, use the better one.) Very, very simple formula for 5e is that every class gets 12+2d4 for their Prime Requisite, 8+3d4 for their other Save Proficiency, and 4+4d4 for the other four abilities. For race/subrace, +2 is 12+2d4 and +1 is 8+3d4, and all Humans are Variant Human.

 

[Lalato]

I love rolling... even when it gives me less than optimal stats. I just... wait for it... roll with it. I'm so prone to keep crappy stats that my DM will request that I reroll

I'm currently on a Life Path chargen kick, mostly looking at systems that are similar to the old Traveler RPG. I've been using a modified version of this...

New method for character creation in 5E

A PDF version of this post is available which includes the tables needed to create a character. Download it here

www.arcanatimes.com

but I'm also looking to incorporate a bit of this that I just found this morning...

Traveller Style Character Creation D&D 5E

docs.google.com