Worlds of Design: Rolls vs. Points in Character Building

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
It's worth noting that the DMG was nearly a year after the PHB... long enough for players to have realized that AD&D stats had far more importance than Original D&D or even Holmes Basic.

THe OE core had no attribute requirements for classes. Only penalties for substandard ones.

that Many GM's still used flat 3d6 says Gygax was a powergaming (expletive adjective) who was as detrimental as he was beneficial to the game. The AD&D 2E explosion - both in depth and breadth of sales - really shows just how much getting rid of Gary was a GOOD THING.

And it uses 3d6 as standard. Playing paladins isn't supposed to be the core play. It also quite properly moves the 1e DMG alternatives into the PHB, and makes them the Alternate versions, with the original 3d6 roll as the primary, and bog-standard, mode.

Point buy is plagued with other problems -
repeat characters (just tack on a roman numeral and return to 1st level abilities) being the largest.
Player indecision, especially for novices, can be a huge problem.

Yeah, no thanks. Why waste space in the PHB for a class that only a tiny percentage will be "allowed" to play, even if they choose to do so? If we're going to restrict classes based on die rolls, then there is zero reason for them to be in the PHB. Give me classes that we can actually PLAY, instead of forcing me to wait for that 1% of die rolled characters that actually gets a 17 or 18 (never minding rangers, druids or monks which are nearly as hard to qualify for) so that if I'm in the mood, I can play a paladin.

And, frankly, because 3d6 averages out so much, most characters are virtually indistinguishable anyway. Roll 3d6 in order ten times and most of the characters are within a point or so of each other anyway. The myth that die rolling leads to more variation is just that, a myth. Particularly in light of even if the group forces players to accept a given set, falling on the sword of the first orc you see so you can roll again means that it doesn't really matter.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Only if a) you peek behind the frames and b) there isn't in fact more setting there.

The setting is - or certainly can be - independent of the campaign, notwithstanding any changes made to it as a direct result of said campaign.

It has to be, in fact, if there's any intention of reusing it or - in the extreme - trying to publish it.

Reuse a setting? Bleah. How boring. Thousands of settings out there and you want to recycle? Yuck. No thanks. Every campaign should have its own setting. Keeps things fresh and interesting instead of stuck in a rut.
 

Reuse a setting? Bleah. How boring. Thousands of settings out there and you want to recycle? Yuck. No thanks. Every campaign should have its own setting. Keeps things fresh and interesting instead of stuck in a rut.
I design my own settings, and have come to realize it's a lot of bloody work.

Work, I've now concluded, I'd far prefer to only have to do (or have already done) once.

There's vast areas of my current setting that in 12+ years of play have yet to be visited, meaning I could run a whole new campaign there and while the astronomy etc. would be familiar to the players the local area and region certainly wouldn't.
 

Are you comfortable with some PCs having much better stats then others? Because if you roll, there is a fair chance this will happen. I would consider how much PC attributes affect a player's outcomes. Attributes mean more in some systems than others.

In a bonded accuracy system like 5E, even a +1 can be quite significant. I would prefer point buy in such a system as I think higher stats can have a major impact on character effectiveness. In a more open-ended system like 3.X, class level bonuses, magic item bonuses and skill points count for more (in the long run) than attributes. I'd be more open to rolling in that case.
 

I design my own settings, and have come to realize it's a lot of bloody work.

Work, I've now concluded, I'd far prefer to only have to do (or have already done) once.

There's vast areas of my current setting that in 12+ years of play have yet to be visited, meaning I could run a whole new campaign there and while the astronomy etc. would be familiar to the players the local area and region certainly wouldn't.

This. I am probably going to be pilloried for this by people who want entirely new things, but I've used the same world / setting for 45 years now. From the original game to 5E (skipping 4E, sorry not my cup of tea). More time if you count Chainmail fantasy supplement miniature games. We were into campaign play, taxation, recruiting, sieges etc. with each campaign season based off the last :) It's a world. It's big. It has tremendous variation. The world has changed overtime (and I've advanced it's history with new editions). With complex social systems, cultures, a well developed history, and interesting NPCs I don't see how someone couldn't find more to explore in it. I've plowed in detail and my players seem to enjoy that about it. The fun is in exploring a world and "living" in it.

The only other fantasy (or science fantasy in one case) settings I've ever used were Tekumel (but Empire of the Petal throne is addictive), Glorantha (we went through a Runequest phase) and Bushido's version of fantasy Japan. In have cribbed ideas from a number of settings (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, the original Forgotten Realms and many more), but that was pillaging cool stuff for my own game :D

What my game doesn't have is radically different systems (magic, combat, levelling, skills, etc.) other than moving from edition to edition, but if your staying with the same game system over time, that shouldn't be an issue.

All, imho, of course. Throw in the standard ymmv. I like the depth, world building and tinkering with game systems that comes out of that. Not everyone does and that's fine :)
 

Reuse a setting? Bleah. How boring. Thousands of settings out there and you want to recycle? Yuck. No thanks. Every campaign should have its own setting. Keeps things fresh and interesting instead of stuck in a rut.
For some of us, that a setting has specific tropes makes the setting desirable for reuse, rather than learning a new setting sharing those tropes.

And some of us on;y do short-ish campaigns. My longest calendared campaign lasted 3 years... but only played 3 sessions each year. My typical runs 4 months to 6 months. I tend to run 2-3 campaigns at a time. Usually 2 of system A, and one of B. This pandemic is an odd period. I'm running only one campaign.

In short campaigns, there is almost always something left to explore.

And to be blunt, if a setting is to have depth, it's usually easier to reuse it than do a new one, and players do tend to notice... but they also tend to complain if they need to read more than an aggregate of 2 to 3 pages of setting material.... so if a GM wants a deep campaign setting, he's got to spoon feed it to the players... and in short campaign mode, by doing multiple campaigns there, possibly in 4 month chunks over years.
 

that Many GM's still used flat 3d6 says Gygax was a powergaming (expletive adjective) who was as detrimental as he was beneficial to the game. The AD&D 2E explosion - both in depth and breadth of sales - really shows just how much getting rid of Gary was a GOOD THING.
I agree that powergaming is a thing, and that the goals of powergaming sometimes overwrite the goals of RP. What I would just like to add however is that it is not a guaranteed dichotomy: it is possible to make characters that are both beneficial to the game and mechanically robust.

Point buy is plagued with other problems -
repeat characters (just tack on a roman numeral and return to 1st level abilities) being the largest.
Player indecision, especially for novices, can be a huge problem.
So true! This is one of the dissonances for me with commentators identifying random with powergaming, while not also identifying points-buy with powergaming. While it is true that points-buy prevents some of the crazier statlines, it is also highly subject to cookie-cutter power-builds. Where stats fall in just the right places.
 

So true! This is one of the dissonances for me with commentators identifying random with powergaming, while not also identifying points-buy with powergaming. While it is true that points-buy prevents some of the crazier statlines, it is also highly subject to cookie-cutter power-builds. Where stats fall in just the right places.
The simplest solution to rounding breakpoints is to not have any divisions in the char gen...

IE, rather than have (Siz+Con)/2 HP and d6 swords, have (Siz+Con) HP and 1d12 swords.
 

of course this doesn’t work for random groups or all permanent groups even, but in ours we tend toward ‘rolls, can substitute point buy if rolls are unplayable, and people who got godlike rolls will often ‘donate’ points to those who got unlucky to buff them up to par.
 

Yeah, no thanks. Why waste space in the PHB for a class that only a tiny percentage will be "allowed" to play, even if they choose to do so? If we're going to restrict classes based on die rolls, then there is zero reason for them to be in the PHB. Give me classes that we can actually PLAY, instead of forcing me to wait for that 1% of die rolled characters that actually gets a 17 or 18 (never minding rangers, druids or monks which are nearly as hard to qualify for) so that if I'm in the mood, I can play a paladin.

And, frankly, because 3d6 averages out so much, most characters are virtually indistinguishable anyway. Roll 3d6 in order ten times and most of the characters are within a point or so of each other anyway. The myth that die rolling leads to more variation is just that, a myth. Particularly in light of even if the group forces players to accept a given set, falling on the sword of the first orc you see so you can roll again means that it doesn't really matter.

I'm just trying to come at this from a different angle: Are you okay with D&D's tiers of play? (and) Do you accept a campaign where a character can die? If so, what's the difference between reaching tier 2 or 3, a spot where characters are far stronger and their abilities far greater?

The way I'm looking at it is an enormous amount of the PHB is relegated for tiers of play many don't see, either because they play in a gritty campaign where death happens often or they don't continue play longer than six months. So why is it so bad for a class to be in there that many players won't be able to play. I mean, characters die all the time because of bad dice rolls. For the paladin it's just inverted, you can't reach this pinnacle because of bad dice rolls.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for reading.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top