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?

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps, but 15-10-10-9-8-6 gives (or forces!) different choices than 15-15-14-14-10-10 and different again than 18-16-13-12-11-7; and in some systems e.g. 1e D&D where classes are gated by minimum stat requirements the choices also extend to a greater variety of available classes, along with how best to arrange your rolls (if arrangement is allowed).

The problem though, is that 15-10-10-9-8-6 is either not played at all (most likely outcome) or becomes ogre chow at the first opportunity so the player can roll a different character. Now, the 15-15 array or the 18-16 array are both pretty much possible with point buy. Or, at least, very, very close to it. You might have an 8 instead of that 7.

But, again, the issue is, 15-15-13-12-11-7 probably never sees the light of day, or only for a very short time. And that's dead on 5e point buy value. But, IME, that character? At a die rolled table? Not going to happen. Certainly not going to get played at an AD&D table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not for the prime stat, no; but sorting out the others can be trickier with rolled stats depending what the dice gave you.

If you're a single-stat class and roll 16-11-11-11-10-10 it's dirt simple. But if you roll 17-15-14-14-8-7 you've got some more interesting (and maybe tougher) choices to make even though on average those are nicer stats; especially when it comes to what to do with the 8 and the 7.

Edition makes a difference too: my choices would almost certainly be different in 5e (from what I can tell) than in 1e, or in 3e.

I mean, the example you offered of 17-15-14-14-8-7 is much closer to the standard array, so it almost seems like what you're actually saying is that the standard array (which is based on point buy) offers more meaningful choices? Or at least, has a certain level of meaningful choice and that random stat generation may wind up with less or more meaningful choice, depending on the results.

I think that really, when you boil it down, all that point buy or standard array methods do is remove the fluke cases of someone with 6 great stats, someone with 6 awful stats, or someone with 6 average stats. It forces there to be some variety, which seems to be where there may be meaningful choice.

 

[Aldarc]

Point buy is very fair (FRP is a game, for some people).

I'm late to the game, but this point from the OP sticks into my mind.

For some people? What is the alternative even? What is FRP if it's not a game? Seriously. I kinda wish the OP would expand on this point. The term "game" is used in both the terms "Tabletop Roleplaying Games" and "Tabletalk Games." I don't understand why people are so skittish or derisive of the fact that roleplaying games are games. They even derived from "War Games."

That said, in regards to the rest of the post, this largely depends on the system. If you are assuming D&D where rolling stats amounts to six attributes and (possibly) HP, then there is a lot for potential variance. But there are so many games out there where you don't have to worry about the uniformity of builds, even if you don't roll.

How for example would point buy or roll for stats even really apply to games like Fate, Cortex, or PbtA? Though it's possible to consider filling the skill pyramid or using Fate points to "buy" stunts as a point buy, but it doesn't really have the same character of rolling attributes vs. point buy attributes in D&D. You're certainly "building" your character, but it's not necessarily defined about a weak character vs. a strong character (often framed in terms of combat), but about what sort of character can best engage the game world.

But what about the experienced vs. inexperienced players? In games like Fate or Cortex, there is often an explicit emphasis on cooperative character creation with players and the GM helping other players to create characters.

Seeing a lot of folks saying "unfair" when they mean "unequal" in the thread. Rolling is just as fair as point buy is, assuming that every player is given the same particulars and no one is using loaded dice - but rolling produces unequal results.

Insert Rawlsian argument here, otherwise absent for laziness.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem though, is that 15-10-10-9-8-6 is either not played at all (most likely outcome) or becomes ogre chow at the first opportunity so the player can roll a different character. Now, the 15-15 array or the 18-16 array are both pretty much possible with point buy. Or, at least, very, very close to it. You might have an 8 instead of that 7.

But, again, the issue is, 15-15-13-12-11-7 probably never sees the light of day, or only for a very short time. And that's dead on 5e point buy value. But, IME, that character? At a die rolled table? Not going to happen. Certainly not going to get played at an AD&D table.

It might come as a surprise, then, to learn that one of the longest-serving characters (18 adventures, still alive) in my current campaign - a 1e-based game where stats are rolled using 5d6keep3 - started with 15-14-14-13-11-6*. I've also had characters start with stupid-high stats (best I've ever seen was, I think, 18-18-17-17-15-15) and not make it through their first adventure.

* - I have these numbers handy as I did some starting-stat-vs-career-length comparisons a few years back and still have the files.

In 3e, where stats are even more critical, we played it roll-all-the-way: my character - who started with a mighty 15-13-12-11-10-7 (way below the party average!) - went on to a grand career and is probably the best character I've ever had.

Stats make a difference, no question there, but that difference is nowhere near as much as the theory-board would sometimes like to think.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, the example you offered of 17-15-14-14-8-7 is much closer to the standard array, so it almost seems like what you're actually saying is that the standard array (which is based on point buy) offers more meaningful choices? Or at least, has a certain level of meaningful choice and that random stat generation may wind up with less or more meaningful choice, depending on the results.

I think that really, when you boil it down, all that point buy or standard array methods do is remove the fluke cases of someone with 6 great stats, someone with 6 awful stats, or someone with 6 average stats. It forces there to be some variety, which seems to be where there may be meaningful choice.

Agreed that there's probably more meaningful choice involved with a variety of stats; disagree that forcing it is a good thing.

With a fixed array I can't get an 18 and a string of 10-12's, for example; yet that can give a very playable character in a single-stat-dependent class. (I know 5e tends to want two high stats; but other editions don't so much - you can get by with one)

With point-buy - at least in any official version I've seen - I can't get a 7, or a 6; and sometimes a very low stat put in the right place (Wisdom!) takes a character from playable to great! I see 8 as being only mildly below average, just as 13 is only mildly above.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agreed that there's probably more meaningful choice involved with a variety of stats; disagree that forcing it is a good thing.

With a fixed array I can't get an 18 and a string of 10-12's, for example; yet that can give a very playable character in a single-stat-dependent class. (I know 5e tends to want two high stats; but other editions don't so much - you can get by with one)

With point-buy - at least in any official version I've seen - I can't get a 7, or a 6; and sometimes a very low stat put in the right place (Wisdom!) takes a character from playable to great! I see 8 as being only mildly below average, just as 13 is only mildly above.

Yeah, I’m not saying that rolling stats can’t produce viable characters. Just that it can produce non-viable ones.

And as for not having a 6 or 7....I mean, I could take an 8 Wisdom character and play them the same way you’d play a 6 Wisdom character.

I don’t know if the specific numbers matter so much as what they represent.

Which brings us back to what really differentiates characters; how they’re played.

 

[pemerton]

How for example would point buy or roll for stats even really apply to games like Fate, Cortex, or PbtA? Though it's possible to consider filling the skill pyramid or using Fate points to "buy" stunts as a point buy, but it doesn't really have the same character of rolling attributes vs. point buy attributes in D&D. You're certainly "building" your character, but it's not necessarily defined about a weak character vs. a strong character (often framed in terms of combat), but about what sort of character can best engage the game world.

But what about the experienced vs. inexperienced players? In games like Fate or Cortex, there is often an explicit emphasis on cooperative character creation with players and the GM helping other players to create characters.

Yes. I've already made this point a few times in the thread.

Perhaps it's no surprise that it seemed to get more traction with those posters whom I know (from their posting history) have a bit of experience with non-D&D or D&D-clone games!

Insert Rawlsian argument here, otherwise absent for laziness.

I'm not one to eschew a good Rawlsian argument, having written my PhD on (among other authors) Rawls and having just given a lecture on Rawls on Thursday. But on this occasion, I go to Ron instead:

​

Balance: the sort-of issue​

"Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory. . . . [T]he assumption that Gamist play is uniquely or definitively concerned with "balance" is very, very mistaken.​

​

Overall​

1. Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what?
2. Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being used. Also, "Fair" generally means, "What I want."
3. Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or Effectiveness + Resource only?
4. Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has nothing to do with their abilities/oomph?
5. Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather, with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it stops) is distributed among the members of the group?

They can't all be balance at once.​

​

Within Gamist play​

1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, then that's fine.
2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken.
3. Related to #2, a team that is not equipped for the expected range of potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced.
4. In direct contrast to #1, "balance" can also mean that everyone is subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength, regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels & Trolls is all about this kind of play.)
5. The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking.

Edwards goes on to talk about other (non-Gamist) approaches but I think the bit I've quoted covers most of the terrain of this thread: parity, equality of starting point in outcomes vs chances, and the problematic idea of fairness.

 

[aramis erak]

Old School play. Here, since player skills matters as much or more than character abilities, part of the appeal of the game is to "win" in spite of the poor odds given by the random whims of fate. Again, leaning into the poor scores is part of this - when my thief with a 10 Dex manages to steal something and survive, in spite of himself - that's tale for the ages!

One of the key elements of random gen old school games, especially Traveller and BX/BECMI, is figuring out who the character is via 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.

While I've not played AW, I've run Sentinel Comics which is grounded in the same basic approaches. System mastery does matter in play ... but it's a different skillset from trad games.

In trad games, it's about knowing your odds, knowing the rounding points, knowing your character abilities, and knowing the rules well enough to make informed decisions.

In SC, system mastery is based on the knowing of how to describe so you get to use the best stats. It's much less mastery of the rules and more knowing the thresholds of the GM and other players.

That's a lower bar than in, say, BX, where knowing the spell list is a highly useful skill for players... even non-wizards benefit from judging NPCs by the spells they cast.

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.

Ah, the Dark Sun rolling method...

The tier of play a campaign reaches is not "a roll of the dice" by design.

I don't really get the points buy = samey thing. Here are three reasons for that.

I've seen players literally photocopy their character sheet, and when the character died, simply pull it out, transcribe it on a new sheet, and change only the name.
It's not that the characters are the same across the group, its that the individual has ONE character they play, and they use it each and every time they play game X.
In one case, I was watching a 2E S&P D&D campaign, full point buy. Player's character died before level 2. Player erased the name, wrote in a new one, changed one language.

What I don't get is how rolling gets a pass just because placing scores with the same order of priority happens to result in different numbers. It's still the "same" even though the volume has been turned up or down compared to point buy depending on how well the rolls went.

Many games (not AD&D) are roll stats in order.
D&D BX is roll in order, and only 3d6. But if you have a high score in an att other than your prime, you can trade 2 points from non PR for 1 point to the PR attribute.
D&D 3 draws far more from the AD&D side than the BX/BECMI/Cyclopaedia side...
Because the roll in order hands you a character with only some elements

In Prince Valiant, there are two abilities, Brawn and Presence, and 7 points to allocate to them. The number of points in a score represents coins tossed in action resolution (heads are succdesses). In our game we have two Brawn 4, Presence 3 (both knights) and two Brawn 3, Presence 4 (one started as a squire but is now a knight; the other is a travelling performer). There is no scope in this system for making a random roll for stats. You could toss a coin to decide whether you want to play a more physical or more mental character, but that would be like a 5e player tossing a coin to choose between fighter and wizard. That's not random stat generation.

Actually, it's very easy to scope a random gen for it... you only got halfway to looking at it.
1 point in each as a base. Grab 5 coins. toss them. each head adds 1 to presence, each tail to brawn. 15 seconds to random character... but that's also automatically keeps it within the 7 point scope of starting PCs. A hybrid of random and deterministic.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Isn't it funny how anecdotes are meant to be proof of things.

I mean, IME, die rolling is pretty much nothing but sanctioned cheating, but, I'm not supposed to say that because, well, lots of people are going to jump up and down and talk about how they never cheat on chargen despite the fact that you can poll pretty much any die rolled D&D group and their averages will almost always and certainly far more often than they should, will be higher than random chance allows for.

But, @aramis erak has two bad players twenty or thirty years ago, and that's apparently proof that point buy creates cookie cutter characters.

 

[aramis erak]

Heh. Isn't it funny how anecdotes are meant to be proof of things.

I mean, IME, die rolling is pretty much nothing but sanctioned cheating, but, I'm not supposed to say that because, well, lots of people are going to jump up and down and talk about how they never cheat on chargen despite the fact that you can poll pretty much any die rolled D&D group and their averages will almost always and certainly far more often than they should, will be higher than random chance allows for.

But, @aramis erak has two bad players twenty or thirty years ago, and that's apparently proof that point buy creates cookie cutter characters.

Only two who simply replaced the name.

I've seen a dozen who try to build the same character in EVERY game they play.

And I've seen another dozen or so who play fairly close, but adjusted to cover the gaps that got the prior killed.

I only pointed out the two because people (clearly including you) often think that kind of asshattery doesn't happen, being too far over the edge.

But I've seen it happen with those same two players in Vampire, GURPS, and one of them tried it in Streetfighter. In that third case, I was the GM, and I simply rejected it and said, "build something different." He got huffy about it, but decided that he'd rather play something he wasn't comfortable with than go home.

And while it happens far less often in rolled-atts D&D, at least in D&D the stats are usually not the same.