When I first started playing D&D, 3E was my first system. Initially, we played with random dice rolls for generating ability scores; it was what I was familiar with, after playing the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale video games (Baldur's Gate 2 came coupled with a 3E character generator, which sparked my interest in the PnP game). It was a year or so into our first game (still the longest game I've ever gotten to run) that we became dissatisfied with rolling ability scores; I believe one of the characters had rolled especially worse than the others, and one character had rolled especially better. We began using point buy.
Quickly after using the standard point buy array in 3E (was it 25 points?), we started to want bigger stats (4d6 drop the lowest always felt like it produced better stats than 25 point buy, since the rules said to throw out especially low rolls). To counter the higher stats for the players, I started giving monsters and NPCs better stats; the players had more fun with their higher stats, and I felt like the game was still balanced.
When 4E came out, point buy and static arrays were the baseline. It made characters balanced, but eventually I began to long to see more organic characters. We quickly discovered that 16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8 was one of the better arrays: if your 16 and a 14 were put in your race's bonus stats, you'd have a +4, +3, +2, +1, +0, -1 modifier spread. Occasionally, you'd see someone push for a starting 18 (18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8), or you'd get someone who spread out their ability bonuses (ending with 16, 16, 16, 13, 10, 8), but by and large everyone's stats were the same. Gone were the days of having a high strength wizard or a high charisma fighter.
I don't fully want to go back to rolling, but as a compromise I did think of this idea: Why not roll and use point buy at the same time? The idea is simple; begin rolling your stats, and keep a running tally of what your point buy total is. If you roll 5 scores and still have points left over, use those points to purchase your final score. If one of your rolls puts you over your total, decrease that roll appropriately and round out the rest.
Using 4E's point buy system, here's some stat arrays it could generate, using the 3.5 pointbuy system (modified to include low stats; rather than 25 base, this is 55 base):
| Ability | Points | Ability | Points | Ability | Points |
| 4 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 14 | 11 |
| 5 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 15 | 13 |
| 6 | 3 | 11 | 8 | 16 | 15 |
| 7 | 4 | 12 | 9 | 17 | 18 |
| 8 | 5 | 13 | 10 | 18 | 21 |
14, 14, 10, 6, 9; this leaves 17 points left over, so 15 points buys a 16, and the remaining 2 points over flow into the 9, increasing it to 11: 14, 14, 10, 6, 11, 16
15, 10, 14, 17; this set now has 6 points remaining, which could buy a 9 and a 3, or two 6's.
Any thoughts? Just a random idea really.
I always enjoyed the variant of 3E where your roll each statistic in order (Strength, then Dex, then Con, etc.) with the 4d6-lowest method. You had to keep each number you rolled for each stat, but were allowed to swap 2 and re-roll 1 (I think). It always made for good roleplaying to see a Fighter with 16 Cha, or a Wizard with a 17 in Str. The variant still allowed players to make sure their characters had good primary stats, but kept the rest organic, randomized, and somewhat realistic - as in the real world, we're stuck with the "stats" we have, regardless whether we like them or not.
2d6+6? I mean, your system is cool and everything too, so whatever works :)
I don't understand the fascination people have with randomly determined stats.
If you want a 16 charisma fighter or 17 strength wizard or whatever, make one. If that's the goal, why sit there tossing dice until they come up a certain way?
Because, at least in my opinion, most people won't chose to give their Wizard 17 Str unless they really like role-playing and have no interest in power-gaming. The randomization makes for some interesting characters that normally wouldn't be made. I just think it's a nice variation that adds a bit of chaos to the law of D&D (See what I did there? Hey-o zing!)
One thing I liked about 4E, as far as ability scores were concerned, what they did with the ties of scores and defenses. It caused a few problems, like making high Str/Con, Dex/Int, or Wis/Cha characters slightly inferior, but it always gave me an idea: What if defenses were the addition of both stats in a pair? This would allow characters to gain something substantial from random high stats.
Now, I don't like fully random stats, simply because I like players to have even playing fields.
Quote from: Señor Leetzmost people won't chose to give their Wizard 17 Str unless they really like role-playing and have no interest in power-gaming. The randomization makes for some interesting characters that normally wouldn't be made.
People won't give a Wizard 17 Str or whatever because it's not optimal to do that with the current point-buy system. However, if the goal of the game is to try to play some kind of unconventional character archetype, there's nothing stopping the group from deciding they're going to generate characters differently, to support that, like giving more points in the point-buy or coming up with a stat array for each class that is optimized except for some weirdness like that, or... well, whatever they want, really. Like I said,
just make one. Randomly rolling stats just removes any player choice, which is not necessary in the least.
I agree with you for the most part, Sparkle, but sometimes narrowing (not eliminating) player involvement makes for some really interesting and fun situations that wouldn't be created under normal circumstances - such as the Wizard who can throw a solid punch, the curmudgeon Bard, or the Fighter who can understand chaos theory mathematics. Simply from a literary, story-telling perspective, I think those kinds of characters - the imperfect, non-optimized type - make for more interesting and, at the end of the day, realistic, characters, as none of us are optimized for anything.
EDIT - I suppose the difference is whether the game is played as that, a game, or is played more as a story. I like the randomized option, as I am much more in line with the story-telling, fluffy aspects of D&D as opposed to the crunch.
I understand what you're saying but I just feel completely differently about it. I guess randomly throwing some dice can create archetypes you wouldn't have thought of, but look at that list of examples you gave-- you just thought of three cool archetypes right off the top of your head, so it's not like it's that hard to generate interesting character archetypes without resorting to pure randomness. And, you know, throwing dice wouldn't even give you that level of depth, you'd have to come up with the background touches like "can understand chaos theory" yourself, the dice would just say "You get Int 16."
So, to make a comment that fits the original topic of the thread, personally, I dislike any sort of random stat generation at all. :grin:
Personally I like the most important stats for a class/race to be the highest. And by highest I mean highest possible. I'm one of those guys who's not happy without a 20 if he can point buy. I did what people tend to do with the rest (ranking them and scaling them down to the points I could accept) but that seemed more like tedious bookwork after the 20.
In what I'm working on, I'm favoring two maxed stats (determined by class and race) and the rest rolled in order. I like it for the potential idea generation, and because it might encourage interesting skill and power choices down the road (this being more specific to how my system works).
For the rolled portion I'm going with 4d4 no drops. The range of ability modifiers is smaller, and the curve a bit tighter, but that's sort of what I was after.
To make a comment that fits the OP, I consider the rolling of dice to represent the chaos function/randomization effect of a game, whether it be in chargen or in the game itself.
The random part of the game, and the way players respond to it, is part of the unknowability of the game. I have often allowed PCs to change one or two things to fit an archetype or ideal....but I have always found, with dozens of gamers and literally hundreds of PCS, that the most fun characters develop, as Xev mentions, organically. All the time.
Quote from: Xev
When 4E came out, point buy and static arrays were the baseline. It made characters balanced, but eventually I began to long to see more organic characters. We quickly discovered that 16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8 was one of the better arrays: if your 16 and a 14 were put in your race's bonus stats, you'd have a +4, +3, +2, +1, +0, -1 modifier spread. Occasionally, you'd see someone push for a starting 18 (18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8), or you'd get someone who spread out their ability bonuses (ending with 16, 16, 16, 13, 10, 8), but by and large everyone's stats were the same. Gone were the days of having a high strength wizard or a high charisma fighter.
Yes. After a while, sincde the mindset it to 'manufacture' instead of 'respond to', of course most players go similar routes.
Damn, I responded an lost it.
Quote from: Xev
When 4E came out, point buy and static arrays were the baseline. It made characters balanced, but eventually I began to long to see more organic characters. We quickly discovered that 16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8 was one of the better arrays: if your 16 and a 14 were put in your race's bonus stats, you'd have a +4, +3, +2, +1, +0, -1 modifier spread. Occasionally, you'd see someone push for a starting 18 (18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8), or you'd get someone who spread out their ability bonuses (ending with 16, 16, 16, 13, 10, 8), but by and large everyone's stats were the same. Gone were the days of having a high strength wizard or a high charisma fighter.
Of course, the mindset has gone from roleplaying to manufacturing.
Randomization, whether in the game or in chargen, takes the placed of the unknowable. Of chaos. Of something unusual happenning. Of excitement.
Some people like games with lots of 'get out of jail free cards' and some people want the dice to represent random chance unburnished.
After playing hundreds of games and running hundreds of characters (literally), uniformly, it is the players who synergize what they are given with the game world that seem to make the most remarkable characters.
It's like sex. You can do it by yourself and decide everything safely. Or, you can dare to introduce the randomness of a partner. Point buy is chargen masturbation.
Quote from: LordVreegOf course, the mindset has gone from roleplaying to manufacturing.
This is treading dangerously close to the old "rollplayer vs roleplayer" false dichotomy.
In a role playing
game, all characters are "manufactured." Players generally show up to the game with some idea of what the game's genre, milieu, and so on are going to be, and some idea how they are going to want to fit into that world. Naturally, these players would like for the mechanics to support them being able to play that chosen character archetype. If they don't, the player probably won't be too engaged in the game, because nothing takes you out of an RPG faster than being stuck with a character you don't really want to play. Sure, sometimes players just don't know or don't care, and at that point, maybe a bit of randomness is fun. But they usually have some idea, and in those cases, not allowing players to "manufacture" their characters (at least to some extent) is simply a recipe for a disappointing game all around.
Quote from: LordVreegit is the players who synergize what they are given with the game world that seem to make the most remarkable characters
I see what you are saying here, but I don't think this really has anything to do with how the stats are generated. All point buy or an array do is attempt to assure some degree of mechanical balance, so the guy with all 3's isn't stuck in the party with the guy with all 18's. It's just a starting point. Beyond this, the character generation process can and should be organic. I'd also say it's not just players taking "what they are given" but rather an
exchange of ideas-- the GM building the world around the characters while the players build their characters to fit in the world.
A true partnership. Doesn't that better fit your "sex" analogy anyway? :grin:
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: LordVreegOf course, the mindset has gone from roleplaying to manufacturing.
This is treading dangerously close to the old "rollplayer vs roleplayer" false dichotomy.
In a role playing game, all characters are "manufactured." Players generally show up to the game with some idea of what the game's genre, milieu, and so on are going to be, and some idea how they are going to want to fit into that world. Naturally, these players would like for the mechanics to support them being able to play that chosen character archetype. If they don't, the player probably won't be too engaged in the game, because nothing takes you out of an RPG faster than being stuck with a character you don't really want to play. Sure, sometimes players just don't know or don't care, and at that point, maybe a bit of randomness is fun. But they usually have some idea, and in those cases, not allowing players to "manufacture" their characters (at least to some extent) is simply a recipe for a disappointing game all around.
Quote from: LordVreegit is the players who synergize what they are given with the game world that seem to make the most remarkable characters
I see what you are saying here, but I don't think this really has anything to do with how the stats are generated. All point buy or an array do is attempt to assure some degree of mechanical balance, so the guy with all 3's isn't stuck in the party with the guy with all 18's. It's just a starting point. Beyond this, the character generation process can and should be organic. I'd also say it's not just players taking "what they are given" but rather an exchange of ideas-- the GM building the world around the characters while the players build their characters to fit in the world.
A true partnership. Doesn't that better fit your "sex" analogy anyway? :grin:
You know, you may be onto something about the 'rollplayer vs roleplayer' thing, though I don't know if it is so much a false dichotomy as much as a real pair of ingredients that go into almost every player. I agree that players like to know about a setting and game, and often have an idea what they want to play. I also agree that no one likes playing a character they really don;t want. Seen it happen, and it is ugly.
As to the second part, I was specifically talking about players who synergize what they were given in Chargen, including stats generation. And it was taking what they were given, when it comes to random generation. Some of the most amazingly played characters were off the beaten track and would have never been created. I understand what point buy is for, but I really believe it fundamentally changes the character generation...but I also don't believe that it changes it into something bad or wrong.
And I'm not sure if it fits the sex analogy better...but it is another good fit
Quote from: LordVreegI don't know if it is so much a false dichotomy as much as a real pair of ingredients that go into almost every player.
Yes, that's what I meant. There seems to be a certain belief going around in some circles that "real roleplayers don't care about stats" or "character optimizers are all munchkins who don't roleplay" or whatever, and of course this is nonsense.
Quote from: LordVreegSome of the most amazingly played characters were off the beaten track and would have never been created.
That goes back to my initial point. I just don't buy that interesting/weird/off the beaten track characters necessarily require any sort of randomization in order to be created. All it takes is the spark of an offbeat idea-- a random roll can give that, sure, but all that background that really makes the offbeat character so compelling doesn't come from the roll. And it's certainly possible to make a character like that by design, too, and even do something weird with the stats so they look more "organic," while still preserving some semblance of game balance.
Quote from: SparkleThat goes back to my initial point. I just don't buy that interesting/weird/off the beaten track characters necessarily require any sort of randomization in order to be created. All it takes is the spark of an offbeat idea-- a random roll can give that, sure, but all that background that really makes the offbeat character so compelling doesn't come from the roll. And it's certainly possible to make a character like that by design, too, and even do something weird with the stats so they look more "organic," while still preserving some semblance of game balance.
well, don't take just my word for it. And this is with just a few posters.
Quote from: Xev
When 4E came out, point buy and static arrays were the baseline. It made characters balanced, but eventually I began to long to see more organic characters. We quickly discovered that 16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8 was one of the better arrays: if your 16 and a 14 were put in your race's bonus stats, you'd have a +4, +3, +2, +1, +0, -1 modifier spread. Occasionally, you'd see someone push for a starting 18 (18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8), or you'd get someone who spread out their ability bonuses (ending with 16, 16, 16, 13, 10, 8), but by and large everyone's stats were the same. Gone were the days of having a high strength wizard or a high charisma fighter.
Quote from: Senor L
I agree with you for the most part, Sparkle, but sometimes narrowing (not eliminating) player involvement makes for some really interesting and fun situations that wouldn't be created under normal circumstances - such as the Wizard who can throw a solid punch, the curmudgeon Bard, or the Fighter who can understand chaos theory mathematics. Simply from a literary, story-telling perspective, I think those kinds of characters - the imperfect, non-optimized type - make for more interesting and, at the end of the day, realistic, characters, as none of us are optimized for anything.
So the point is that you are completely correct that randomization is not required, per se, to have offbeat/weird characters happen. The rules allow it, and once in a great while, a player wil ahndicap or do somehting strange. It is just in most every GM's experience that it does not happen very much without the randomization.
And I still say that while a player and GM might create something different through their interaction, the raqndomization still opens ideas that would never occure to either without that wierd roll or combination of rolls.
A system would need to be designed with something new to reward offbeat ideas. As of 4th Edition D&D, you were absolutely punished for not putting the highest stat you could into your Attack stat. This was so necessary to make you feel effective that it hampered multiclassing; you had to multiclass with something with your same primary attribute, otherwise it sucked. Maybe it didn't mathematically suck, but it looked like it sucked, and perception is a huge part of the enjoyment of the game.
If you have a 14 Con, for instance, and your class doesn't use Strength, there's little reason to have anything other than an 8 in Strength. You don't use it. You probably won't feel bad about your low athletics score or your low carrying capacity. You can just use Acrobatics to get out of grapples.
I have never played a game using "roll in order, then pick your class", but it sounds fun for a quick game..
Quote from: Xeviat
A system would need to be designed with something new to reward offbeat ideas. As of 4th Edition D&D, you were absolutely punished for not putting the highest stat you could into your Attack stat. This was so necessary to make you feel effective that it hampered multiclassing; you had to multiclass with something with your same primary attribute, otherwise it sucked. Maybe it didn't mathematically suck, but it looked like it sucked, and perception is a huge part of the enjoyment of the game.
If you have a 14 Con, for instance, and your class doesn't use Strength, there's little reason to have anything other than an 8 in Strength. You don't use it. You probably won't feel bad about your low athletics score or your low carrying capacity. You can just use Acrobatics to get out of grapples.
I have never played a game using "roll in order, then pick your class", but it sounds fun for a quick game..
I have run maybe 20-30 session with other types of systems OTHER than roll in order, and pick your class/skills.
the other 1400-1500 odd sessions have been of that type. I vastly prefer it. For long term or fun games, personal preference. Sparkle is totally correct that it is no fun to play a character you don't like or don';t want to play. So I always allow a few rerolls. But you have to take the stats rolled in order in all my games.
Quote from: LordVreegSo the point is that you are completely correct that randomization is not required, per se, to have offbeat/weird characters happen. The rules allow it, and once in a great while, a player wil ahndicap or do somehting strange. It is just in most every GM's experience that it does not happen very much without the randomization.
The point I was really trying to make is that not only is randomization not required, it is not even the most efficient or best way to get these "oddball" characters if that is actually what the player or group wants. Randomization isn't the best way to get
any specifically definable sort of character because it's, you know,
random. You're just as likely to get a bunch of totally average characters. If purely random is what you want, that's great, but we were talking about trying to make a certain idea happen. The reason these odd characters normally don't happen very often with most of the character generation schemes in common use is not due to some inherent property of random rolling, but rather because most of the other schemes don't encourage it at all: Point buy encourages min-maxing. Predefined arrays encourage characters built around whatever concepts the array best supports. And so on. So, if you want "oddball" characters pick a scheme that actually encourages that and use it-- like using point buy but forcing players to spend points in what would normally be a "dump stat," or just having players write in whatever they want, or something. Having everyone just roll their stats randomly doesn't specifically encourage anything, except maybe party disparity and game imbalance.
Quote from: LordVreegthe raqndomization still opens ideas that would never occure to either without that wierd roll or combination of rolls
Like I've said already, the dice just produce numbers, not ideas. Stat generation just says your fighter has an Int of 16. The idea that leads to a creative and interesting character, which is independent of the means the stats were generated, comes from deciding that 16 means she's good at trigonometry. Or can read Old Crapovian. Or both. Or whatever. No method of stat generation inherently grants this creative spark, and they all can.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: LordVreegSo the point is that you are completely correct that randomization is not required, per se, to have offbeat/weird characters happen. The rules allow it, and once in a great while, a player wil ahndicap or do somehting strange. It is just in most every GM's experience that it does not happen very much without the randomization.
The point I was really trying to make is that not only is randomization not required, it is not even the most efficient or best way to get these "oddball" characters if that is actually what the player or group wants. Randomization isn't the best way to get any specifically definable sort of character because it's, you know, random. You're just as likely to get a bunch of totally average characters. If purely random is what you want, that's great, but we were talking about trying to make a certain idea happen. The reason these odd characters normally don't happen very often with most of the character generation schemes in common use is not due to some inherent property of random rolling, but rather because most of the other schemes don't encourage it at all: Point buy encourages min-maxing. Predefined arrays encourage characters built around whatever concepts the array best supports. And so on. So, if you want "oddball" characters pick a scheme that actually encourages that and use it-- like using point buy but forcing players to spend points in what would normally be a "dump stat," or just having players write in whatever they want, or something. Having everyone just roll their stats randomly doesn't specifically encourage anything, except maybe party disparity and game imbalance.
Quote from: LordVreegthe randomization still opens ideas that would never occure to either without that wierd roll or combination of rolls
Like I've said already, the dice just produce numbers, not ideas. Stat generation just says your fighter has an Int of 16. The idea that leads to a creative and interesting character, which is independent of the means the stats were generated, comes from deciding that 16 means she's good at trigonometry. Or can read Old Crapovian. Or both. Or whatever. No method of stat generation inherently grants this creative spark, and they all can.
You are certainly right about the game balance thing. When I used to teach GMing, one major focus was that being able to work with player imbalance, character imblance, and party imbalance (vs others and the word at large) was a high-level GM skill that could take a while to develop. As D&D shifted to AD&D, and ability scores and classes meant more and more advantages, We saw more and more balance issues caused by the rules that required a better GM to deal with.
And you can create other systems other than randomization to reward oddball characters, but then that becomes the normal, so they aren't that oddball anymore.
However, I think you are totally wrong in your assertion that the method of stat generation is indepenent to the creative process. How you get your above mentioned intelligence of 16 is
completely part of the creative process. You don't need it, but the inclusion of a system that will return a result different from what a player normally does or has done before will introduce a new viewpoint. It is not to say that this is the only way to make creative and different characters, it's just one more factor in the equation. And heck, modifying how the dice effect chargen is a whole other intersting part of game design, as any who have gone through the GS process of rolling race and social and social aquisition can attest. You can have randomness add a little or a lot.
Randomness also allows a GM to create a system where they can control the probability curve, which makes a high or roll truly different because it is statistically is really more rare. Subconsiously, when every character has a few exceptional stats...it's not very exceptional any more. You can call them exceptional, but when you rolled an 18 in old 3d6 generation, it really was a 1 in 216 odds,,,it really was exceptional. And if you say this does not change the internal brain chemistry, i think you'd be wrong. I've watched hundreds of people make expressions based on their responses to rolling the dice.
You can do 'creative' with or without this added creative element, but denying random variability as a creative enhancer in chargen seems to be taking a stance contrary to what others have said here, and indeed, in what has been seen and discussed in the industry for decades. I would also say it flies in the face of psychology ( in terms of studies ofthe creative process and gambling studies).
Again, this is my viewpoint. I am not saying you cannot have a fun game or a cannot have a creative chargen without randomness, or that randomness always is the best or most helpful answer. However, saying definitively, "The idea that leads to a creative and interesting character, which is independent of the means the stats were generated", is quite a statement, and one I think needs more consideration.
Quote from: LordVreegWhen I used to teach GMing, one major focus was that being able to work with player imbalance, character imblance, and party imbalance (vs others and the word at large) was a high-level GM skill that could take a while to develop.
What do you mean by "work with," exactly? If you mean designing and running a balanced game (while still preserving meaningful options for the players) then I'd agree with you that is indeed difficult, but then I'd also opine that "not having everyone roll their stats randomly" would be a pretty good thing to include.
Quote from: LordVreegI think you are totally wrong in your assertion that the method of stat generation is indepenent to the creative process.
All I meant by independent was that there was no mandatory link between the two. I did not mean that there was necessarily not a link between the two-- like I said, "No method of stat generation inherently grants this creative spark, and they all can."
If A = "Your stat generation method" and B = "Having a creative character with an interesting background" then they are independent things in the sense that there's no guarantee that a given value of A will lead to B and there's no requirement for a given value of A to exist in order to get B. That's all. A might lead to B, it might not; A and B might even both exist but some factor C we didn't account for was the real creative spark and A is irrelevant. It depends on a whole lot more factors than any of us can easily name here.
Quote from: LordVreegYou don't need it, but the inclusion of a system that will return a result different from what a player normally does or has done before will introduce a new viewpoint.
At the risk of sounding like tautology cat, randomness is random. So, we can't say randomization
will return a result different from what a player normally does, because we don't know what result it's going to return. We also can't say it
will introduce a new viewpoint, because we don't know what viewpoints that player had already about the result that we also don't know. It may do these things, or it may not. It doesn't
inherently do anything, because it is
random.
Quote from: LordVreegIt is not to say that this is the only way to make creative and different characters, it's just one more factor in the equation.
That's my point, too. It's a factor that may or may not matter, and to varying degrees.
Quote from: LordVreegdenying random variability as a creative enhancer in chargen
Only that's not what I said. I never said that random variability
doesn't have the possibility of enhancing creativity. All I've been trying to say is that there's no guarantee it
will, either. There's no guarantee it will do anything at all because it's random. If you actually want something specific, then
do that. I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself, to be honest.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: LordVreegWhen I used to teach GMing, one major focus was that being able to work with player imbalance, character imblance, and party imbalance (vs others and the word at large) was a high-level GM skill that could take a while to develop.
What do you mean by "work with," exactly? If you mean designing and running a balanced game (while still preserving meaningful options for the players) then I'd agree with you that is indeed difficult, but then I'd also opine that "not having everyone roll their stats randomly" would be a pretty good thing to include.
Quote from: LordVreegI think you are totally wrong in your assertion that the method of stat generation is indepenent to the creative process.
All I meant by independent was that there was no mandatory link between the two. I did not mean that there was necessarily not a link between the two-- like I said, "No method of stat generation inherently grants this creative spark, and they all can."
If A = "Your stat generation method" and B = "Having a creative character with an interesting background" then they are independent things in the sense that there's no guarantee that a given value of A will lead to B and there's no requirement for a given value of A to exist in order to get B. That's all. A might lead to B, it might not; A and B might even both exist but some factor C we didn't account for was the real creative spark and A is irrelevant. It depends on a whole lot more factors than any of us can easily name here.
Quote from: LordVreegYou don't need it, but the inclusion of a system that will return a result different from what a player normally does or has done before will introduce a new viewpoint.
At the risk of sounding like tautology cat, randomness is random. So, we can't say randomization will return a result different from what a player normally does, because we don't know what result it's going to return. We also can't say it will introduce a new viewpoint, because we don't know what viewpoints that player had already about the result that we also don't know. It may do these things, or it may not. It doesn't inherently do anything, because it is random.
Quote from: LordVreegIt is not to say that this is the only way to make creative and different characters, it's just one more factor in the equation.
That's my point, too. It's a factor that may or may not matter, and to varying degrees.
Quote from: LordVreegdenying random variability as a creative enhancer in chargen
Only that's not what I said. I never said that random variability doesn't have the possibility of enhancing creativity. All I've been trying to say is that there's no guarantee it will, either. There's no guarantee it will do anything at all because it's random. If you actually want something specific, then do that. I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself, to be honest.
I think, in trying to be clear, I created a post that you had to answer the same three in three different places. I'm good with the answer given, in that you when you said that the method of generating the numbers was independent of the creative part of chargen, you did not mean that it could not be part of the process. I think you can see why I read it as I did, but as long as that is not what you were trying to get across, I am all good.
And you are completely reading me right in what I meant in my first para. I used to have groups come to me with their issues, and the real issue was the GM allowed some unbalanced aspects and di not know how to balance the game internally, and random stat generation can be part of this. It takes a good GM to create satisfaction for a player who is playing a mediocre fighter in a group while there is a Paladin created the same time with an 18 ST and a 17 CON.
So did the half-random idea sound cool? Just trying to restart this discussion now that it's been split.
Quote from: Xeviat
So did the half-random idea sound cool? Just trying to restart this discussion now that it's been split.
well, I think a lot of us do differnt ratios of random and not; and have different levels and areas of player input.
I mean, it is still player input when a a school or class is chosen, or a certain skill or set of skills, but while I believe randomization enhances some early immersion and presents choices to the players that are not there otherwise; it also precludes other choices.
I do work with process and program management structures in my job regularly; which all dictates starting with the end in mind and tweaking/changing procedures to optimize the endgoal while maximizing profit and minimizing full-term expenditures. From this standpoint, the endgoals of what we are creating must be presented first as well as what the currency of profit and expenditures, like time and interest and equality and % of dissapointment.
I also look at chargen as a bit of a mini-game within the game when we have time.
Quote from: Xeviat
So did the half-random idea sound cool? Just trying to restart this discussion now that it's been split.
I am as opposed to random stat generation as I always am. :grin: