The Campaign Builder's Guild

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: