The Campaign Builder's Guild

Threads like this are what make the CBG great, just as much as the awesome settings themselves. I feel like there are very few places on the internet where a discussion could have gone on this long between people who disagree about something without someone getting overly defensive and then the general civility level dropping.

Aside from my somewhat flippant comment near the beginning of the thread, my opinion, such as it is, on the balance or imbalance of randomly-generated stats is.... I'm kind of cool with it. I've done point-buy a few times too, and that totally works, but I think the main reason I don't have a problem with rolling up characters is that the kinds of games where you roll for stats are generally class-and-level games (at least the ones I've played) and seeing as I always play with pretty small parties, it doesn't seem to me that the Fighter not having 18 STR is game-breaking, because he's still THE Fighter. Even without "peak human ability" level strength, he's still gonna have more BAB and/or HP and/or whatever else than the Wizard, and so be more use in a sword fight. In more of a skill-based game, point-buy obviously makes a hell of a lot more sense, but for class-and-level I don't see a huge advantage to either - I'd just go with whatever the players feel is gonna be more fun.

Quote from: Kindling
Threads like this are what make the CBG great, just as much as the awesome settings themselves. I feel like there are very few places on the internet where a discussion could have gone on this long between people who disagree about something without someone getting overly defensive and then the general civility level dropping.

Aside from my somewhat flippant comment near the beginning of the thread, my opinion, such as it is, on the balance or imbalance of randomly-generated stats is.... I'm kind of cool with it. I've done point-buy a few times too, and that totally works, but I think the main reason I don't have a problem with rolling up characters is that the kinds of games where you roll for stats are generally class-and-level games (at least the ones I've played) and seeing as I always play with pretty small parties, it doesn't seem to me that the Fighter not having 18 STR is game-breaking, because he's still THE Fighter. Even without "peak human ability" level strength, he's still gonna have more BAB and/or HP and/or whatever else than the Wizard, and so be more use in a sword fight. In more of a skill-based game, point-buy obviously makes a hell of a lot more sense, but for class-and-level I don't see a huge advantage to either - I'd just go with whatever the players feel is gonna be more fun.

It's also intersting when the PCs roll up a fighter with a 15 strength, or a mage with a high charisma, or something.  Because it seems to matter more about the whole bell curve and the population when it realy is ununsual to have a 17 or 18 strength.

And Kindling, GuildSchool is all skill based (as were many other skill based RPGs, Like runequest, etc) thaty used totally random stat generation.  So I am going to have to roll that one around in my head.  Not saying you are wrong, maybe to a point, but I need to work that around my head.

Well, I guess maybe not at "obviously" as I said, then. It's just in the kinds of skill-based games I'm familiar with they tend to use point-buy as a base, and that makes sense. In a class-and-level game, as I said, you're playing a Fighter so you're gonna be better at fighting than anyone who isn't a Fighter. In a skill-based game, if you randomly determine your stats, you could end up making a Fighter-type character who specialises in fighting and not a lot else, and someone else who rolled better might make a character who's just as good at fighting as yours, but also has loads of skills in other areas.

Now as I said, this only goes for the games I'm familiar with, and I'm not at all familiar with GS so I'm not saying this goes for your game at all, necessarily, it just seems to be a trend I've noticed.

I don't think the "general bell curve of the population" even matters much when making player characters. Player characters are, by definition, exceptional. That doesn't mean they have to be good at everything, of course, but the very idea of being a player character means that you're going to go on an adventure and do something other than be a peasant. You, by definition, already stand out. If the problems that adventurers faced were the sort of thing that any average person could deal with, then any average person probably would deal with them, and there wouldn't be much of an adventure there. They need you, because you are exceptional, and to be exceptional-- well, then, you should actually be exceptional. I agree that it's unusual to have 18 strength in the population at large, but the population of player characters is a very restricted subset of the population at large, and the same rules do not apply.

Quote from: sparkletwist
I don't think the "general bell curve of the population" even matters much when making player characters. Player characters are, by definition, exceptional. That doesn't mean they have to be good at everything, of course, but the very idea of being a player character means that you're going to go on an adventure and do something other than be a peasant. You, by definition, already stand out. If the problems that adventurers faced were the sort of thing that any average person could deal with, then any average person probably would deal with them, and there wouldn't be much of an adventure there. They need you, because you are exceptional, and to be exceptional-- well, then, you should actually be exceptional. I agree that it's unusual to have 18 strength in the population at large, but the population of player characters is a very restricted subset of the population at large, and the same rules do not apply.

Agree and disagree.
For example, I state in the GS rulebook that the general population attribute average is 12, though the math works out to an average of 14 for the PCs.  So I agree that in most RPGs, though not all, the PCs are seen to be in some way exceptional specimens.
But just stating it in the rules is one level of abstraction greater (and as I posited earlier, less immersive) than if the player does have to deal with the world of probablity..if those rules DO apply...than it matters more to the Player and is more immersive.

I've played both ways.  I've watched players literally light up on a decent roll...I've never watched a player get excited about choosing to have a high attribute.  Now, as we said, there is alos the chance of the player rolling a good enough character to play with, but one they are totally uninspired to play. So to have the plus, one accepts the minus, and if the GM would rather not, that is just as valid.  Now, I may be missing something, so I am going with ears wide open on this.

Quote from: LordVreegSo I agree that in most RPGs, though not all, the PCs are seen to be in some way exceptional specimens.

True. I should clarify that I'm talking about the usual category of "fantastic adventure" RPG.

Quote from: LordVreegBut just stating it in the rules is one level of abstraction greater (and as I posited earlier, less immersive) than if the player does have to deal with the world of probablity..if those rules DO apply...than it matters more to the Player and is more immersive.

It's not really of any benefit at all to consider these kinds of things in terms of immersion. A player showing up to play an RPG is already going to have made all sorts of non-immersive, "metagamey" decisions simply by selecting a certain genre and ruleset, and so on. A lot of decisions are going to be made by the group beforehand that the characters would've had no choice in, too. So, it's ultimately the game's mechanics that dictate what a player gets and doesn't get to decide, and I think that's the best way to think about it.

Quote from: LordVreegI've watched players literally light up on a decent roll...I've never watched a player get excited about choosing to have a high attribute.

I've watched players be disappointed by a bad roll... I've never watched a player disappointed in choosing to lower an attribute in point-buy. On other hand, I've definitely seen players get excited when they're able to make the choices that allow the system's mechanics to reflect a character concept that they've been wanting to play.

Quote from: LordVreegSo to have the plus, one accepts the minus, and if the GM would rather not, that is just as valid.

Sure. I just happen to think the minus is a lot larger than the plus.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg
But just stating it in the rules is one level of abstraction greater (and as I posited earlier, less immersive) than if the player does have to deal with the world of probablity..if those rules DO apply...than it matters more to the Player and is more immersive.

It's not really of any benefit at all to consider these kinds of things in terms of immersion. A player showing up to play an RPG is already going to have made all sorts of non-immersive, "metagamey" decisions simply by selecting a certain genre and ruleset, and so on. A lot of decisions are going to be made by the group beforehand that the characters would've had no choice in, too. So, it's ultimately the game's mechanics that dictate what a player gets and doesn't get to decide, and I think that's the best way to think about it.

Immersion and the level of immersion is not a nominal scale/absolute value ingredient in a game, it is part of a continuum, with metagaming at the other end.  So just because there is always rules that try to represent the reality of the setting, and that there will always be some level of metagame abstraction in any part of the game, does not mean you throw out the immersive part of the equation.  So I think it is a mistake to think that the potential and amount of immersion gets tossed out whenever there is some needed metagaming.
And if the rules can reduce the level of abstraction to be able to not just have the rules state that few inhabitants of the setting have a certain attribute but that the PCs ACTUALLY HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE OF HAVING IT, then the game is less abstracted.
I agree that in chargen, more than any other part of the game, metagame thinking is more important.  But the continuum still exists, and the decision still has to be made how much the inclusion of the immersion will cost, and if it is worth it.   

Quote from: LordVreegSo just because there is always rules that try to represent the reality of the setting, and that there will always be some level of metagame abstraction in any part of the game, does not mean you throw out the immersive part of the equation.  So I think it is a mistake to think that the potential and amount of immersion gets tossed out whenever there is some needed metagaming.

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "toss out immersion just because there are going to be rules and abstractions." What I'm saying is that the game's mechanics and/or the desires of the group should dictate what decisions are available to players, rather than what is "more immersive." I'm not talking about metagaming in making decisions in the game, I'm talking about making decisions about the game, which is always going to be "meta." If the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly. However, not being mindful of the game's mechanics, you might end up with an unplayable mess, and an unplayable mess is never immersive-- because nobody's playing it.

Quote from: LordVreegnot just have the rules state that few inhabitants of the setting have a certain attribute but that the PCs ACTUALLY HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE OF HAVING IT

I don't see how this leads to anything but a greater chance of players being stuck with characters they don't want to play. In the broad genre of "fantastic adventure" RPGs that we're talking about, PCs are not part of the population at large when it comes to probability. They go on grand adventures, while muggles farm turnips. Basically, players have already said (and are being allowed to say, by sitting down to play an RPG) "I am going to be one of the exceptional ones." You have already, by definition, thrown out the bell curve for the normal population, because they are no longer part of the normal population. They part of the much smaller population of "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: sparkle

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

As I said, I'm no hardliner. But the line falls in different places for different people and different games. It doesn't "lead to" anything. There's no slippery slope here.

Interesting topic. While I agree with some of your comments beejazz, I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I think it's basically a classic slippery slope. (I see no meaningful difference between telling players they cannot choose their stats because their character didn't get to choose his stats and telling the player they cannot choose their gender because their character didn't choose that either.)

Rolling for stats may simulate reality (debatable). But it doesn't matter to me. I don't play RPGs to simulate real life. I have real life for that. I play games (RPGs included) for fun. Part of fun is immersion. The argument about increasing immersion may hold sway. The argument about turning the game into a life simulator doesn't, at least not for me.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreegSo just because there is always rules that try to represent the reality of the setting, and that there will always be some level of metagame abstraction in any part of the game, does not mean you throw out the immersive part of the equation.  So I think it is a mistake to think that the potential and amount of immersion gets tossed out whenever there is some needed metagaming.

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "toss out immersion just because there are going to be rules and abstractions." What I'm saying is that the game's mechanics and/or the desires of the group should dictate what decisions are available to players, rather than what is "more immersive." I'm not talking about metagaming in making decisions in the game, I'm talking about making decisions about the game, which is always going to be "meta." If the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly. However, not being mindful of the game's mechanics, you might end up with an unplayable mess, and an unplayable mess is never immersive-- because nobody's playing it.

Well, you did not say,"I'm not saying "toss out immersion just because there are going to be rules and abstractions", you said, "It's not really of any benefit at all to consider these kinds of things in terms of immersion. A player showing up to play an RPG is already going to have made all sorts of non-immersive, "metagamey" decisions simply by selecting a certain genre and ruleset, and so on."  
So maybe,'Throw immersion out out' is not the same as saying that that is has zero benefit in that context, but it does seem unclear as to the difference.  I understand we are talking about rules, which is meta, but one of the possible goals in the choice of rules IS the amount of Immersion.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegnot just have the rules state that few inhabitants of the setting have a certain attribute but that the PCs ACTUALLY HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE OF HAVING IT

I don't see how this leads to anything but a greater chance of players being stuck with characters they don't want to play. In the broad genre of "fantastic adventure" RPGs that we're talking about, PCs are not part of the population at large when it comes to probability. They go on grand adventures, while muggles farm turnips. Basically, players have already said (and are being allowed to say, by sitting down to play an RPG) "I am going to be one of the exceptional ones." You have already, by definition, thrown out the bell curve for the normal population, because they are no longer part of the normal population. They part of the much smaller population of "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

I really don't know how I can say this differently, and maybe I should leave sleeping dragons be.  But this is a good discussion between not just how we do things, but why.

There are number of things in an FRP that most games use dice to model the probability of.  And there are reasons why we still have players rolling dice to hit a creature when they have a 10- in- 20 chance of hittting, rather than stop rolling dice and just letting the player hit the monster every other swing.  Because rolling dice to model probability is more interesting and actually models the real effects of statistical reality better (since the dice have no memory and you may get lucky and hit trhre times in a rown, or get unlucky a few times in a row)
And even though our PC fighter is exceptional, we still model his chance to hit on a probablity curve with other beings he contests with.

PCs are a subset of the population, and even most games with dice rolling assume they are in some level of a small, superior subset of the population; but with some variety in that subset.  There is still variety and a probability curve in, "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."  

just as we used dice to model the chance of success in striking a creature, so are we using dice to mdel the frequency distribution of attributes in the adventuring population subset.  As I mentioned before. the average attribute in the celtrician population is 12, but the average PC attibute is 14, and this is mirrored by the choice of dice we use to roll up attributes.

That was my point when I said, agree and disagree.  You can assume the adventuring populatin has a different frquency distribution of attributes, and most games do, but there is a still a frequency distribution within the subset, and the dice are used to model that.  

Quote from: LordVreegI understand we are talking about rules, which is meta, but one of the possible goals in the choice of rules IS the amount of Immersion.

Yes, that's my point.

Quote from: sparkletwistIf the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly.

Rules are meta. They should be decided in a "meta" fashion, even if the goal is immersion. Trying to "immersively" decide the rules (e.g., saying things like "X is essentially randomly determined in your life so X should be randomly determined in game") just leads nowhere productive. You either eventually make a purely game-rules-related (as opposed to immersion-related) distinction for X-- thus doing it the way I suggested, in the end-- or accept all values for which X is true, leading to some very stupid rules. If the group feels that a certain mechanic is more immersive, then they should decide to use that mechanic based on its merit as a game mechanic.

Quote from: LordVreegThere are number of things in an FRP that most games use dice to model the probability of.  And there are reasons why we still have players rolling dice to hit a creature when they have a 10- in- 20 chance of hittting, rather than stop rolling dice and just letting the player hit the monster every other swing.

There is a very big difference. Missing and hitting in combat is something that doesn't affect you for very long. If you miss, the battle goes on, and you try again with the same odds next time. Sometimes the roll may set you back, like if a monster hits you, but there is usually a way to recover, and your own choices determine how that might happen. Anyway, on the other hand, if you roll badly at character generation, you are stuck with it. If you roll badly on one swing, that was a bad swing. If you roll badly when generating your "odds of hitting" bonus or whatever the system uses, every swing will be bad.

This is a big difference, and at the core of why I'm against just having everyone roll up their stats.

Quote from: LordVreegPCs are a subset of the population, and even most games with dice rolling assume they are in some level of a small, superior subset of the population; but with some variety in that subset.  There is still variety and a probability curve in, "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

There's nothing inherently saying there has to be. If the game's rule is that "All player characters have a stat of 16 in everything," then there will be no variety and no curve. In other words, the probability distribution is for player characters is whatever the player character creation algorithm spits out. No more and no less. You can choose that player characters will follow a bell curve, but that's what it is-- a game mechanics choice.

Here's my own example from my own work: in the setting for Asura, something like 1% of the population is an Asura. However, in the game of Asura, player characters are expected to be Asuras. They do not follow the bell curve for the population; they follow the rules of the game. Trying to make them correspond to the actual population would be pointless and unplayable.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Vreeg
If the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly.

Rules are meta. They should be decided in a "meta" fashion, even if the goal is immersion. Trying to "immersively" decide the rules (e.g., saying things like "X is essentially randomly determined in your life so X should be randomly determined in game") just leads nowhere productive. You either eventually make a purely game-rules-related (as opposed to immersion-related) distinction for X-- thus doing it the way I suggested, in the end-- or accept all values for which X is true, leading to some very stupid rules. If the group feels that a certain mechanic is more immersive, then they should decide to use that mechanic based on its merit as a game mechanic.

Well, I agree that rules must be discussed from the outside in, meta perspective, that was never in doubt or posited.  But I disagree that modeling some rules after the actual experience in game or in reality always leads nowhere productive.  Since the 2 are obviously not mutually exclusive, a designer or group can opt to have a rule that they like because it models the actual experience as well as it's merits as a mechanic.
It's not that it has to be done that way, or that these decisions are not made along a continuum of how well they model the actual in game situation.

To use an example, in GS, we don't just roll stats, we roll race and social level and background items .  And I don't think these random rolls perfectly model the in game experience, since I allow a re roll on race in case the player gets something that just does not fit, based on what we both agree is the unfun outrcome of getting a character you just do not want to play.  
But very specifically,m the race mechanic was decided on by myself and a few other early designers specifically because it went along with the idea of random stat generation; that this is something that was out of the PCs control
Does not make it bad or good, or a judgement on any other system. But specifically what you said leads nowhere productive seems to have been doing a pretty good job for over 25 years for me and mine.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg
There are number of things in an FRP that most games use dice to model the probability of.  And there are reasons why we still have players rolling dice to hit a creature when they have a 10- in- 20 chance of hittting, rather than stop rolling dice and just letting the player hit the monster every other swing

.There is a very big difference. Missing and hitting in combat is something that doesn't affect you for very long. If you miss, the battle goes on, and you try again with the same odds next time. Sometimes the roll may set you back, like if a monster hits you, but there is usually a way to recover, and your own choices determine how that might happen. Anyway, on the other hand, if you roll badly at character generation, you are stuck with it. If you roll badly on one swing, that was a bad swing. If you roll badly when generating your "odds of hitting" bonus or whatever the system uses, every swing will be bad.

This is a big difference, and at the core of why I'm against just having everyone roll up their stats

Really? Missing and hitting in combat doesn't affect you long? I doubt many things affect a player character longer than getting hit and dying and losing the character.  Or missing a save, or many other important rolls in game where dice are used to model the probability.
 
This is one I stand by.  We use dice in games to model probability of some events, some of which are minor or major, in game or in chargen.  The level of risk that is fun for the players needs to be set ahaed of time; but that is true in chargen or in gameplay.  For some people, it is not fun to have a chance of losing their character, and risk is not a lot of fun.  And for some people, it is not fun to have a sub-optimal character or the potential of same.  Some players are drawn to high risk and the possible satisfaction of 'playing at a tougher level/hardcore mode', for others that is not fun.
You say this is a core reason you are against it; but this is a core reason that many people use it.  May not work for you, and everyone's games and players are different.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg
PCs are a subset of the population, and even most games with dice rolling assume they are in some level of a small, superior subset of the population; but with some variety in that subset.  There is still variety and a probability curve in, "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

just as we used dice to model the chance of success in striking a creature, so are we using dice to mdel the frequency distribution of attributes in the adventuring population subset.  As I mentioned before. the average attribute in the celtrician population is 12, but the average PC attibute is 14, and this is mirrored by the choice of dice we use to roll up attributes.

That was my point when I said, agree and disagree.  You can assume the adventuring population has a different frequency distribution of attributes, and most games do, but there is a still a frequency distribution within the subset, and the dice are used to model that.

There's nothing inherently saying there has to be. If the game's rule is that "All player characters have a stat of 16 in everything," then there will be no variety and no curve. In other words, the probability distribution is for player characters is whatever the player character creation algorithm spits out. No more and no less. You can choose that player characters will follow a bell curve, but that's what it is-- a game mechanics choice.

Here's my own example from my own work: in the setting for Asura, something like 1% of the population is an Asura. However, in the game of Asura, player characters are expected to be Asuras. They do not follow the bell curve for the population; they follow the rules of the game. Trying to make them correspond to the actual population would be pointless and unplayable.

We both state that the modeling of the PCs is not based normally on the general population.

But yes, the choice to use dice to model a population frequency ditribution is of course just that, a choice.  There are other mechanical methods available, but the point from the early nesting of quotes was that the other choices may make more sense for other reasons; but dice are used to remove a level of extremely common abstraction, by modeling the actual probability curve of a population of the % of an action happening.

I think there's been a miscommunication, because you're saying you disagree and then stating pretty much the exact same point I was trying to make. Let me try again.

Saying "We like rule X and we have decided to use it. We like it because it feels more like real life," is fine and good and can add to immersion for some people. This is what I think we're both advocating. On the other hand, saying "In real life, X happens. So, in our game, X should happen too," ends up with a lot of stupid rules, and was what I was arguing against.

It may seem like a pedantic distinction, but it is important. The first one is based on a conscious choice and still governed by game mechanics, whereas the second one is trying to be blindly "immersive" (or "simulationist," or whatever other word you want to throw around) without thinking about how it affects the game mechanics at all-- and doing that leads nowhere productive.

Quote from: LordVreegReally? Missing and hitting in combat doesn't affect you long? I doubt many things affect a player character longer than getting hit and dying and losing the character.

I was talking about individual rolls. Unless it's some kind of crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure or something, any individual roll in itself isn't going to kill you-- the roll that killed you is probably at the end of a run of bad luck and more than a few conscious decisions, too. On the other hand, at character generation, one individual roll can affect your entire campaign life. All I was trying to assert was that this distinction exists, so it should be considered. I understand and agree that different people may come to different opinions as a result of that consideration.

Quote from: LordVreegdice are used to remove a level of extremely common abstraction, by modeling the actual probability curve of a population of the % of an action happening.

There is no "actual probability curve" for the group called "player characters" because it's entirely a construct of the rules. Nobody in the setting has any concept of a "player character." The probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out.

If by the "actual probability curve" you mean that of the general population, you're not doing that, either. If the population's average is a bell curve centered around 12, and your character generation algorithm is a bell curve centered around 14, your rolling procedure is not modeling the probability curve of the general population. It's modeling a different curve that you designed expressly for the population of "player characters." You might like that it's random and a bell curve and that makes it feel more like the general population, but it's still just a game mechanics choice and it's still rooted in game mechanics just like any other possible choice.

Quote from: Phoenix

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: sparkle

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

As I said, I'm no hardliner. But the line falls in different places for different people and different games. It doesn't "lead to" anything. There's no slippery slope here.

Interesting topic. While I agree with some of your comments beejazz, I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I think it's basically a classic slippery slope. (I see no meaningful difference between telling players they cannot choose their stats because their character didn't get to choose his stats and telling the player they cannot choose their gender because their character didn't choose that either.)

Rolling for stats may simulate reality (debatable). But it doesn't matter to me. I don't play RPGs to simulate real life. I have real life for that. I play games (RPGs included) for fun. Part of fun is immersion. The argument about increasing immersion may hold sway. The argument about turning the game into a life simulator doesn't, at least not for me.

Well, assuming the example I was responding to, choosing the game, the setting, etc. is by definition meta-game because it's taking place outside the game.

As for gender, some games may determine it randomly. As I may or may not have said, immersion only matters to me where it affects gameplay (in the mechanical sense). If a player wants to sip a previously unmentioned beer it doesn't matter much to me. Conversely if the player wants to survive by hunting a previously unmentioned deer, that's a bigger deal. Gender doesn't have any special stat mods in any game I would play, so letting the players decide does no harm at all. It's similar to coming up with backstory.

I'm simply going after the definition of immersion vs metagaming, but where people value one or the other remains an arbitrary line. No real slippery slope there.

Lastly, people keep talking about random stat rolling in D&D, which is pretty minor. Would you consider Traveller to still be traveller without the  lifepath chargen? It's part of the fundamental core of the appeal of the system. Brings people into a state of thinking "in-game" before the game even starts, and people tend to like that.

Quote from: sparkletwist
I think there's been a miscommunication, because you're saying you disagree and then stating pretty much the exact same point I was trying to make. Let me try again.

Saying "We like rule X and we have decided to use it. We like it because it feels more like real life," is fine and good and can add to immersion for some people. This is what I think we're both advocating. On the other hand, saying "In real life, X happens. So, in our game, X should happen too," ends up with a lot of stupid rules, and was what I was arguing against.

It may seem like a pedantic distinction, but it is important. The first one is based on a conscious choice and still governed by game mechanics, whereas the second one is trying to be blindly "immersive" (or "simulationist," or whatever other word you want to throw around) without thinking about how it affects the game mechanics at all-- and doing that leads nowhere productive.

I get what you are saying.  I agree with all the terminology above, but the decision to be immersive or simulationist can be made with the eyes wide open, and for almost every designer out there, I am sure it is.  I look at your two example sentences above, and the only real differentiator is the word, 'Should' above, which I highlighted, and I really don't think any designer ever is or ever has been that blind.  If you change that word from 'should' to 'can' you probably have a more real-life example. Everyone I have ended up discussing the choice with fits into your first example[note=word order]  I think most designers do it in the reverse order, however, with the designers likeing the modeling of real life or within setting, and deciding they like the rule because of that.[/note], with whatever level of random chance being a little closer to real-life without causing too much player dissapointment.    

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegReally? Missing and hitting in combat doesn't affect you long? I doubt many things affect a player character longer than getting hit and dying and losing the character.

I was talking about individual rolls. Unless it's some kind of crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure or something, any individual roll in itself isn't going to kill you-- the roll that killed you is probably at the end of a run of bad luck and more than a few conscious decisions, too. On the other hand, at character generation, one individual roll can affect your entire campaign life. All I was trying to assert was that this distinction exists, so it should be considered. I understand and agree that different people may come to different opinions as a result of that consideration.

'Save or Die' is a Meme in the RPG world for a reason.  It's not just a way-out there possibility.  Sometimes it is at the end of a run of bad luck; but there are a lot of permanent effects from one roll in RPGs, and sometimes from maybe one decision and one bad roll (Deck of Many Things, anyone?).  There have been critical hit systems for decades that increase the lethality of sincle rolls, and there are critical effects charts that involve scarring, maiming and other effects modeled after similation of combat (rolemaster is a good example).  Saving vs paralysis and petrification is another fun one....
I am saying this because while I agree that there is *some* distinction, but based on your comments about swinging to hit not being equivalent and the above one about the 'crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure' and 'any indivdual roll itself isn't going to kill you', the distinction of importance and permanence between single 'in game' and rolling in chargen is not as extreme as you believe.  I also believe that there is a corrolation between players who like high risk/high reward gamestyles and players who like to roll up characters.

Quote from: SParkle

Quote from: LordVreegdice are used to remove a level of extremely common abstraction, by modeling the actual probability curve of a population of the % of an action happening.

There is no "actual probability curve" for the group called "player characters" because it's entirely a construct of the rules. Nobody in the setting has any concept of a "player character." The probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out.

If by the "actual probability curve" you mean that of the general population, you're not doing that, either. If the population's average is a bell curve centered around 12, and your character generation algorithm is a bell curve centered around 14, your rolling procedure is not modeling the probability curve of the general population. It's modeling a different curve that you designed expressly for the population of "player characters." You might like that it's random and a bell curve and that makes it feel more like the general population, but it's still just a game mechanics choice and it's still rooted in game mechanics just like any other possible choice.

No and no, in my opinion and experience.
1) "The probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out."  This is not true, Because it can go the other direction.  And this is a very real, critical distinction.   In reality or in setting, I can decide or discover the actual probability curve OF THE GROUP IN QUESTION, and then model the dice used in the probability curve to model it.  The character generation can be entirely determined by the probabilites of the group in question.

I often call the rules a 'physics engine', built to model the reaction of the world to the players action.  And I often talk about the need to match the system to the setting, because this is the order I believe it needs to happen in.  The game mechanic choice should be made based on what it is modeling, it rarely should have primacy.  The frequency distribution of a population within a setting is not a construct of the rules, it is a construct of the setting, and the rules should be designed afterwards.  Fluff and crunch are not the same.  I said this when I first came on board, I've said it for decades before...crunch models fluff.  
The Game mechanics choice is if you want to bother modeling the PCs on the information created for the setting, or not.  Or, to paraphrase Vreeg's First Rule, make sure the system matches the setting, or the game will eventually match the system...which is said this ways because it is a warning.

2) We both made it entirely clear that the PCs/adventurers were a subset of the general population, and sometimes the frequency distribution of an attribute is from the general populaiton, but normally not.