System discussion: Point Buy vs. Regulated Choices

SilvercatMoonpaw · December 18, 2006, 09:32:04 AM

The title says it all (or most of it: Regulated Choices means things like classes and levels, where character features are doled out in very certain amounts): which do you like and what draws you toward that/away from the other. Here are a few of mine:

Point buy allows me to create the character I want in the proportions I want. Since the mechanics are broken down for me it's easier to do the figuring out and make up my own stuff.

(something I heard from someone else: ) Class/level systems often suffer from player bordom after a while, so the company feels the need to release new material every once and a while that creates even more chances game-breaking combos. Whereas point-buy just simply lives with that flaw without the need for 50+ supplements.

snakefing · December 18, 2006, 10:22:04 AM

The best thing to be said about classes is that they can reduce/simplify the number of choices that have to be made to create a character, which is good for beginning players or for a quick beer and pretzels game.

Also, it is possible to do classes without completely dictating the character features. SRD Fighter class is probably the best existing example: Some parts of the character are highly templatized (BAB, hit dice, skill points and skill selection) but the comparatively frequent option to select a "bonus feat" means that part of the class features can be selected to fit your character concept (at least in fighting style). Also, as new feats are created the class grows appropriately.

Compare that with the rogue, who automatically gets evasion and sneak attack abilities at certain levels. Not every rogue-like character concept involves these abilities - but you get them anyway. It would be better if you could somehow choose other rogue-like abilities to replace those.

I think this, and not boredom, is what drives people to keep buying supplements. Most classes have a kind of built-in concept (sneaky back-stabbing guy) that is well supported. Additional classes add support for concepts that aren't handled well by existing ones.

Pure point buy is the most flexible, and I think the best if you play regularly with a group that shares your preferences in gaming. My problem there is that, in my experience, your average random gaming group usually includes at least one minimaxer, and that ends up forcing others to select one of a few mechanically optimal builds just to keep up. So it may not actually give you that much more choice.

And of course, with point buy type systems, you always have supplements that add new abilities to support character ideas that weren't well supported in the core abilities. So that's about a wash too.

Ultimately, I don't worry about it too much. I tend to prefer d20 variants simply because so many more people know the d20 core.

SDragon · December 18, 2006, 10:55:07 AM

Quote from: snakefingThe best thing to be said about classes is that they can reduce/simplify the number of choices that have to be made to create a character, which is good for beginning players or for a quick beer and pretzels game.

i think this sums up why my preference is to have regulated choices. there may be a lack of flexibility, but for me, that's worth not having to flip through 9700 pages just for a single starting character. i can just say "half-orc", "barbarian", "feat", "skills", done.

that said, i do own all three of the Marvel Universe RPG (point-buy) books that were released before the system was canceled, and after i got used to all the different options, i'm fairly comfortable with that. i guess i probably could enjoy a point-buy if i took the time to get used to the system.

Epic Meepo · December 18, 2006, 02:44:12 PM

Regulated choices = more ability to independently create balanced characters

My game crew has very limited time to meet, so we usually say, "Let's all make characters in our free time and bring them to game next week." With regulated choices, that works very well; we just say that X, Y, and Z are the sourcebooks we can use and everyone knows just what sort of characters to expect (mechanics-wise; their personalities always vary).

If my group were to do this with most point buy systems, the result would be unmitigated disaster. There's no GM there to point out that X combination of Y and Z doesn't make sense in his campaign world, and no other players around to say: "Wait a minute, X combination of Y and Z that you took as an afterthought completely invalidates my entire character concept because it lets us completely bypass situation such-and-such."

Being able to make any character concept exactly how you like it actually turns out being a major drawback if your group doesn't have time to sit down and cooperatively design the characters that are going to be working together. Being able to design, say, the perfect theif means nothing when you show up to game and find out that everyone else is a guy who can open locks at will by snapping his fingers and is permanently invisible, this before undergoing any in-game character advancement.

CYMRO · December 18, 2006, 05:19:55 PM

QuoteBeing able to make any character concept exactly how you like it actually turns out being a major drawback if your group doesn't have time to sit down and cooperatively design the characters that are going to be working together. Being able to design, say, the perfect theif means nothing when you show up to game and find out that everyone else is a guy who can open locks at will by snapping his fingers and is permanently invisible, this before undergoing any in-game character advancement.

I disagree. It is the GM's job to give each character a chance to shine. I have found in playtesting my new system that communal character creation is the best way to wind up with cookiecutter characters.
And the communal thing has as a major drawback: peer pressure.
So the thief might appear less than optimum at the outset, if that is the concept the player wnts, and that character is not a disruption during play, why should the player be browbeaten into playing something they do not want. Especially in a system like mine where I have really opened up the avenues to gain experience, as compared to d20.

Epic Meepo · December 18, 2006, 06:25:31 PM

Quote from: BRIGADIER CYMRO...if that is the concept the player wnts, and that character is not a disruption during play, why should the player be browbeaten into playing something they do not want.

It's not a question of brow-beating, it's a question of standardization. At least in most cases I've seen, a point-buy system without communication during character creation is like inviting people to your house for a party, but not telling them what type of party it is. Someone could show up in the best Halloween costume they've ever worn, but they'll still feel like a jackass if they show up and find out its not a costume party.

CYMRO · December 18, 2006, 08:08:28 PM

Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: BRIGADIER CYMRO...if that is the concept the player wnts, and that character is not a disruption during play, why should the player be browbeaten into playing something they do not want.

Then the GM is not doing his job. Before even creating characters, the GM is, in my opinion, obligated to provide some basic guidelines. Like fantasy or high-tech, or low magic.

Epic Meepo · December 18, 2006, 11:50:14 PM

Quote from: BRIGADIER CYMROBefore even creating characters, the GM is, in my opinion, obligated to provide some basic guidelines. Like fantasy or high-tech, or low magic.

But setting upper limits on things like magic and tech does nothing to help characters whose concepts don't rely on magic or tech. The perfect sneak still gets hosed in a high-magic world where everyone else can turn invisible at will, whether you announced high magic first or not. Unless you're setting low magic and low tech to keep everyone relatively even, at which point one must ask: how is your campaign any less restrictive than a class/level system? You are using GM fiat to force people with high-magic and high-tech character concepts to abandon them, essentially creating a different species of regulated choice.

SDragon · December 19, 2006, 12:47:17 AM

Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: BRIGADIER CYMROBefore even creating characters, the GM is, in my opinion, obligated to provide some basic guidelines. Like fantasy or high-tech, or low magic.

even the most underpowered character can shine, given the right DM. sure, everybody and their mother can turn invisible, but can they be silent? and what if there's some reason they can't turn invisible at the right time?

think of it this way: if a character takes ranks in nothing but "speak to fish", when everybody else is grabbing stuff like "worlds greatest detective", and "bulletproof bracelettes", and "superstrength", what do you do?

Thanuir · December 19, 2006, 02:11:13 AM

My usual preference is for trait systems where you can decide how good your character is at stuff. Especially when combined group character generation (or another way of putting everyone on the same page, I guess) it allows for the maximum freedom in playing any character you like.

It does not work optimally in challenge-based play (where, say, looting dungeons or gathering political power is the point). It does work fine for immersive and thematic play, IME.

As for point-buy versus classes or their equivalent; point-buys are holistic systems. You must pretty much understand the entire thing before creating a character, lest you forget or miss something (alternatively have someone helping you). This is because all the pieces are very much related; if your character is rich, he can't be as smart.
In class systems this is usually not as important. Lifepath systemsalso work like this. WoD (old, at least) is something of a combination.

Epic Meepo · December 19, 2006, 02:36:03 AM

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguineven the most underpowered character can shine, given the right DM. sure, everybody and their mother can turn invisible, but can they be silent? and what if there's some reason they can't turn invisible at the right time?

You are, of course, correct: given a few adventures to work with, a good GM can correct for any character imbalances by mixing things up.

My arguments refer solely to the specific circumstances of my gaming group. Someone says, "Wow, we're all free at the same time next Friday; let's run a one-shot game." Someone volunteers to GM. Then everyone goes off to prep their piece of the puzzle. Players don't see one anothers' characters and the GM doesn't know what the characters' stats will be when designing his adventure.

Let me reiterate that last point: the GM doesn't know what the characters' stats will be when designing his adventure. If the advenutre includes anything more than pure roleplaying or ad-libbing, there's no real way that a point-buy system capable of handling any character concept could possibly work under those circumstances. A point-buy system designed to handle only a limited set of character concepts (all ninjas or all vampires or all wizards) might work, if done right. And a class/level system absolutely shines.

brainface · December 19, 2006, 11:34:25 AM

QuoteI have found in playtesting my new system that communal character creation is the best way to wind up with cookiecutter characters.

slightly overdone[/i] "you all meet in a tavern oh let's go fight kobolds!" situation.

Matt Larkin (author) · December 19, 2006, 12:18:15 PM

For any game that I'm serious about, I'm in favor of some kind of point-buy or otherwise flexible creation/advancement system. Also for any game that is completely comical, that can be good for building totally off-the-wall characters.

Like my killer chef adept in a one-shot Shadowrun game. But that's a different story.

A class-system, much as I normally despise it, can be good for certain types of games, particularly those not intended to be deep.

CYMRO · December 19, 2006, 12:20:08 PM

Quote from: brainface
QuoteI have found in playtesting my new system that communal character creation is the best way to wind up with cookiecutter characters.
slightly overdone[/i] "you all meet in a tavern oh let's go fight kobolds!" situation.

I haven't used the old tavern ploy since the '80s. And rarely used it then.

The communal thing has some advantages, like, as you say, backstory. The problem that I have noticed is player appeasement. One or more players wind up sacrificing some juicy angle for their character in favor of "safe" options.
As GM (or Campaign Builder, such a nicer term), I do alot of "what-if" prep, so I can change certain aspects of an adventure to suit the adventurers.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

System discussion: Point Buy vs. Regulated Choices

SilvercatMoonpaw

snakefing

SDragon

Epic Meepo

CYMRO

Epic Meepo

CYMRO

Epic Meepo

SDragon

Thanuir

Epic Meepo

brainface

Matt Larkin (author)

CYMRO