Fear the power of Fishy!!!!
I have always been a firm believer in the randomness of character generation throughout all of the editions of D&D I have played. It was once a badge of honor to be willing to risk really crappy rolls for the chance of really outstanding rolls. You'd roll your stats and, since you had an outrageously strong grasp of the system, fit your rolls into a character you were comfortable playing. When did that give way to point buys that merely give you the illusion of control?
I'm just curious how everyone else feels about this topic. Generally, we use the 4d6, drop the lowest, version. It seems to work well enough. How does everyone else handle it?
I strongly prefer point buy because:
1. It makes balancing encounters much easier for the DM
2. It helps to ensure a level playing field
3. It removes the possibility of ending up with a character with all poor roles. Characters like that aren't very heroic, and they don't make good proxies for escapist fantasy.
So, what happened?
We got better.
;-)
Rolling is fine for most things. However point buy places every one on the same level of power stat wise which is helpful at a organized event were the DM and players don't know each other.
At home you know that Bob is a str base brute, and sally is going to play another high dex acrobatic flanker, and George is going to cackle and fireball the party at least once on accident. So rollling is fine because everyone knows the group and their common weaknesses, strengths and insanities. In a home game some one with killer dice rolls may not be the sharpest player leaning on stats and rolls to surivive. The guy next to him may be a lunatic with OK stats, that runs the game on Moxy and a willingness to play the "odds."
At an event you don't have that connection. Everyone at the table could be playing cold. That's were the point buy shines, it's harder to cheat the math than the dice. Also you have PCs with a range of good stats instead of one guy with super stats and one with OK or even crappy stats justing to help.
Also point buy is a good control for playtesting. Any experiment needs as few uncontroled varibles as possible to insure consistent feed back.
Mr. Fishy needs a nap.
One more thing Mr. Fishy fought in the "Tier Wars." If you believe in something then you should be willing to defend it. That said Smurf you all...
If an Ice Cream truck does hit you house, CALL ME!!!!
Mr. Fishy wins the Point-Buy side. These are all terrific examples, without slamming on rolling. Organized play, standardized playtesting, level playing field, etc. are all strong examples even I can get behind. Thank you Mr. Fishy!
Simply saying "I dun want crappy stats and rolling r teh suxxorz!" Is not an argument.
*Edit: Why the hell is my Avatar a smurf?
I am sure most people explained why they did not prefer rolling, and did not just say it sucked.
I am sure most people explained why they did not prefer rolling, and did not just say it sucked.
Maybe, but I didn't feel like combing back through 400 posts and quoting every single person. If you want to, go right ahead.
I liked Mr. Fishy's post. Mr. Fishy got quoted.
Mr. Fishy likes Mr. Fishy post also.
Mr. Fishy likes Mr. Fishy post also.
Well put Mr. Fishy! This indeed is much easier than reading through the entire thread... Thanks
I am sure most people explained why they did not prefer rolling, and did not just say it sucked.
Maybe, but I didn't feel like combing back through 400 posts and quoting every single person. If you want to, go right ahead.
I liked Mr. Fishy's post. Mr. Fishy got quoted.
I did not say nobody said it sucked without giving a reason. :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In short: Rolling for stats TELLS you what you CAN play. Choosing stats via point buy lets YOU decide what you WANT to play. In a game I play for my enjoyment, I will pick the second one every single time.
That's very true. That's the precise reason it appeals to some people, you know.
It's the same reason why I as a player and GM prefer well thought-out campaigns with very strong themes and very strict guidelines about what characters mesh well with it. The players and GM should cooperate in order to tell a story; the GM should come up with a theme and tone to the game (approved by the players, of course) and the players then should create characters that fit into that theme.
That's one way to play. Everything set up just the way you want it. The GM knowing what kind of storyline he wants to tell, and making sure the players don't play characters who might wreck it. There might even be some sort of hero-point mechanic, to make sure that the dice don't go spoiling the story, either. Some people have a lot of fun doing that. It's not wrong. And point-buy certainly allows you to build the character you decide to play.
Now, other people, they look forward to surprise. The don't have "very strict guidelines" for characters to fit into the storyline; rather, the campaign bends around to fit the PCs. Also legitimate. Also fun. .
In short: Rolling for stats TELLS you what you CAN play. Choosing stats via point buy lets YOU decide what you WANT to play. In a game I play for my enjoyment, I will pick the second one every single time.
B$+*#~#s. In 16 years of rolling stats, I've never abandoned a concept due to the stats I rolled. It sounds like if you don't get to roll precisely what you want, then you abandon your concept. Point-Buy works better for you, since going for absolute precise stats is not what rolling is about.
It's the same reason why I as a player and GM prefer well thought-out campaigns with very strong themes and very strict guidelines about what characters mesh well with it. The players and GM should cooperate in order to tell a story; the GM should come up with a theme and tone to the game (approved by the players, of course) and the players then should create characters that fit into that theme. For instance if the GM and players decide the campaign is going to involve courtly intrigue and plots against the throne, the players should make characters which will fit into that theme. There can be some deviation, but the worst kind of player to have is the kind who, in a scenario like that, will make an anarchist barbarian character and then complain that they can't do anything, when if you ask me it's THEIR fault in the first place for making a character that didn't fit the tone of the game.
And this has what to do with Rolling/Point-Buy? Are you saying that players and DM's who rolls stats can't play well thought out campaigns? If you are playing a campaign whose character creation guidlelines are so strict, that in order to play a class you have to have a specific stat build, then that sounds much, much worse than, as you put it, the "bad old days". For as much precision in playing as it looks like you demand, does your group even roll dice in the game itself? Or do you point buy combat as well?
I've seen characters with completely gimp stats shine and go far. I've seen perfect machines with 3 18's stumble and fall. Your stats are not your character.
Rolling stats is an option. Point Buy is an option. IF your group only uses one or the other, then good for you. Use what's better for you, but outwardly attacking the other just because you don't prefer it looks asinine. Yes, I know what I wrote above. I'm not attacking Point Buy. I'm attacking the ignorance behind holding one up above the other. It's these absolutes that irritate me the most. Use what's good for you, but the constant immediate assumption that rolling stats makes gimped, unplayable characters baffles me. Get off your high horses.
Smurf?
HOLY CRAP that's friggin hilarious!!!!
How many different little blue buggers are there?
< Smurf >
The problem here is probably different experiences of how "rolling for stats" works out.
Most often when I see people who roll for their stats, they use a system that has many fail saves build in. These people usually like the excitement and personal experience of rolling without the drawback of gimping you char.
The people that very strongly advocate for buying usually experienced harsh rolling modes (4d6, drop lowest with no minimum and no reroll) that resulted in gimp characters.
While it can be nice to roleplay such a guy for a few sessions, being stuck with him in the 2-years-long campaign simply sucks for 99,99% of all the players.
Edit: smurf
b*%!!&#s. In 16 years of rolling stats, I've never abandoned a concept due to the stats I rolled. It sounds like if you don't get to roll precisely what you want, then you abandon your concept. Point-Buy works better for you, since going for absolute precise stats is not what rolling is about.
What if you dont roll stats that are sufficient to make your character effective, and the DM does not pull punches. Are you going to waste your time with a character that will most likely die within the first 3 session?
If the DM is going to help you out then the stats dont matter that much, but I think a lot of us that prefer point buy know we will suffer for having inadequate(opinion of that is a table to table thing) stats so we avoid it by using point buy.
b*%!!&#s. In 16 years of rolling stats, I've never abandoned a concept due to the stats I rolled. It sounds like if you don't get to roll precisely what you want, then you abandon your concept. Point-Buy works better for you, since going for absolute precise stats is not what rolling is about.
What if you dont roll stats that are sufficient to make your character effective, and the DM does not pull punches. Are you going to waste your time with a character that will most likely die within the first 3 session?
Absolutely. I wouldn't call it "wasting my time" though, I just call it gaming.
If we already knew the outcomes of every single encounter just from character creation, why bother playing? There's plenty of systems out there that don't even use dice.
And once more, for emphasis:
Are you going to waste your time with a character that will most likely die within the first 3 session?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think this mentality is where we are the most different. If I get to create a character and role-play it, for good or ill, it's not a waste of time. It's just gaming.
And once more, for emphasis:
Are you going to waste your time with a character that will most likely die within the first 3 session?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think this mentality is where we are the most different. If I get to create a character and role-play it, for good or ill, it's not a waste of time. It's just gaming.
It may be that we look at things different. I dont want to play a character for a few sessions just to have to make another one. Other people may not mind. I never thought of that.
What if you dont roll stats that are sufficient to make your character effective, and the DM does not pull punches.
Under the standard 3.5 rules you get to reroll if the stats are too poor to be effective.
Which is what people were doing anyway.
Why bring up a problem that was solved decades ago?
What is too poor is arbitrary, so the problem is not completely solved, but if someone does not mind taking the chance at making another character I can see how they would not mind taking a chance.
In order for it to be solved a rule would have to be in place that says your stats must be______, assuming X difficulty. I rolled bad once, DM Fiat was used to keep me alive, and the game was not fun. I was basically useless.
The problem here is probably different experiences of how "rolling for stats" works out.
Most often when I see people who roll for their stats, they use a system that has many fail saves build in. These people usually like the excitement and personal experience of rolling without the drawback of gimping you char.
The people that very strongly advocate for buying usually experienced harsh rolling modes (4d6, drop lowest with no minimum and no reroll) that resulted in gimp characters.
While it can be nice to roleplay such a guy for a few sessions, being stuck with him in the 2-years-long campaign simply sucks for 99,99% of all the players.
Edit: smurf
Can we please ban the use of the word "gimped" on these messageboards? It really annoys the crap out of me. At the risk of insulting a fair number of people, I will lay out there my contention that there is no such thing as a gimped character, only gimped players who can't or won't play anything less than a perfectly optimized character. I realize that this is a fantasy roleplaying game, and some people have very specific fantasies they want to play out, and those fantasies may involve playing a character designed just so and with all feats, skills, spells, ability bumps and probably even magic items planned out in advance from 1st to 20th level either to maximize their character's power or fit their predetermined character concept. Sounds boring to me, but that's just me. If that makes them happy and enhances their experience, more power to them. I just want them to stop referring to any character that does not match those predetermined ideals of perfection as "gimped" or "deadweight". Is that too much to ask? Rant over.
It may be that we look at things different. I dont want to play a character for a few sessions just to have to make another one. Other people may not mind. I never thought of that.
And once more, for emphasis:
Are you going to waste your time with a character that will most likely die within the first 3 session?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think this mentality is where we are the most different. If I get to create a character and role-play it, for good or ill, it's not a waste of time. It's just gaming.
Right on, I can understand that. The dice gods can be fickle long after stats are rolled, though. I try not to get too attached to a character until I've got some time in with it. I've had awesome beastly chars with demi-god stats die to a single bad saving throw, and I've had feeble characters I made in jest that wouldn't die, no matter how hard I tried lol! I just play and see what happens. If they die the first night(had that happen several times) then I just try something new.
Also, you never know when RL situations just come up. I rejoined a World's Largest Dungeon campaign I had previously left, and made a character that I felt fit it perfectly. I had a blast, but after my first night back, the group played on another night without me and TPK'ed. So, I return the following week, and they're playing a new game. >.< I rolled a great character I was pumped about playing, it didn't die or anything, and I still wound up only playing him for one session. You just never know.
Can we please ban the use of the word "gimped" on these messageboards? It really annoys the crap out of me. At the risk of insulting a fair number of people, I will lay out there my contention that there is no such thing as a gimped character, only gimped players who can't or won't play anything less than a perfectly optimized character. I realize that this is a fantasy roleplaying game, and some people have very specific fantasies they want to play out, and those fantasies may involve playing a character designed just so and with all feats, skills, spells, ability bumps and probably even magic items planned out in advance from 1st to 20th level either to maximize their character's power or fit their predetermined character concept. Sounds boring to me, but that's just me. If that makes them happy and enhances their experience, more power to them. I just want them to stop referring to any character that does not match those predetermined ideals of perfection as "gimped" or "deadweight". Is that too much to ask? Rant over.The problem here is probably different experiences of how "rolling for stats" works out.
Most often when I see people who roll for their stats, they use a system that has many fail saves build in. These people usually like the excitement and personal experience of rolling without the drawback of gimping you char.
The people that very strongly advocate for buying usually experienced harsh rolling modes (4d6, drop lowest with no minimum and no reroll) that resulted in gimp characters.
While it can be nice to roleplay such a guy for a few sessions, being stuck with him in the 2-years-long campaign simply sucks for 99,99% of all the players.
Edit: smurf
There are gimped characters. That does not mean the label is always applied correctly, but the misapplying of the label does not mean the label is not valid at other times.
There are gimped characters. That does not mean the label is always applied correctly, but the misapplying of the label does not mean the label is not valid at other times.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
|
I've mostly used a rolling system of 4d6 drop lowest, reroll any score lower than 9, scores placed in any order. If a set of scores is really bland and average (say, mostly nines, tens and elevens or no single score above 15), I might offer another d6 to distribute as the player sees fit, or allow him to drop a point or two in one score and raise another.
It gives a moderately high average, with an opportunity at a few good scores. I find I like that better than a point-buy, myself; the players usually have a choice of any character archetype they'd like; and it works pretty well for the campaigns I run. (Course, the campaigns I run are largely old-school or based off it, anyway. I run a Castles & Crusades campaign, my bud runs a Basic campaign.)
3.5/Pathfinder generally tends to work better from a point-buy system because the character creation process is centered on constructing a character-- in some cases, laboriously constructing a character-- starting on an equal, balanced footing. The "randomness" of character creation in 3.5/PF is completely based on the player choices of score placement, skills, feats, and so on, rather than 'luck of the draw' dice rolls.
And as a system, it works fine... I'm just not as fond of it because A) character rolling has proven much faster in my group than character building, B) it fits the more 'old-school' feel of the games we run, and C) because I just rather like the arbitrariness of dice rolling character stats.
We roll dice, 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste. Everyone just rolls six times, there are no re-re-rolls and we have fun. The point buy mentality is another option, mythically better, but no better or worse.
Heck, a player rolled up a Labyrinth Lord character a couple of weeks ago that would stand toe to toe against any Pathfinder or 4e starting character and that game is based on Basic D&D from 1980.
Point buy better? No. Another option, certainly.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats.
There are gimped characters. That does not mean the label is always applied correctly, but the misapplying of the label does not mean the label is not valid at other times.
I do remember that, and I agree, but you still have to have the abilities to make those decisions matter. Just because being a good player is important that does not mean stats don't matter. A combination of player skill and decent(not even good) stats is needed to play the game and survive without DM Fiat. Another poster said he does not mind dying as long as he got to play his character, but I don't think that is the norm. Most players want to play the character all the way through the campaign, and depending on various things that may or may not be likely to happen.
We roll dice, 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste. Everyone just rolls six times, there are no re-re-rolls and we have fun. The point buy mentality is another option, mythically better, but no better or worse.
Heck, a player rolled up a Labyrinth Lord character a couple of weeks ago that would stand toe to toe against any Pathfinder or 4e starting character and that game is based on Basic D&D from 1980.
Point buy better? No. Another option, certainly.
It can be worse depending on what you want out of a game, and the group playstyle. I don't think its inherently bad, but I don't see what it brings to the table.
As for the variety(randomeness) comment made by another poster earlier, considering the fact that point buy is normally weighted, point buy can still have people not be the same.20 point buy: ()= 1 for 1
16 14 14 10 10 10= (74)
14 14 14 14 12 8= (76)
18 13 10 10 10 10= (71)
As you can see there is a decent amount of variety.
I do remember that, and I agree, but you still have to have the abilities to make those decisions matter. Just because being a good player is important that does not mean stats don't matter. A combination of player skill and decent(not even good) stats is needed to play the game and survive without DM Fiat. Another poster said he does not mind dying as long as he got to play his character, but I don't think that is the norm. Most players want to play the character all the way through the campaign, and depending on various things that may or may not be likely to happen.I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats.
There are gimped characters. That does not mean the label is always applied correctly, but the misapplying of the label does not mean the label is not valid at other times.
I hear you, brother, and I think we are narrowing in on a lot of points of agreement, but will probably have to agree to disagree on others. I fully agree most people are more excited to play a character with great stats than a character with average or poor stats. I know I am. But I don't flinch from playing average joe either, because I know I can be valuable and contribute no matter what my stats. Sure I may not succeed as often mechanically as my gene-blessed colleagues, but so much of the game takes place between rolls of the dice that that isn't such a big deal.
I don't think DM fiat (which I have no problem with, by the way, so long as it is done smoothly, and preferably in ways the players don't even notice) is necessary to keep suboptimal players alive and productive. The aforementioned elven thief is a good example. I actually recommended to the player that he ditch that character and roll again, as I was concerned he might not survive long, but the player really wanted to try to play him, against my advice. I consequently pulled no punches as a DM, but the dude just wouldn't die. When he finally did die, you could even say it was due to DM meanness, as I let him find a +2 keen rapier that suddenly gave him delusions of melee greatness. He suddenly got a lot braver in melee, forgetting that he didn't have the hit points for it, and got caught.
Regarding character death, I agree that people don't want their characters to die. Players should feel something when a well-constructed character dies (hopefully heroically). However, without that ever-present threat of character death, the game loses a lot of its spice. In thirty plus years as a DM, I've probably killed about 50 characters, and I've never done a TPK. The vast majority of deaths have come from poor decisions made by the players rather than bad rolls. I expect people to be upset when they lose a character, but I also expect them to either pick themselves up and roll a new character that will be just as much fun, or wait to be raised from the dead and come back swinging.
Anyway, back to my original plea, can we please not call sub-optimal characters "gimped", or for that matter "unplayable" or "dead weight". Pretty please?
Anyway, back to my original plea, can we please not call sub-optimal characters "gimped", or for that matter "unplayable" or "dead weight". Pretty please?
What should I call them? I can't pretend like they don't exist, and I don't really know a way to put it nicely. If you are dead weight then you are dead weight. I do reserve the terms for those characters I don't expect to contribute or last more than 3 sessions though.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
There are gimped characters. That does not mean the label is always applied correctly, but the misapplying of the label does not mean the label is not valid at other times.
+1 to Brian.
It's true that stats matter in immediate ways with respect to the outcome of die rolls. And die rolls, in the aggregate, matter to the success of the PC. But what matters more? The way the PC is played. It has been my experience that players make their luck more than rely on a swing of a few points of bonus, for good or bad.
What should I call them? I can't pretend like they don't exist, and I don't really know a way to put it nicely. If you are dead weight then you are dead weight. I do reserve the terms for those characters I don't expect to contribute or last more than 3 sessions though.Anyway, back to my original plea, can we please not call sub-optimal characters "gimped", or for that matter "unplayable" or "dead weight". Pretty please?
How about "genetically challenged", to be PC about it? :)
Seriously, I don't see the need for a label at all, as I don't believe the condition exists.
Getting back to the original idea of the thread, the condescending or downright offensive attitude towards sub-optimal characters is something I see as a danger of point buy systems. When you have total control over your character's stat build, players see no excuse for having a statistically sub-optimal character. Nobody to blame but the person who created it. When stats are rolled, sometimes you are blessed by the dice and sometimes you aren't. We've all been there and we all learn how to compensate for low scores and still contribute, and we all have patience for those who are less blessed by the dice gods.
Anyway, gotta run now, but fun debating with ya.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
There are gimped characters. That does not mean the label is always applied correctly, but the misapplying of the label does not mean the label is not valid at other times.+1 to Brian.
It's true that stats matter in immediate ways with respect to the outcome of die rolls. And die rolls, in the aggregate, matter to the success of the PC. But what matters more? The way the PC is played. It has been my experience that players make their luck more than rely on a swing of a few points of bonus, for good or bad.
Once again just because decisions matter more, that does not mean stats don't matter.
Once again just because decisions matter more, that does not mean stats don't matter.
That doesn't mean that "gimped" is a meaningful or useful term.
Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
Been there, done that. Next?
In a AD&D2 game I've ruled, one of the PC was a paladin who consistently rolled low on HD. At level 3, he had 10 HP. Since he died at level 3, we'll never know how many HP he would have rolled at higher level.
A funny thing, there were also a fighter with more than 25 HP in the same game. I could have reduced the monsters' damages, but every encounter would have been very easy thanks to the fighter.
I'm very interested for solutions make such a character worth playing. Because, even if I was younger and less experienced, I still don't see how this character could have been played, or how I, as a DM, could have make the game interesting for him. The only thing I see is to play a paladin who don't fight; in fact, a paladin who stay at home would be safer. I don't really see the point in playing a paladin if you can't fight.
In every game I've DMed in recent years, I've given max hit points at first level (and first level only), as that is when the extreme disparities like what you mentioned are most evident. So a third level paladin, even if extremely unlucky, and with no Con bonus, could never have less than 12 HP, and is most likely to have close to 20, not too far off his fighter buddy. Over various levels, the rolls tend to even out.
Our other DM also allows players to take his roll in place of their own if they want at all levels. That's a bit too generous for my tastes, but it works for him.
In the end, if you have a low HP character in-close melee is probably not the best option. Paladins fortunately have a lot of ways to contribute to the party that don't involve wading in and bashing away until somebody falls down. Even if it were a pure fighter, though, you could abandon the melee concept and go for a ranged weapon build or, if you can't resist the lure of melee, consider being a second line fighter with a reach weapon.
That doesn't mean that "gimped" is a meaningful or useful term.
Once again just because decisions matter more, that does not mean stats don't matter.
I will ask you what I ask Brian, what should we call it then? It does exist. What word you apply to it does not matter. It would be like me complaining about being short. You, not calling me short, does not stop it from being true. Negative things always have negative connotations. Useless, gimped, dead weight and so on are not positive, but pretending like they don't exist wont solve anything either.
Been there, done that. Next?Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
I think he means do that and survive when the DM does not hold back. Like I said before, if the DM is willing to help you out the stats really dont matter.
I think he means do that and survive when the DM does not hold back. Like I said before, if the DM is willing to help you out the stats really dont matter.Been there, done that. Next?Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
If the DM is willing to help you out then none of this discussion matters. What's your point? The DM could be "helping" by giving every 2 rerolls of stats or even a 30 point buy. The DM could be helping out by upping starting wealth. The DM "helping out", invalidates this entire discussion, beacuse the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules, which means ANYTHING goes.
And by the way, my all 10's PC did just fine. The DM didn't hold back. Your argument would go a lot better if you stopped assuming things about other people's games you don't actually know.
I think he means do that and survive when the DM does not hold back. Like I said before, if the DM is willing to help you out the stats really dont matter.Been there, done that. Next?Great! So you play the character with 10s across the board and one 12.
I cannot disagree more. A character is far more than just a collection of stats, and the game is far more than just the mechanics. I've said it before on these boards and I'll keep saying it - the success of a character is determined far more by the roleplaying decisions a player makes than by their stats. An 18 constitution won't save a stupidly played character, and a 6 constitution won't doom one played well (Yes, in a recent campaign I had a guy who played an elf thief with a 6 constitution, made it all the way to 9th level before he died even once, and then was promptly resurrected because he was one of the most valuable members of the party.)
I was going to check out of this thread and go grab some lunch, but couldn't resist answering this one.
As a DM I am ALWAYS holding back. If I ever, given complete control over the environment, the opposition and their tactics, and intimate knowledge of my players strengths and weaknesses, play the bad guys to their fullest abilities, I'll get a TPK every night. That ain't what the game is all about. I'm constantly adjusting the challenge level up and down to keep it exciting and dangerous without being overwhelming or unfun. However, I do so based on the party's total capabilities, not those of any one character.
One of the great things about PF and D&D is that they are group activities. The group succeeds or fails as a team. If one player has weaknesses or is just having a bad night, the others have to compensate, knowing that the time will come when they are having a rough time and need to be picked up by their comrades. It is readily apparent when a group reaches that point where they really gel as a team, rather than as a collection of individuals. When that happens, I can hold back a little less, but I'm still holding back. I suspect if I weren't, I wouldn't have a group anymore.
The DM didn't hold back. Your argument would go a lot better if you stopped assuming things about other people's games you don't actually know.
I have no way of knowing that and many would argue that if the DM is doing his job neither would you, but by conventional logic it seems to be highly improbable.
As a DM I am ALWAYS holding back. If I ever, given complete control over the environment, the opposition and their tactics, and intimate knowledge of my players strengths and weaknesses, .....
That would be not metagaming, which is different than holding back.
Not Metamgaming = not using information the NPC's have no reason to have.
Holding back is intentionally using lesser tactics, fudging dice, lowering DC's and so on.
PS: There is nothing wrong with holding back by the way. Players just need to know when it is going on if they have a weak character so they dont walk in on another DM's game wonder why they can't get away with the same things as they did at another table.
I will ask you what I ask Brian, what should we call it then? It does exist. What word you apply to it does not matter. It would be like me complaining about being short. You, not calling me short, does not stop it from being true. Negative things always have negative connotations. Useless, gimped, dead weight and so on are not positive, but pretending like they don't exist wont solve anything either.That doesn't mean that "gimped" is a meaningful or useful term.
Once again just because decisions matter more, that does not mean stats don't matter.
The problem is they're relative terms at best. Is a character with all 12s or 14s gimped? How about a character with an 18 and all the rest 10s? What does "gimped" or "dead weight" mean? Whose standards do we use?
Better to just say what they are - a character with all a little above average, a character with one high the rest middling, or a character with an ineffective player.
|
|
PS: There is nothing wrong with holding back by the way. Players just need to know when it is going on if they have a weak character so they dont walk in on another DM's game wonder why they can't get away with the same things as they did at another table.
I totally agree with you in that there is nothing wrong with holding back once in a while-- fudging the twenty that would kill a player's character (and maybe, effectively, the party) into a devastating blow that cleaves his magical armor and renders it useless instead, for instance, or for the sake of a more compelling story.
But I don't know that I would ever personally tell my players that I held back on their account or anything. If so, it would take an immense amount of tact on my part to say it and not make it sound like, "I let you win." I'd rather have them celebrate their victory, feel like they accomplished something unbelievable (which most likely they did) and had a great time. Telling them that they shouldn't have won, but I fudged a roll or knocked down the CR of the BBEG would almost seem like a hollow victory.
And I'll note that my campaign offers players a choice:Option One Dice Buy.
You start with 28 six-sided dice. You can buy additional traits with them:
1st trait costs 1 die
2nd trait costs 2 additional dice
3rd trait costs 3 additional dice
4th trait costs 4 additional diceor you can assign them to attributes. Once you assign them (at least 3d6 per attribute) roll and take the best three. If you roll more than three 6's, special rules apply.
I designed something like that for the last 3.5 game I ran. My group usually uses point buy, but my biggest issue with that is that you end up choosing where your character's weaknesses are so that they don't hamper you at all.
What we ended up doing for this game was:
You have 20d6. Assign them to the six stats in any amounts, minimum 2d6. Then roll all of them. If you roll 2d6, add 2 and use that value. If you roll 3d6, add 1 and use that value. If you roll 4d6 or more, count all dice, and keep rolling until you get an 18 or less.
This gave the players great control over their character's stats, while still making it random. In general, everyone had one stat really unexpectedly low (low enough to actually cause them problems) without it crippling them, and with the stats they needed generally pretty good, but not min-maxed like you can do with point buy. I had a few extra rules about when you could reroll everything from scratch (nothing higher than a 13, or total mod of less than +1, I think) which did come up a few times, but in general it worked pretty well on the first shot.
While 'Gimped' may be a harsh word, some descriptor needs to be used to describe characters folks don't like / want to play. Challenged? Non-Optimum? Statistically Challenged? Hmmm, I'm afraid Gimped is just an easier version. LIke Nerf for some MMOs when they down grade abilities and things. I think it's a term we're doomed with.
Now, do I believe in the 'Lacking' character? Some what. If you have a class that is dependent on multiple stats, a poor roll will make you compromise somewhere. Is that class unplayable with out major modifiers? Some of the Pre Made APs I've seen would make a character with out a good bonus struggle in some areas. Saves, Finding Traps, Bluffing, Sense Motives, thinks like that with out bonuses suffer most but not unplayable.
Alot of folks don't think that's fun when you're not 'uber' compared to the NPCs that you interact with.
The poor Pally above with only 10 hps would be a sad character to play, I have to admit. You are a thumping class and with that few HPs, you'd be toast... burnt toast, whole loaf o toast!
Still, I had my New Group do a point buy the other night. Well, I had 2 Fighters, Ranger, Rogue and a Sorcerer. Now, I made the Fighters Twins (Same Stats, race). Then, I made the Rogue and Ranger Twins (Same Stats, race). In the first night, the Rogue bought the farm on a an arrow trap and just erased his damage, changed some of his gear and used the EXACT same stats for his next character.... 0-o That to me is the biggest hang up I have with the Point Buy. Game breaker, no. It just feels weird to me.
< smurf > Still cracks me up.
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~