| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue is that it seems that there is a belief that you and your desires are the most important thing in the games.
This is exactly what I am saying. The game is not just about the DM and the desires of the DM. I think it's good for someone to have an idea about what game they want to run. The problem is when they are inflexible and refuse to tweak their idea to make room for the desires of others. I'm also against things like players who don't want anyone else to play a paladin.
Or do you believe that players should have as much control over the story as the GM?By virtue of their position, the GM has more control over the story than individual players. What I am opposed to is the idea that the GM's desires should by default take precedence over the desires of a player. Sometimes the best compromise is for the player to tweak their concept. But not always and we shouldn't start from the assumption that the player should always change for the GM. Let me quote the bit that started this digression:
what we have now which is a bunch of whiny players who have premade character ideas and demand the game fit their needs perfectly because god forbid should they not be in control of every aspect of their character.
This is a really unhelpful attitude to take. Why is it wrong for someone to want to play a certain character, even if it doesn't perfectly fit with the GM's extant ideas for the campaign? Why is the player "whiny" for wanting to do this? Why should they change instead of the GM tweaking their campaign to make the character fit? The idea that conflicts between what the GM wants and what a player wants are always the fault of the player and they ought adapt to fit the GM's desire is frankly an absurd idea.
To reiterate: as a GM, I earnestly think that campaigns are more fun when you are willing to tweak your ideas to work with your players. The game is more fun when everyone is engaged in it and people are more engaged if they are playing the characters they want to play. Further, other people can come up with good ideas too! If I incorporate the ideas of players into the campaign, then instead of just one person coming up with ideas, I have four or five.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For the last couple of years, I've run Pathfinder Society every time I run Pathfinder RPG. So, 20-point buy.
But the last time I ran a home game, I used a method that everybody liked. It lets players have some control over their characters, and still invites fate to have a hand in things.
1) Assign 28 dice to the six attributes. Every attribute has to have at least two dice.
2) Roll the dice for each attribute. Add the top three results.
2a) There is a hard floor (before racial adjustments) of 6 in an attribute. If you roll 3d6 and end up with {1, 1, 2} that's a 6.
2b) If you assigned only two dice to an attribute, roll them, and add 2 to the total.
2b) If you roll a lot of dice, and several of them turn out as '6', count each '6' above the first 3 as +1.
As an alternative we liked, here's a method we stole from Obsidian Portal:
1) Roll 4d6, take the best 3. Do that nine times, and put those scores into a 3-x-3 grid.
2) Label the columns "Strength", "Dexterity" and "Constitution". Label the rows "Intelligence", "Wisdom" and "Charisma.
3) Pick numbers from each row or column for the designated attribute. Once you pick a score, cross it off; you can only use each number once.
So the question arises: what does the GM do when one character's scores are much better than another's? Our answer: total the scores as if they were point buys. The highest score is the "thresh-hold". For each 3 points a character's score is below the thresh-hold, the character gets an extra trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually came to a sort of middle-ground for stat generation.
Point-buy offers equality, but can be "boring." Rolling offers authenticity, but can leave someone in the dust.
So, what my group does now is have the GM roll a "pool" of 6 stats, and everyone uses that same pool to distribute as they see fit.
Only used it twice, but it's pretty neat.
This is a really unhelpful attitude to take. Why is it wrong for someone to want to play a certain character, even if it doesn't perfectly fit with the GM's extant ideas for the campaign? Why is the player "whiny" for wanting to do this? Why should they change instead of the GM tweaking their campaign to make the character fit? The idea that conflicts between what the GM wants and what a player wants are always the fault of the player and they ought adapt to fit the GM's desire is frankly an absurd idea.
To reiterate: as a GM, I earnestly think that campaigns are more fun when you are willing to tweak your ideas to work with your players. The game is more fun when everyone is engaged in it and people are...
It is wrong because in our presumed scenario we have a player who is purposely holding the group back by choosing not to simply accept the terms of the game that everyone else has.
If the DM wants you to roll stats 3d6 in order and 4 out of 5 players agree to it, then the 5th player doesn't want to because of the character he has already made up and wants to play and refuses to just let that idea sit out for the next time, then yes that player is being whiny, petulant, spoiled, bratty, whatever other adjective you wanna use.
I actually came to a sort of middle-ground for stat generation.
Point-buy offers equality, but can be "boring." Rolling offers authenticity, but can leave someone in the dust.
So, what my group does now is have the GM roll a "pool" of 6 stats, and everyone uses that same pool to distribute as they see fit.
Only used it twice, but it's pretty neat.
We came up with a system where you get to pick your own stats, but you have to be able to hit below a certain number when you calculate the average.
Our game had 2.2 as our maximum average stat modifier, and it worked pretty well.
If the DM wants you to roll stats 3d6 in order and 4 out of 5 players agree to it, then the 5th player doesn't want to because of the character he has already made up and wants to play and refuses to just let that idea sit out for the next time, then yes that player is being whiny, petulant, spoiled, bratty, whatever other adjective you wanna use.
If a player suggests using 20 point-buy and all the players agree to it, but the DM doesn't want to, then yes that DM is being whiny, petulant, spoiled, bratty, whatever other adjective you wanna use.
Really, the problem here is that you make it seem like these hypothetical four players only like 3d6 in order. They agree to do 3d6 in order. That doesn't mean they wouldn't also agree to do 4d6 assign at will, or point-buy, or whatever other system. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer another system of determining character stats. If every player would be happy with point-buy but only four players would be happy with 3d6 in order, then doing point-buy makes more players happy. Why would you pick the option that is acceptable to strictly fewer people?
We came up with a system where you get to pick your own stats, but you have to be able to hit below a certain number when you calculate the average.
Our game had 2.2 as our maximum average stat modifier, and it worked pretty well.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding that system, but I'm getting a character with four 18s using the 2.2 average stat thing.
If the DM wants you to roll stats 3d6 in order and 4 out of 5 players agree to it, then the 5th player doesn't want to because of the character he has already made up and wants to play and refuses to just let that idea sit out for the next time, then yes that player is being whiny, petulant, spoiled, bratty, whatever other adjective you wanna use.If a player suggests using 20 point-buy and all the players agree to it, but the DM doesn't want to, then yes that DM is being whiny, petulant, spoiled, bratty, whatever other adjective you wanna use.
Really, the problem here is that you make it seem like these hypothetical four players only like 3d6 in order. They agree to do 3d6 in order. That doesn't mean they wouldn't also agree to do 4d6 assign at will, or point-buy, or whatever other system. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer another system of determining character stats. If every player would be happy with point-buy but only four players would be happy with 3d6 in order, then doing point-buy makes more players happy. Why would you pick the option that is acceptable to strictly fewer people?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding that system, but I'm getting a character with four 18s using the 2.2 average stat thing.We came up with a system where you get to pick your own stats, but you have to be able to hit below a certain number when you calculate the average.
Our game had 2.2 as our maximum average stat modifier, and it worked pretty well.
Are you dumping? The whole point of this system was to avoid dumping. Never said it was perfect.
And I agree with you that if the players all agree to play one way and the DM refuses just to refuse then it's the same thing. You aren't really making a case here, I am unsure as to what exactly you are trying to say.
Are you dumping? The whole point of this system was to avoid dumping. Never said it was perfect.
Is dumping forbidden? If not, dumping is actually advantageous for that system. Under the standard point-buy system, dumping from a 10 to a 7 lets you raise another stat from a 17 to an 18. In your system, dumping from a 10 to a 7 lets you raise another stat from a 14 to an 18. Anyway, I did dump a couple scores. Upping the dumped 7 and the 9 to 11s, I ended up with 18,18,17,15,11,11, which is still really good. Alternatively, I could have done 18,18,18,13,11,11 or 18,17,17,17,11,11.
In point-buy, higher scores have an increasing marginal cost. In your system based on the average modifier, that's not the case. Your system is that the sum of your modifiers needs to be ≤13. That is, the cost from going to a 16 to an 18 is the same as the cost from going from a 10 to a 12. Hence, your system is biased towards higher scores.
You aren't really making a case here, I am unsure as to what exactly you are trying to say.
I expounded here. The short version is that the DM's desires don't automatically take precedence over a player's desires.
Are you dumping? The whole point of this system was to avoid dumping. Never said it was perfect.Is dumping forbidden? If not, dumping is actually advantageous for that system. I did dump a little. Upping the 7 and the 9 to 10s, I ended up with two 18s, a 16, and a 14, which is still really good. Alternatively, I could have done 18,18,18,12,10,10.
In point-buy, higher scores have an increasing marginal cost. In your system based on the average modifier, that's not the case. Your system is that the sum of your modifiers needs to be ≤13. That is, the cost from going to a 16 to an 18 is the same as the cost from going from a 10 to a 12. Hence, your system is biased towards higher scores.
The system is intended for higher scores to be possible, at some point I will probably compose some grand wall of text fully explaining my take on the subject, but I feel the game is better off with better stats as it rewards MAD classes and leaves SAD classes relatively the same in power level. Being able to roll up a paladin, ranger, or monk with dynamite stats makes playing the character and widening your options a lot easier. Being able to stat up a wizard with dynamite stats doesn't change how you play the wizard at all. The 2.2 average is a very high powered game, with the design choice being that you should be able to get at least two 18's and not have to dump anything unless you want to. A DM could set that average lower or higher in order to mess with the power level of the game. Naturally, min maxers can abuse this system a lot more than point buy, but the system wasn't made for them.
You aren't really making a case here, I am unsure as to what exactly you are trying to say.I expounded here. The short version is that the DM's desires don't automatically take precedence over a player's desires.
I agree with this. There are several examples in my own personal games where I simply have to give up on things that I feel are important and allow anyway. I personally hate auto-success/auto-fails on nat 20's & 1's for skill checks, but my players love it, so I keep that rule. Being willing to compromise is one of the most important aspects in running a fun game.
That said, when it comes to the DM wanting to ensure balance between power level of the players, that's something the players shouldn't mess with. When it comes to the mechanics of the game, things like not being able to take a full attack action after moving, that's also something I think players shouldn't try and mess with.
The system is intended for higher scores to be possible, at some point I will probably compose some grand wall of text fully explaining my take on the subject, but I feel the game is better off with better stats as it rewards MAD classes and leaves SAD classes relatively the same in power level. Being able to roll up a paladin, ranger, or monk with dynamite stats makes playing the character and widening your options a lot easier. Being able to stat up a wizard with dynamite stats doesn't change how you play the wizard at all. The 2.2 average is a very high powered game, with the design choice being that you should be able to get at least two 18's and not have to dump anything unless you want to. A DM could set that average lower or higher in order to mess with the power level of the game. Naturally, min maxers can abuse this system a lot more than point buy, but the system wasn't made for them.
Oh, I wasn't criticizing the system. It's just that a system which makes it really easy to have multiple high scores seems at odd with your earlier complaint about whiny, entitled players who don't like randomly generated stats because it doesn't allow them to play the characters they want. But if the system is set up to allow players to play what they want and to make MAD classes more viable, then I'm all for that.
Really, the only criticism of the system I'd make is that stating the limit as the average modifier is needless obfuscation. Just give a limit on the sum of the modifiers.
While the GM's desires don't take precedence over player desires, GMs can still work around the players.
For instance, I've noticed a small problem with the group I'm running through Runelords. A couple players had rolled really well. I had to increase the stats of a third player to compensate (and then when a fourth player joined, I allowed her to have a high point build so she'd not be powerless).
Unfortunately, this has ended up with characters who are mowing through the Runelords encounters. After they slaughtered a Mythic Xanesha with four levels of Sorcerer I brought up the concept of reducing their stats to 25 point builds. While one player was willing, another was quite adamant against it because of the problems they faced with Xanesha (despite the fact I'd made her Mythic and reworked the character to be a specific threat against them).
Fortunately, I run Hero Labs. As the players don't want to reduce to a 25-point build, I'm just going to give EVERYTHING the Advanced Creature build. (I'm also giving everything near-max hit points, but that is because the barbarian is horrific in combat due to the use of buffs and the like. Funny thing is, the Barbarian could have had just as high a strength via a 15-point build (starting with a 17 strength before racial modification - that's only 13 points; she could easily have her 14 Constitution by buying down Charisma to an 8) so the combat threat of the Barbarian would have existed no matter what.)
I kind of dislike doing this because it increases the armor class by four points for most encounters. But I want these encounters to be a challenge for them.
(I also incorporated Mythic into the game just now. To keep stat power creep from being even worse, I'm not allowing the 2-point stat increases for each even Mythic Tier - though they'll only be at Tier 4 by the end of Runelords so it won't be that great a change.)
The simplest thing to do with high stat score games is to determine the average point builds of the group and then increase the points of the enemies to be comparable or slightly below that. For instance, most of the PCs in my Reign of Winter campaign are around 35 points. I'm increasing the point builds of all people to be 25 points (which will match the two GMPCs that ended up in the game back when the game only had three players - one of the GMPCs was meant to be kidnapped for Night Below, but when RoW came out, I switched campaigns in mid-stream before the kidnapping could happen). The problem being, of course, that you can't always determine how many points a stat is for a monster - in these cases, I'm just making guestimations.
---------
However, one other thing to consider is this: not all high-point-builds are the same. For instance, my RoW campaign has one girl (new to Pathfinder) who legitimately rolled a 52-point build (17, 16, 16, 15, 15, 14). She built a Human Rogue, tossed the +2 stat increase into a 15 which went into Intelligence, and goes around using a blowgun as her weapon of choice. And no, she doesn't have Precise Aim, as of 5th level.
I'd be willing to bet that an optimized 10-point build 5th level Barbarian could probably take her out, even if she got the first shot in.
Or in other words: stats are only as good as the players using them, and their effects may not be apparent until higher levels. Your mileage may vary.
The system is intended for higher scores to be possible, at some point I will probably compose some grand wall of text fully explaining my take on the subject, but I feel the game is better off with better stats as it rewards MAD classes and leaves SAD classes relatively the same in power level. Being able to roll up a paladin, ranger, or monk with dynamite stats makes playing the character and widening your options a lot easier. Being able to stat up a wizard with dynamite stats doesn't change how you play the wizard at all. The 2.2 average is a very high powered game, with the design choice being that you should be able to get at least two 18's and not have to dump anything unless you want to. A DM could set that average lower or higher in order to mess with the power level of the game. Naturally, min maxers can abuse this system a lot more than point buy, but the system wasn't made for them.Oh, I wasn't criticizing the system. It's just that a system which makes it really easy to have multiple high scores seems at odd with your earlier complaint about whiny, entitled players who don't like randomly generated stats because it doesn't allow them to play the characters they want. But if the system is set up to allow players to play what they want and to make MAD classes more viable, then I'm all for that.
Really, the only criticism of the system I'd make is that stating the limit as the average modifier is needless obfuscation. Just give a limit on the sum of the modifiers.
Right, and that number landed on 13, my personal issue with it is that it doesn't account for odd numbered ability scores so anyone can give themselves all odd stats and still be in the clear compared to another player. BUT, the real question here is: would that be a problem?
When it comes to whiny players that I have a problem with, most of the problem I have is because I try and give out a wealth of options like this system allows and then it's still not good enough for them. It's kind of discouraging to a DM who actively tries to make compromises in the game system for the sake of fun and it ends up not making it more fun because the player is deciding to be insatiable.
^DM problems^