xD
It's what I do best. And the proximity in names is purely coincidental... I think.
The likelyhood of character clones, depends on your players. I'm sorry that your players have locked themselves out from being able to take a concept first because of their habit to "replay" their characters.
|
Have you had what I call "Paranoia Effect"?
Can't say that I have. I've had a friend joke about swapping two stats and introducing the character's twin brother. Maybe used it once in a one-shot to keep the player in the action.
But if you have players that automatically assume that is the default, I blame that on lack of player investment in the character, which could be due to Paranoia-style gameplay. It could certainly be an issue with the players outlook, but I think 'point-buy makes cookie-cutter characters' is an excuse players latch on to justify them making cardboard characters they do not get attached to.
As said above, point-buy isn't the problem, the players are. Change the players outlook and the problem goes away, regardless of the stat method.
Well two of my players are shameless optimizers. And by shameless I mean completely ignore rules as intended and embrace rules as written. To these guys it is perfectly legal to play the paranoia effect. And if it is perfectly legal they feel it should be done as often as they want. One of the reasons I avoid point buy at all costs when I run games I guess.
|
As said above, point-buy isn't the problem, the players are. Change the players outlook and the problem goes away, regardless of the stat method.
Yep. So far, I agree with what you've had to say on this topic, especially in your last couple'a posts, TOZ. :D
To the rest of ya out there-- optimizing and role-playing are NOT mutually exclusive concepts. Yes, optimization can be taken too far. At the same time, it ain't a crime to want your character to be cool, interesting, unique, have a good personality-- AND effective.
|
|
Well two of my players are shameless optimizers. And by shameless I mean completely ignore rules as intended and embrace rules as written. To these guys it is perfectly legal to play the paranoia effect. And if it is perfectly legal they feel it should be done as often as they want. One of the reasons I avoid point buy at all costs when I run games I guess.
Like TOZ said-- I think you need to fix the players, or find different people to game with. Your "solutions" would ensure that I'd probably quit your game, after rolling several times too many mediocre characters. I don't usually play "paranoia" style unless the game is supposed to have a high body count-- at which point, one does invest a little less in characters that are expected to die. I have said many times elsewhere that I consider intent very important, and in fact, if RAI conflicts with RAW-- I usually insert a house-rule to make the RAW comply with intent, not let RAW stand in violation of RAI.
But, when making a character-- I usually come up with a concept, vision, idea... start forming a back-story, and then make my character to match the idea/personality/etc. And most of the time, that doesn't work very well when rolling stats, particularly if you have to take the stats as rolled. As others besides me have pointed out (notably Gordon)-- the dice kind of tell you what character you're going to make... you get to take the rolls, and see if you can come up with a concept that fits, instead of coming up with a good concept and then building your character. Way too many times in the "old days" when characters were always rolled, I've seen characters that just weren't anything other than average or mediocre, and that's NOT heroic. I'm just not interested in playing OFPs in a game anymore. I'm not a min-maxer or munchkin, but I do want to play 'extraordinary' not 'ordinary'.
OFP = Ordinary F***ing People, an acronym I first heard from a gaming buddy around 30 years ago.
Aranna is saying that she doesn't like super mario brothers in her game. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's the feeling I get from her posts.
|
|
Aranna is saying that she doesn't like super mario brothers in her game. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's the feeling I get from her posts.
Yeah, I got that part. I'm saying that the way she's going about 'fixing' her dislike leads to many other problems in my opinion, enough of which come damn close to being 'game-killers' for me that I want no part of character-creation methods like that.
If that's the game she wants to play though, cool... just don't count me in on it.
Rolling doesn't stop optimizing, but it does constrain the results. If you take the most literal (to my mind) definition of min-maxing - selling the least important stats to the minimum, in order to buy the most important stats up to the maximum - then rolling ability scores absolutely does prevent min-maxing. From a "Pathfinder is a game" perspective, this doesn't fix the issue of party balance between players who optimize more and players who optimize less. From a "Pathfinder tells a story" perspective, it is a tool which reduces the prevalence of some character types, while increasing the prevalence of others. That's not inherently good or bad, but having tools to change things and knowing how they change them is handy. For when you want to change something.
Being forced to follow the dice doesn't ruin my fun. I am overwhelmed by the sheer number of options when I can make any character I want. Constraints narrow down the field of possibilities, and I find that I am most creative when working with constraints, even (especially) when they take me outside my comfort zone. Obviously, different people feel differently, which is why we have so many different ability score generation methods.
That's a very narrow definition of min-maxing. Class/archetype and feat selection are far more important. +1 str mod isn't going to make or break a fighter and +1 int mod isn't going to make or break a wizard.
I never claimed it was the most effective form of min-maxing, only the most literal. I was trying to draw a distinction between optimization in general, and minmaxing as a specific form of optimization. And, let's face it, trying to be clever, and failing. Now that I think about it, the "min" in min-maxing probably comes from the pre-3e days, when part of optimizing was to minimize your AC, and not from dumping ability scores down to the minimum.
I think there are two problems with min-maxing; one for Pathfinder-as-game and one for Pathfinder-as-story. For Pathfinder-as-game, the problem is that when some characters are more inclined to minmax, or better at it, their characters are more effective, and the fun of the other players can suffer. It can also lead to situations where it is hard for the GM to come up with appropriate challenges. We've been talking about this one a lot. It's the problem that can be solved by having diversified party roles. No argument from me.
The other problem, from the Pathfinder-as-story perspective, is that past a point, min-maxed characters are goofy, and may get repetitive. Building a character effectively is important no matter how RP-focused you are, but when abuild requires a ludicrous backstory in order to justify it, then it ruins suspension of disbelief for some. I find that the more randomness is injected in the form of dice, the more unlikely the silliest examples get, and when they do happen, they seem to be more believable, because they actually happened by accident instead of by design. YMMV. Certainly, they won't be happening again the same way twice in a row, like Aranna was complaining about.
Some people like rolling dice because it's more fun. Some people like point buy because it's more fun. I think both are making the correct decision.
I think I've said all I have that is constructive to say on this topic, unless anyone else wants statistics for their wacky rolling method.
Aranna is saying that she doesn't like super mario brothers in her game. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's the feeling I get from her posts.Yeah, I got that part. I'm saying that the way she's going about 'fixing' her dislike leads to many other problems in my opinion, enough of which come damn close to being 'game-killers' for me that I want no part of character-creation methods like that.
If that's the game she wants to play though, cool... just don't count me in on it.
It's a very good thing you were never invited to play then Finn K. It sounds like you would be nothing but disruptive.
Yes Robespierre it always saddens me when someone wants to play Superman or some other super hero in a game being set up to simulate the adventures of the Navy Seals for example.
...
Ezren:
11 +1
9 -1
12 +2
18 +10 (Assuming it's actually a 16 +2 Human stat bonus)
15 +7
9 -1Which would be: 18 pts, unless I'm missing something. If his Int was 17, he'd be at 15 pts, which is where the other iconics are.
Ezren's a tricky one - he has the first age progression applied (+1 mental stats, -1 physical stats), meaning that his pre-age, pre-race stats are 12/10/13/15/14/8, which is 2 + 0 + 3 + 7 + 5 - 2 = 15. Note that I (and some other people) wouldn't generally recommend allowing people to build characters this way. (I neither require nor allow applying age progression for older characters under normal circumstances. This allows people to RP their character the age that they want without feeling like they're giving something up mechanically.)
RPG Superstar 2015
|
We have moved to point buy because all dice hate me and I made the request, which none of our regular players have ever complained. Even when we rolled, we did the 4d6 and drop the lowest/reroll 1's, which typically left me with a net total of +3 in total modifiers (see, the dice really do hate me). Point buy is much more elegant, it allows everyone the same opportunities and keeps the record keeping end of character creation on the easy side.
|
|
It's a very good thing you were never invited to play then Finn K. It sounds like you would be nothing but disruptive.
Or maybe you BOTH would be disruptive to the other?
Yes Robespierre it always saddens me when someone wants to play Superman or some other super hero in a game being set up to simulate the adventures of the Navy Seals for example.
Case in point.
|
|
It's a very good thing you were never invited to play then Finn K. It sounds like you would be nothing but disruptive.Or maybe you BOTH would be disruptive to the other?
Yes Robespierre it always saddens me when someone wants to play Superman or some other super hero in a game being set up to simulate the adventures of the Navy Seals for example.Case in point.
I think the point that we'd each be disruptive to the other, is accurate.
Regarding Aranna's second statement-- it irks me when someone so thoroughly misinterprets my words to make it sound like I want to always play "4-color comics" games. I am also quite certain that Aranna has NEVER EVER had the good fortune to work with Navy SEALs or Special Forces troops... they are definitely not superheroes-- but they are also definitely quite extraordinary individuals (ordinary people don't make it through their training, even most people in the military can't make it through their training, and most of the folks in the military do not develop their level of skill at what they do).
What I think she completely fails to understand at this point-- is that I spent over 20 years as a Soldier in the U.S. Army-- I wasn't the best soldier anyone ever saw, I also wasn't the worst (in fact, I was a decent, reasonably good Soldier, but nothing particularly spectacular-- other than holding 5 MOSs). I was never Special Forces (I went to SFAS in 1991, so at least I tried-- washed out due to bad feet after 1 week of it), but through one of my units and MOSs I was under Army Special Operations Command for a few years, and had the opportunity to work with some of those outstanding individuals on occasion. But I've already been to war in real-life. I've personally already done things that most people never will (I'm sure that's true of a lot of the veterans on this board). I don't want to play "average joes" because I already was one for a whole lot of years. Referring to other role-playing games-- I know other guys in the Army who liked to play 'Twilight 2000'-- to me, after all the field exercises and training sessions to keep us ready for a possible war with the great Russian Bear in Europe-- it kind'a felt "too much like Tuesday" to me. My life-experiences do shape my approaches to the games I want to play (a general principle that I'm quite sure applies to just about everyone playing RPGs).
Now, I very much enjoy a lot of dark, gritty, down-and-dirty games-- not at all the stuff of super-hero games; and I enjoy bright shining high fantasy games too. I really like playing games where the characters are on the level of Navy SEALs or SF troops (realistically portrayed, even)-- I prefer that to the "superheroes" that Aranna is implicitly accusing me of trying to play in games where superheroes aren't appropriate. But at the same time-- that's NOT ordinary, that is already extraordinary-- which is what I actually meant in saying I liked to play "extraordinary" characters. You hand me a character that makes me feel like I'm back to being an ordinary pawn in the ranks-- no, I'm not happy with that.
Also, as I indicated in my earlier posts, I like to create my characters from the ground up-- usually I have a concept in mind before I even start playing around with the numbers, and while I do enough optimization to make sure my character is effective (instead of mediocre or useless), I don't do the total 'min-max'ing folks seem to be worried about on point builds. I have found-- as stated-- that besides the very frequent event of radical inequalities between characters due to differences in luck at dice (something which I grew quite tired of back in the original D&D and AD&D 1 days); if your luck at dice ain't that great-- you get a mediocre ordinary joe from dice rolling (see above for why I'm not too happy with that outcome). Second, if you do "organic" dice-rolling, as Aranna suggests-- you not only might get a totally ordinary, mediocre joe-- it's almost useless to try to come up with a concept first and then put the character together, because the dice are going to tell you what you can and can't do. Yes, just like real life people, you'll have to play to your strengths and try to take steps to minimize your weaknesses... or accept that you're always going to be struggling with your lack of aptitude for what you want to do.
Of course, if I wanted to play RPGs that put me in that "just like real-life" situation, I'd go play "Papers and Paychecks" or something. Rolling the dice and making the best of what you've got in character creation is very old school, but it's not the way authors create their characters in books, and it's not the way I like to create characters for games-- I prefer approaches that let me be like a fantasy author, creating the one of the main characters for the story. And if the PCs aren't the main characters of the story-- then what are we, audience while the GM plays with him-/her-self while our pawns stand around and watch? (note that what I'm getting at here is that the PCs are the protagonists, not a question of the PC's power).
(Points-wise btw-- I'm quite happy with the 20 pt standard of PFS organized play-- hardly "superheroic", but good enough to place the characters solidly in the ranks of above-average people, ready to take up an adventuring career.)
|
|
We have moved to point buy because all dice hate me and I made the request, which none of our regular players have ever complained. Even when we rolled, we did the 4d6 and drop the lowest/reroll 1's, which typically left me with a net total of +3 in total modifiers (see, the dice really do hate me). Point buy is much more elegant, it allows everyone the same opportunities and keeps the record keeping end of character creation on the easy side.
Oh, and what Mamaursula said, is case in point for what happens if you don't have good luck with dice.
My group is very nice when it comes to rolling. We roll the 4d6 and drop the lowest. But 1s and 2s are automatically rerolled. And we roll three sets of stats and keep the one we like best. This usually means that most of our characters have a least one 18, several 14-16, and maybe one or two 10-12. This also means that we rarely run into negative modifiers even with a negative race stat.
I love this way because d6 are not kind to me and I end up rolling multiple 1s and 2s before they come up with something I can actually keep (and often its a 6 after four or five 1s/2s in a row). The only issue is that this definitely makes us better then the average joe but all the DMs in my group agree that any adventurer who makes it to level 2-3 is probably better then the average joe anyways.
Only once did I want to use point buy instead was when we were playing a star ship troopers RPG (D20) and we used the rules of rolling 4d6 drop the lowest, no re-rolls and had to do the stats in descending order. I had absolutely horrible stats with nothing above a 14 and was very sad. The only time I have used point buy is in RPGA stuff and DDO.
I just wanted to point out that 1d6, rerolling 1's and 2's, is functionally the same thing as 1d4+2.
Equivalent point buy:
4d4 drop lowest +6, highest of 3 sets: 5th percentile: 40, 50th percentile: 52, 95th percentile: 67
PB 15.
Alternatively PB 20, with no more than 4 Points from dump stats below 10 (e.g. two 8s or one 7).
|
|
PB 15.
Alternatively PB 20, with no more than 4 Points from dump stats below 10 (e.g. two 8s or one 7).
Hmmm... I think I'd stick to PB 20, and not allow more than 2 points from dump stats (e.g. you can have one 8-- everything else, stays at least 10 or higher... and if you dump cha, don't expect to get any love from the townspeople).
Ok TriOmegaZero, first I reject that I would be disruptive in any way. Unlike Finn K I wouldn't throw a tantrum and threaten to walk out if I didn't get my way on stats. When I play in someone else's game I follow their rules without complaint. YES even if they are using the point buy method. And so YES I have played in a lot of point buy games.
Secondly Finn K, DON'T pretend to know what life experiences I have or haven't had. My father was former military, my brother served, and I have a war hero grand father. YES that means I grew up with all manner of war stories. I may not have served but that doesn't mean a thing. I can run a war story game just fine.
I will apologize for my second line. Sorry, I didn't know it was restricted point buy you favored. My comment was more in line for someone who likes unrestricted point buy. Your recent post shows your stat method isn't a bad one. 20 PB with a 2 max dump is beyond the level the game's adventure paths were built for. But it is a fair stat method especially if you want characters who can handily defeat standard foes.
Although you must be fairly jaded as a player if you think a war story game with realistic stats is any where close to "Papers and Paychecks". I think most people would agree that armed conflict isn't boring. A normal soldier is an NPC Warrior class with a 3 point buy. Organic is way higher power than that. In fact Organic the way I play it is very close to 20 point buy with 2 point max dump. Why? Because Organic is based on 4d6 drop and since I give a reroll to the unlucky one who ends up with that low ball set of stats that means the converted point totals for my method are going to be fairly close to 20 point buy.
TOZ... Any time you make a public scene about how you won't play... That's a tantrum. Cursing me out would be verbal abuse or verbal assault and would instead warrant a flagging of his post for CoC violation. I didn't accuse him of any cursing what-so-ever. I didn't accuse him of doing anything more than making a scene over it. Which is exactly what he was doing.
|
|
...Unlike Finn K I wouldn't throw a tantrum and threaten to walk out if I didn't get my way on stats.
"Tantrum?"
Aranna-- please do us all a favor and don't make "trollish" posts, or be deliberately offensive and/or insulting. I would raise the argument at the table, politely, as I've done here, that there are better ways to handle min-maxers than the methods you are using (as I've done here-- WITHOUT getting into personal insults or derogatory descriptions of others' behavior (if I've accidentally given that impression, or worse yet, gone and tossed something that was an insult-- my apologies to you for that-- not my intention). I do not expect to get my way in everything, and I wouldn't be throwing a tantrum or trying to spoil everyone else's fun if the GM and the rest of the table didn't agree with the argument I raised. I will however exercise my right to leave a game I'm not enjoying rather than continue to play.
I know full well and accept that no one's play-style is fully compatible and enjoyable to everyone else. Exercising my right to disagree and leave, instead of staying and disrupting your game, or sitting there and not enjoying it, is not throwing a tantrum-- staying in the game even though I was unhappy with it, and b@$#@ing and whining until you threw me out, or the campaign folded because I made it miserable for everyone else-- would be throwing a tantrum. There is a difference.
These are differences in opinion-- when I say, "I wouldn't enjoy the way you do things", I'm fully justified in expressing that and believing it to be so. If I tried to tell you you were doing it wrong, you can't possibly enjoy it, etc., I would be entirely wrong to do so-- your way works for you, so go for it and enjoy it. Just understand that your way is NOT the only way, and isn't going to be liked or enjoyed by everyone else.
Secondly Finn K, DON'T pretend to know what life experiences I have...
I see you missed this line: "(a general principle that I'm quite sure applies to just about everyone playing RPGs)."
I was explaining my life experiences and how they affect my outlook on games I'm interested in, not attempting to disregard or down-play anyone else's life experiences. My apologies if you took it that way, but that wasn't what was intended.
I will apologize for my second line. Sorry, I didn't know it was restricted point buy you favored. My comment was more in line for someone who likes unrestricted point buy. Your recent post shows your stat method isn't a bad one. 20 PB with a 2 max dump is beyond the level the game's adventure paths were built for. But it is a fair stat method especially if you want characters who can handily defeat standard foes.
I accept the apology. :)
I disagree though with your statement that 20 pts is over what the APs were built for. PFS uses 20 pt buy. As best as I can tell, all of the Adventure Paths were built to the same standards as the adventures for PFS play... so, sounds like 20 pts is a good standard to go with (that's a large part of my rationale for arguing in favor of 20 pt buy as the best level to use). YMMV-- and yes, I could be wrong in my understanding of design and intent. And I'd agree with you, regarding 'superheroes' in a non-superhero game, when players argue for completely unrestricted, really high pt. buys (I'd also still accept that maybe their ideas of how to play are different than mine, and wish them well-- in someone else's game-- if we couldn't reach a mutual understanding on how to do things; which if I'm running the game, does mean either successfully convince me on the merits of the argument, or accept my table rules).
Although you must be fairly jaded as a player if you think a war story game with realistic stats is any where close to "Papers and Paychecks". I think most people would agree that armed conflict isn't boring. A normal soldier is an NPC Warrior class with a 3 point buy. Organic is way higher power than that. In fact Organic the way I play it is very close to 20 point buy with 2 point max dump. Why? Because Organic is based on 4d6 drop and since I give a reroll to the unlucky one who ends up with that low ball set of stats that means the converted point totals for my method are going to be fairly close to 20 point buy.
Jaded? Yeah, I've been playing RPGs for almost 36 years now-- so, I'm a little 'Jaded'... :) The 'Papers and Paychecks' line is both an exaggeration and it's a reference to a sketch gag on pg. 111 of the AD&D 1st ed. DMG. Now, regarding "ordinary soldiers' being warriors with a 3 pt. buy? You brought up your father, your grand-father and your brother-- you really think it'd cost that little to build game-versions of them? Put it a different way-- after basic, after lots of PT, enduring hardships in the field, forcing people to use their brains, and everything else-- most of the Soldiers I had the honor of serving with were far better than the mythical "average" person in the civilian population. Yes, stronger, faster, more durable-- not more so than the well-above average civilian, but more so than the average couch potato in civvy life... not necessarily more intelligent, but more will-power than the average civilian. I don't think 3 pts is enough to accurately reflect the people serving in the modern military... 15 pts may be a bit above the "average" Soldier or Marine, but seriously-- not by so much that a 15 pt character wouldn't look like a lot of the guys I served with, if translated into real world stats (of course, that's an impression-- the truth: well, the game's abstracted enough that I'm going by feel, not hard numbers-- so this is all IMO-- YMMV, and I'm not claiming my impressions are any kind of "one true way" to look at things).
My dislike of dice, especially taking the rolls as they land rather than moving them around, is born of long frustration with those methods from a lot of years of gaming, where that was the standard (I already admitted that was definitely The "Old-School" way to do it). Again, YMMV-- what doesn't work for me still works perfectly well for some other people (just not all other people, and just as my preferred methods also do not work for all other people).
Here's my reasons for not liking die rolling, especially 'organic' die rolls, for character creation: I prefer being able to design my characters from the ground up, like I'd conceive of and build a character for a fantasy story I wanted to write-- so, I dislike methods where the dice are going to tell me what my character's aptitudes are. I've also had way too much experience with the potential problems massive inequalities between characters can provoke-- and IMO some people being really hot on the dice, others kind'a lukewarm (even with a re-roll or two to prevent someone from having a truly abysmal character) is a sure way to introduce those inequalities into the group. There's already enough other ways that inequalities arise and can cause conflicts for me to be comfortable with methods that I see as almost guaranteed to introduce it (then again-- I like character creation in GURPS, for a very different example of RPGs than the D&D lineage). While I believe that some optimization is compatible with role-playing (it's reasonable to want an effective player), I agree that people can take optimization too far (to where it conflicts with good role-playing, which I don't like); but I do not think that point-buy necessarily or inherently leads to 'min-maxing' and excessive optimization.
BTW-- if someone gets low ball stats 2 or 3 times in a row-- how many times do you let them re-roll? (I've seen that kind of player dice luck happen on character creation more than a few times over the years)
|
|
No, that was him explaining his view. This is a public forum for exchanging ideas. You disagreed with him and viewed it as a tantrum. That is your own perception. He 'threatened' nothing, only stated that he would not play.
Thank you, TOZ. :D
Aranna--
What TOZ said. This is a forum for discussion of ideas, particularly for discussing differences of opinion and method, not a forum just for people to agree with each other about ideas they already hold entirely in common (though discussing and discovering common ground is certainly also part of the purpose of discussion boards).
Seriously though, the card method. It gives one a pretty organic and varied array and it avoids the power disparity that can be created by dice methods.
|
|
Seriously though, the card method. It gives one a pretty organic and varied array and it avoids the power disparity that can be created by dice methods.
I think I still prefer point-buy, but this method sounds interesting. However, although the number will be the same when you add up all 6 stats, between all the characters-- I'm not so sure it will fix other issues, since (while the total will always be 71, 75 when add +2 each to 2 stats) the spread between who gets mostly average stats, and who may get some really low stats and really high ones, is going to be pretty wide.
I tried running this through a few times:
1st draw: 9, 13, 11, 11, 16, 11. (would almost certainly add +2 to the 16, not sure whether I'd use the other +2 to lift the 9 to a 13, the 13 to a 15, or one of the 11s to a 13). Pt Value: 26 pts if the +2s are given to the 13 and the 16.
2nd draw: 16, 8, 8, 14, 11, 14. (+2 gets an 18 from the 16, +2 gets an 8 to a 10-- pretty sure the min-maxers would accept two 8s and go for another 16, but I won't). Pt value: 26, after spending the +2s my way, higher if you go for the min-max solution.
3rd draw: 13, 16, 13, 11, 11, 7. (+2 gets an 18 from the 16, I'd probably use the +2 to at least make that 7 a 9-- yeehah.) Pt Value: 24, after spending the +2s my way, higher if you go for the min-max solution.
4th draw: 11, 12, 14, 8, 14, 12. (call it +2 each to the 14s to make 16s?). Pt Value: 23 pts.
Pretty potent, regarding the resulting pt value equivalents. I think I still prefer the design flexibility of point buy-- particularly if the alternative is dealing out the cards blind and then taking the numbers in the order they're flopped. None of these are characters I'd ever make by choice, if I had to set the numbers 'organically' in order given, and the total "value" doesn't make up for it.
On second thought, I don't think this results in "average" characters though.
Theoretically, closest you can come to "average" if the cards flop just right results in five 12s and an 11-- after +2 each to two of the 12s, you'd get a pt value of 17-- any other combo, will almost certainly be worth more.
Lets go back to the first insults thrown... it was by Finn K.
"her dislike leads to many other problems"
"game-killers"
"I want no part of character-creation methods like that."
How is that anything other than insulting and coping an attitude.
Were you creating a scene? Yes. It was both public and insulting. Hense, a tantrum.Maybe I should use the words you chose instead of tantrum... "troll post".
And I am sorry TOZ no explanations were offered in that "troll post".
He did try to explain later... BUT when you add words like Aranna has NEVER EVER met a navy seal. Then you turn it into another personal attack and make the whole thing sound like you are trying to say I am not qualified to run war stories.
"While I believe that some optimization is compatible with role-playing (it's reasonable to want an effective player), I agree that people can take optimization too far (to where it conflicts with good role-playing, which I don't like); but I do not think that point-buy necessarily or inherently leads to 'min-maxing' and excessive optimization."
I was talking about friends at my table who deliberately abuse point buy. I am just going to make it harder for them to abuse the rules. That's a far fairer and more enjoyable approach then anything you have suggested. I think find new players was your earlier solution... which is NOT how you treat friends where I come from. Do they argue about my rules... sometimes. But they always enjoy my game. They optimize... they are always going to be a little stronger in combat than my role players even with non optimal stats. But it sure makes life easier on me as a GM when balancing encounters when they are only a little better rather than a whole lot better.
"BTW-- if someone gets low ball stats 2 or 3 times in a row-- how many times do you let them re-roll? (I've seen that kind of player dice luck happen on character creation more than a few times over the years)"
Honestly if they can't get a good set out of three tries, I tell them to get new dice theirs are biased and I just bump up their stats till they are on par with the others.
As for 15pb being standard for adventure paths... I wasn't the one who first said that it was said in a previous thread I am just parroting it here. I do know because it was pointed out in this thread that the iconics were built with 15 point buy. I know PFS is 20pb... but I always figured that it was either a concession to all those high powered gaming fans or a way to make MAD more doable.
As a secret joke once... If you are one of my player's then sorry if this irritates you: I let my players start with ANY stats they wanted, even all 18's before racial mods. What I didn't tell them was I made all the monsters scores the same... all 18's before mods. They predictably went with all 18's even the role players... So this game was effectively no different than if I started them all out with straight 10's and used basic monsters. They had fun, even if the optimizers commented a couple times about how much tougher the monsters seemed. It was a bit brutal compared to my normal games. But there were only a few deaths! ;)
I point that out to make a bit of a point... it doesn't matter how high your stats are because if you have a good GM then the monsters power will be adjusted up or down to match the groups. The thing that matters most is how close the characters stats are to each other and whether you have abusive point buyers. Unrestricted point buy can have a wide variance depending on how many bonus points the player gets from his dump stats. In Finn K's method the range is between 20 and 22 always... that's a difference of +1 to one set of rolls... not bad at all. Still organic is my favorite and always will be, because I love the feel of rolling and this is one of the fairest rolling methods out there.
I haven't tried cards... so I have no opinion about it pro or con.
We use the Grid Method.
http://invisiblecastle.com/stats/help/grid/
It does two things:
1) Higher than Elite Array average stats.
2) Eliminates Min-Max Optimization.
This results in characters that almost none would do with a point-by system, and very few would via arranging a set of dice rolls in their order of preference. So far I've had a fighter start with an 18 INT, but only a 15 STR. My knight character, an AE akashic beefed up for PFRPG, started with mediocre STR 13, CHA 8, and 15 or 16 in everything else. I also have a Ranger with an 18 Wisdom, but only a 13 STR, etc.
We've done this in 4 campaigns so far and seen over dozen unique character builds. Our players have been making the best of their non-min-maxed, but high stats builds in very creative ways. It's lots of fun! IMHO, all other stat generation methods pale in comparison.
The Grid Rules!
|
|
And I am sorry TOZ no explanations were offered in that "troll post".
He did try to explain later... BUT when you add words like Aranna has NEVER EVER met a navy seal. Then you turn it into another personal attack and make the whole thing sound like you are trying to say I am not qualified to run war stories.
Not how I read it at all. *shrugs* I just think you're taking offense to imaginary slights.
|
|
Lets go back to the first insults thrown... it was by Finn K.
I have apologized, and will apologize again, for any insults or personal attacks I've thrown. Sometimes I'm guilty of snapping at people, and I've come to realize that I often post too quickly, post when I'm angry, and that I do not sufficiently edit my words before throwing them out there-- nor take a long hard look at evaluating the words I'm using and toning down anything that can be perceived as an insult or attack even if not meant that way. And so, again, you have my apologies for insults and personal attacks I've thrown your way, most of which at least weren't intended and the rest of which are me being guilty of posting while angry and not sufficiently editing things.
However, from my view (not that either of us is in the right), you made a post that I over-reacted to, that I do see as the first place where I used phrases and language that reasonably could have been perceived as insulting (do note - "my view", and I'm not claiming to be right, just explaining my perception of events):
It's a very good thing you were never invited to play then Finn K. It sounds like you would be nothing but disruptive.Yes Robespierre it always saddens me when someone wants to play Superman or some other super hero in a game being set up to simulate the adventures of the Navy Seals for example.
I probably shouldn't have taken that as such an insult, although I did-- though re-read both Robespierre's comment, my comment-- and the backhanded way it appears to really be targeting my comments in your "Yes Robespierre..." line, along with the accusation that I would be disruptive (as opposed to simply exiting the game because it wasn't my style)-- you might understand why I thought that was a personal attack. And I over-reacted.
Honestly-- I really don't think you should have found or taken offense from my posts before that, but I can understand how/why you did. I keep re-reading them, and they don't read like 'tantrums', 'personal attacks' or 'insults' to TOZ, to me, and probably not to a lot of the other people reading. But, considering how I reacted to (and possibly misinterpreted) your remarks, I can hardly get up in arms and claim an ever-lasting "cassus belli" over your reactions to (and possible misinterpretations) of my words.
IMO, I think the larger part of this whole chain has been based on misunderstandings, and your and my subjective interpretations of each other's posts and overly defensive (on both our parts) reactions based on those subjective interpretations. Doesn't matter who's right-- actually, I think both of us are (at least partially) wrong. So, my initial reaction was to write a dissertation on communication issues-- I've cut it way the heck back, 'cause it's not that important to waste time trying to establish blame.
Now-- can we declare peace, bury the hatchets, and try to continue discussions reasonably without over-reactions from either of us now? :)
I was talking about friends at my table who deliberately abuse point buy. I am just going to make it harder for them to abuse the rules. That's a far fairer and more enjoyable approach then anything you have suggested. I think find new players was your earlier solution... which is NOT how you treat friends where I come from. Do they argue about my rules... sometimes. But they always enjoy my game. They optimize... they are always going to be a little stronger in combat than my role players even with non optimal stats. But it sure makes life easier on me as a GM when balancing encounters when they are only a little better rather than a whole lot better.
Wasn't only my solution to find new players... and actually, my first suggestion was the somewhat flippantly put, but more serious and non-mocking than you may have thought, 'fix your players'. BTW-- you didn't say until now that these people are your friends as opposed to people you game with who are not necessarily good friends. IMO, you're right, you don't just cut your friends loose because they've got a few annoying habits.
However, there are (especially if they're your friends and you've gamed with them a lot) a lot of ways to have the discussions about optimization, character building, and avoiding pushing the limits of the game with your friends... IMO (especially since you've already pointed out yourself that they're still going to optimize and be a little better than the ones who don't), there are still better ways to solve your issues with optimizing players. It works for you, however, and it's your game, so go for it. I don't think it's fairer or more enjoyable than discussing and solving the conflicts in character-building/playing philosophy with your friends in other ways than by going to 'organic dice' rather than point buys-- but that's me (also, I have other reasons why I prefer to avoid dice for character creation-- I understand you may have other reasons besides limiting optimizers for preferring it). It's not my game. Regarding "fairness" and the imbalance between players-- simplest fix (IMO) is make your optimizers help your non-optimizing role-players with character building and advancement. IMO, unless your optimizers are jerks who have to be the best at everything, that usually works nicely for putting the PCs on a par with each other, relative to the various niches/roles they fill in the party. IMO, it works a lot better for returning the PCs to an even field with point buy, than with random rolls for stats. YMMV-- not my game, do as you wish with it.
"BTW-- if someone gets low ball stats 2 or 3 times in a row-- how many times do you let them re-roll? (I've seen that kind of player dice luck happen on character creation more than a few times over the years)"Honestly if they can't get a good set out of three tries, I tell them to get new dice theirs are biased and I just bump up their stats till they are on par with the others.
Seems like a reasonable fix, so that no-one just gets stuck with the "suck" for a character (part of my sensitivity is still that dice were how characters were always made back in the day, and I've seen people's results come out really poor or excessively awesome a lot-- though most of the people I gamed with moved pretty quickly to setting rolls where you wished, rather than requiring you to take them as they came-- oddly enough, it's been a factor of almost every group I've gamed with all along, that almost no-one I've gamed with used Charisma as the "dump stat"-- I realize that in my over 30 years of gaming, that seems really unusual compared to others' experiences). Last time I was in a group that allowed rolling the dice for characters (in a 3.5 game), the way it was done was this: one shot at the dice, 4d6, best 3 (I think we did "reroll 1's" too-- I wasn't the GM)-- then, you could keep your die rolls and arrange them as you wished, or go ahead and build your character on pts (I think it was 28 pts-- which is really close to what you get with a PF 20 pt buy-- for instance, both of them will get you four 14s and two 10s, exactly, before race mods, if that's how you spend your points). That was a solution that quite satisfied me, as far as making sure no-one got stuck with a crappy set of stats and/or a character that really couldn't be built to the concept they had in mind.
For at least the last 15 years, if not longer, I've always been gaming with people who really put a strong emphasis on role-playing and character concept/personality/etc, and trying to make the numbers fit that while still being an effective character, over any sort of min-maxing and then trying to come up with a story that fits the numbers. I do honestly count myself as following the same philosophy of character building as my like-minded compadres. Yes, these are the same people that I played old 'WoD' games with, along with many other systems-- not just D&D/PF derived games. Come to think of it-- I believe this is probably another reason why I'm starting to develop "allergies" to character creation by rolling for stats-- I've played, and enjoyed playing, too many RPGs that are skill/ability based, pt build systems of various sorts; rather than class/level, start rolling, systems. It is a "personal preference" matter. :P
As a secret joke once... If you are one of my player's then sorry if this irritates you: I let my players start with ANY stats they wanted, even all 18's before racial mods. What I didn't tell them was I made all the monsters scores the same... all 18's before mods. They predictably went with all 18's even the role players... So this game was effectively no different than if I started them all out with straight 10's and used basic monsters. They had fun, even if the optimizers commented a couple times about how much tougher the monsters seemed. It was a bit brutal compared to my normal games. But there were only a few deaths! ;)
Seems like a good way to teach the lesson.
I point that out to make a bit of a point... it doesn't matter how high your stats are because if you have a good GM then the monsters power will be adjusted up or down to match the groups. The thing that matters most is how close the characters stats are to each other and whether you have abusive point buyers. Unrestricted point buy can have a wide variance depending on how many bonus points the player gets from his dump stats. In Finn K's method the range is between 20 and 22 always... that's a difference of +1 to one set of rolls... not bad at all. Still organic is my favorite and always will be, because I love the feel of rolling and this is one of the fairest rolling methods out there.
*nods* A good GM can compensate for just about anything, other than radical character imbalance making every encounter a cake-walk for the supermen and instant death for their comrades.
I've seen abusive point buyers, and I don't like them. Oddly enough-- I don't know that we've discussed having an official house rule on "no more than one dump stat, taken down no more than 2 pts (i.e., to 8 before race mods)"-- no-one I'm currently playing PF with has even tried to argue for more.... There's a definite perception in my group that characters will suffer far more for their flaws and vulnerabilities (from several low stats) than it can possibly worth, and that it's not that much fun to play a character who's excessively weak in multiple areas. About the one archetypal use of even one stat dumped to 8, is the arcane caster going with an 8 strength seems to be a little more common than I'd like. Likewise-- most of our casters wind up with an 18 at character creation in their prime casting stat, after applying race mods-- but not 20s. A lot of the other classes don't wind up with even one 18 after race mods. There's maybe too much of a concern with balanced, capable characters rather than what we perceive as "one-trick ponies" in the group. Hmmm... of course, the observation of excessive flaws, also comes from WoD and GURPS-- I've seen characters in those games, where you can take flaws for extra building points-- really get hosed if the player tried to take too many flaws (or excessively bad ones) in his/her build.
Hopefully that was the last of the Aranna&Finn convo so we can back to learning about new and interesting ways to generate stats.
Heh... I was going to say I generate stats by getting two people into a violent disagreement and handing them nerf dice to throw at each other, but I thought that might not go over well...
I did some fooling around with a 25 point buy just for kicks.
OMG!!!!!!
Seriously though, the card method. It gives one a pretty organic and varied array and it avoids the power disparity that can be created by dice methods.IR--
What'cha think of my sample results from the card-draw method you mentioned? (immediately below the post I'm replying to)
Yeah, they're actually pretty potent, but they prevent multiple dump stats and are actually IMO kinder to MAD classes. You can also change the strength of the numbers by changing the cards used, For example (4 sixes, 4 fives, 4 fours, 4 threes, 2 twos) gives you an extremely powerful character while (3 sixes, 3 fives, 3 fours , 3 threes, 4 twos, 2 ones) gives out much weaker characters especially if you take away the +2 bonuses to two stats; though something along the lines of (2 sixes, 4 fives, 4 fours, 4 threes, 4 twos) might be better for more average characters.
You also have to keep in mind that this before applying Racial bonuses, that along with the +2 to any stat gives a lot of flexibility (I also let my players decide what stats their numbers go into)
My players actually enjoyed this method and it was great because I didn't have to worry about high rolls and low rolls and it kept them from excessive min-maxing.
Going in order though also makes it great for creating random NPC stats.
@IonRaven: I'm calculating statistics for the card method, but I'd like a clarification of the method: When you are adding +2 to two stats, can you add +2 to a 17, in order to get an 18? Or can you only add +2 to 16 or below?
@IonRaven: I'm calculating statistics for the card method, but I'd like a clarification of the method: When you are adding +2 to two stats, can you add +2 to a 17, in order to get an 18? Or can you only add +2 to 16 or below?
16 and below. I wouldn't even know what formula to get statistics. Good luck with that.
Point buy equivalents for card method: (5th percentile, 50th percentile, 95th percentile)
{6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,1,1}, +2 to any two stats: 21, 26, 31
{6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,2,2}, +2 to any two stats: 29, 33, 38
{6,6,6,5,5,5,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,1,1}, +2 to any two stats: 10, 14, 19
{6,6,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2}, +2 to any two stats: 16, 19, 24
edit: I assumed for these that the player always chooses to apply the +2 to the highest scores that are eligible, which maximizes the point buy value. If the player chooses to shore up their weak stats instead, then the equivalent point buy will be lower.
{6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,1,1}: 12, 15, 20
{6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,2,2}: 19, 22, 26
{6,6,6,5,5,5,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,1,1}: 2, 5, 9
{6,6,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,2,2,2,2}: 9, 10, 14
Just looking at the statistics, I like it. This method has the narrowest spreads of any random generation method I have seen. The first two decks, without +2 bonuses, look great as randomized replacements for 15-point buy and 20-point buy. I tweaked the second a little to get the median right on 20-point:
{6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,2}: 17, 20, 25
Here are some sample sets:
{12, 11, 12, 12, 16, 12} (19 pt)
{11, 12, 14, 11, 13, 14} (17 pt)
{10, 16, 12, 13, 14, 10} (20 pt)
{16, 13, 14, 12, 8, 12} (20 pt)
{12, 16, 10, 12, 11, 14} (20 pt)
{12, 16, 14, 13, 9, 11} (20 pt)
Now-- can we declare peace, bury the hatchets, and try to continue discussions reasonably without over-reactions from either of us now? :)
I am sorry as well Finn K... it does look on further re-read as if we were both increasingly over reacting. And I am sorry if I took that post as a slight if indeed it wasn't.
Sorry Ion... yes our issues are resolved.
Gordon the Whale, is that last set with or without the +2's? It looks like it is exactly the sort of tight stat groupings I was originally looking for. Almost exactly at 20pts converted, while still being random.
Certainly worth trying out next time I start a game.
|
So in the 20 point buy system, the characters all start with 6 stats of all 10s?
I know this sounds like a dumb question, but I've been rolling, and using arrays for many many years.
Questions about the 20 point buy system:
>Is this what PAIZO uses for its NPCs?
>Do the players start with all 10s, or is it all 12s because I cannot seem to match this up to the NPCs in modules and APs.
>Is this done prior to adding racial modifiers?
Thanks.
Pax
|
|
My first time gaming we rolled 4d6, 1s' and 2s' don't count. Later we did just 4d6, then during our 3e and Hackmaster years we did all stats are a base 10 and roll a d8 ( this also became the model when playing previous editions so we could easily play what we wanted). Now we go back and forth depending on the DM.
I do like the big bang, but when I have one player who on average ( he rolled 8 big bangs and only rolled a max of four stats over 12 not a one being over 16) I will have to negate such things, as my friend rarely rolls decent stats with out the 4d6 reroll 1s and 2s. Its sad but a nessity