All games have arbitrary restrictions...they are called 'rules'.
I meant "flavor" restrictions... And I mean this for core mechanics, not settings. The rules are supposed to be setting-neutral. I have nothing against having a campaign setting saying "All sorcerers are descendants of dragons, and come from Dragonia" or whatever other restriction the creator thinks would best fit the setting.
Mechanical restrictions are necessary to make the game different from "magic tea party story time".
So having those 'all druids must be neutral, all undead evil' is as necessary to having a certain kind of game as NOT having them is necessary to having another kind of game.
Here is the thing, though... If the rules don't force undead to me Evil... You can still play your game with all undead being evil and still have official published material created with evil undead in mind... And those who want non-evil undead can also have their fun and get the same support you're getting. It's a win/win scenario.
But if the official rules say only one way or another is valid, then one group of players or another will never see support for the kind of story they want to play.
Why restrict the game to one possibility when you can leave it open to both without taking anything away from either group of players?
Good undead are a fantasy staple, imo. The long-dead mentor giving his final lesson, the father come back to give his son enough power to finish the fight, a victim helping track down their killer.
These are mostly short-lived ghostly things, of course, but they can be more long-term, like the spirits in Shaman King, which Occult Classes probably emulate well.
Good undead are a fantasy staple, imo. The long-dead mentor giving his final lesson, the father come back to give his son enough power to finish the fight, a victim helping track down their killer.
These are mostly short-lived ghostly things, of course, but they can be more long-term, like the spirits in Shaman King, which Occult Classes probably emulate well.
I think literally every singly story written after Buffy about monster-hunters includes some sort of non-evil vampire/werewolf/zombie/undead/whatever/all-of-the-alternatives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.
The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.
I don't understand how immersion could be affected in character. If you're talking about out of character, then I would say that falls into the meta game category.
The thing is, you probably want to keep Int as having some modicum of value for everyone other than wizards, or everyone else will dump it, the way everyone except bards, paladins, and sorcerers dumps Cha -- because there's absolutely no down side to it. It's like you're putting a big flashing sign in the rules that says "Hey, dump this! Free stat points here!" Having Int affect only Int-based skills, for people who don't even get those in their class package, is essentially giving it no value to them.
People complain all the time about dump-statting, but the incentive to do so is built right into the game, and any time you make a change that favors it, you increase the incentive. It applies if you roll for stats (put low rolls in useless ones), and it applies even more massively using point-buy (where you can actually increase stats by dumping others).
On the other hand, if you just gave everyone all 14s, then it wouldn't even matter which stat did what, or if some of them don't do anything at all...
wait you mean how arcane caster dump str???
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.
ALL the martials already look the same.
Earlier in this thread , I was basically berated for not maxing my str and con and how useless my fighter was because he didnt have max str.
In that case with 20 pt build, EVERY fighter would have the same exact stats....and most do.
So how is dumping int going to change anything?
Demand the fighter get better will saves but refuse to put stats in wis because ....MAX STR dammit!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.
And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.
It's possible to roleplay and interact even with evil undead, that seems to be missing from your explanation. And 'spirits' occupy a whole other category that is not defined by alignment restrictions like normal undead.
But note that it's 'breaking away' from the traditional, hard lines of what being a lycanthrope and bloodsucker really are that define those games/systems/stories. And its adhering to those tropes that define what the core Pathfinder game is about.
So, adhere to the core system, and house rule it different if you like. But it is adherence to that traditional baseline that makes Pathfinder what it is, and 'opening it up to all options' is NOT going to make it 'better'. It makes it more dissolute, less defined, and more ambiguous, and that's not the type of game/world they are interested in selling, or a lot of people interested in playing in.
Restrictions add flavor. 'You can't add this' is just as much flavor as 'anything goes', which, in the end, is completely flavorless and bland in the eyes of many. Sure, a 'good' werewolf makes a fine exception to the rules...if there's ONE of him. When it's every other werewolf, it loses all relevance whatsoever, and being a werewolf ceases to be a special thing. It's just a bunch of stat mods.
==Aelryinth
An appeal to tradition. Okay, fine, I understand what your opinion is at least.
Not necessarily MAX STR, but if a fighter doesn't start with an 18 STR he's going to have a hard time 1hkoing level one enemies reliably.
18 is pretty much max STR. sure you could get a 20, but that would also limit your race choices... so martials should only be human , half elf or half orc now? because the other standard races dont get a boost to str.
For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.
And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.
It's possible to roleplay and interact even with evil undead, that seems to be missing from your explanation. And 'spirits' occupy a whole other category that is not defined by alignment restrictions like normal undead.
But note that it's 'breaking away' from the traditional, hard lines of what being a lycanthrope and bloodsucker really are that define those games/systems/stories. And its adhering to those tropes that define what the core Pathfinder game is about.
So, adhere to the core system, and house rule it different if you like. But it is adherence to that traditional baseline that makes Pathfinder what it is, and 'opening it up to all options' is NOT going to make it 'better'. It makes it more dissolute, less defined, and more ambiguous, and that's not the type of game/world they are interested in selling, or a lot of people interested in playing in.
Restrictions add flavor. 'You can't add this' is just as much flavor as 'anything
goes', which, in the end, is completely flavorless and bland in the eyes of many. Sure, a 'good' werewolf makes a fine exception to the rules...if there's ONE of him. When it's every other werewolf, it loses all relevance whatsoever, and being a werewolf ceases to be a special thing. It's just a bunch of stat mods.==Aelryinth
True story, I was ended an entire campaign that had been going on over a year, by raising dead to fight off an overwhelming amount of enemy and save the party by flooding the battle field with my minions.
I was an 11th level priest of tempest, I was chaotic neutral...this is class could turn OR control dead and cast heal OR harm spells.
I had never previously done this. None of the players were playing good aligned characters. We had a lawful neutral monk, a neutral barbarian, a neutral druid, a neutral magic user and a neutral fighter/magic user/thief.
Everyone REFUSED to play with me or the GM after that.
Campaign canceled.
Seriously, I was shocked.
Some people REALLY hate undead.
Dwarves make for good martials. Free con and wis boosts are aces and it's not like you're using the charisma for anything anyway on most of them. Plus, Dwarf fighter is one of the best ways to have not-terrible saves against spells since your bonus feats mean you can grab Power attack AND Steel Soul right away.Not necessarily MAX STR, but if a fighter doesn't start with an 18 STR he's going to have a hard time 1hkoing level one enemies reliably.18 is pretty much max STR. sure you could get a 20, but that would also limit your race choices... so martials should only be human , half elf or half orc now? because the other standard races dont get a boost to str.
18 is STILL max str, isnt it?
Stat dumping is a sympton of an old system, not really a problem. Other than very crucial connections that some abilities might have, what stat row you give yourself has very little reflection how your ability to do stuff will progress. While attribute modifiers are a big part of your early levels, they quickly tamper into just another bonus modifier among the many.
In Shadowrun (5th ed) you start at 1 out of 6 as human. There is no going below 1, that is the bare minimum you can have of single attribute. Then one point increases it by one. Dumping exists in Pathfinder because you need to play that escalating game of point buy. 8 INT is gameplay wise a lot less dramatic as people would want to see it, and the player might not even care to play a stupid person. Deep down, 10 and 7 are treated about the same, which is "not exceptional".
A lot tighter number game would leave much tighter impression what exactly it means to be big mean character with maxed out Strength. It all blends together into "Meh okay just general superhuman?" when you start throwing in the general stat increasing items too. Really, I have seen nobody actually even care to distinct 10-14 str from each other, they are all just kind mundane and normal.
how many of your fighters in 1e had 18/00 str?
i WAY preferred the days of roll your stats for this kind of reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.
Hah! That has literally nothing to do with stat dumping.
If you can't stat dump, you can still keep your least useful attributes at 10. If you're rolling dice, you can still put your highest bonus on Strength and your lowest on Cha.
Character's feeling "samey" has nothing to do with point-buy, it's just because players will naturally try to make their characters as effective as possible.
Whether that is by allocating attribute points or dice rolls is irrelevant.
For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.
And...? It isn't any less valid because it wasn't created in olden times... Specially not in a game that includes shotguns, chainsaws, androids, etc. None of those are present in ancient mythology.
And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.
So what? Just don't add them to your game. There is literally nothing to gain from making it so those who like it will never have official support for their games.
And that's not the point anyway, just one specific example.
I could just as well have said "All Sorcerers are descendant from genies". The point stands.
Stat dumping is a sympton of an old system, not really a problem. Other than very crucial connections that some abilities might have, what stat row you give yourself has very little reflection how your ability to do stuff will progress. While attribute modifiers are a big part of your early levels, they quickly tamper into just another bonus modifier among the many.
In Shadowrun (5th ed) you start at 1 out of 6 as human. There is no going below 1, that is the bare minimum you can have of single attribute. Then one point increases it by one. Dumping exists in Pathfinder because you need to play that escalating game of point buy. 8 INT is gameplay wise a lot less dramatic as people would want to see it, and the player might not even care to play a stupid person. Deep down, 10 and 7 are treated about the same, which is "not exceptional".
A lot tighter number game would leave much tighter impression what exactly it means to be big mean character with maxed out Strength. It all blends together into "Meh okay just general superhuman?" when you start throwing in the general stat increasing items too. Really, I have seen nobody actually even care to distinct 10-14 str from each other, they are all just kind mundane and normal.
in 1e, a 17 str gave you +1 to hit and +1 to damage.... thats a HIGH stat for very little goodies.
Now in this edition, thats the same as a 12 str...although for whatever reason I do miss my "bend bars/lift gates" stat....yes I know this is a str check now...but I still miss it.
The problem as is see it is a the ridiculous monster stats later in the game and the unfettered spell casting 3.0 introduced.
its not a swords and sorcery game anymore, its a sorcery game... that was a big goof with 3.0 and its also why you still see a sizeable contingent of players using 1.0/2.0 rules sets.
Im my games, I tend to tone down the uber monsters a bit, and I make spell components more of a thing like 1e and it all balances back out....
4e TRIED to level the playing field. and I cant follow what 5e has done.
but seriously an 8 int is what every character with no points started with in 3.5....10 is NOT the normal every day person... 8 is,,, 10 is the equivalent of educated and informed.
12 is above average, 14 exceptional, 16 brilliant and 18 savant.
I always get a chuckle out of every 1st level wizard with an 18 int....
anyone remember when you HAD to have a 17 cha to be a paladin? what did most of their other stats look like (unless cheated? 13-14 str and 12 con was pretty normal for a paladin.... lol
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.
Hah! That has literally nothing to do with stat dumping.
If you can't stat dump, you can still keep your least desired attributes at 10. If you're rolling dice, you can still put your highest bonus on Strength and your lowest on Cha.
Character's feeling "samey" has nothing to do with point-buy, it's just because players will naturally try to make their characters as effective as possible.
Whether that is by allocating attribute points or dice rolls is irrelevant.
For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.And...? It isn't any less valid because it wasn't created in olden times... Specially not in a game that includes shotguns, chainsaws, androids, etc. None of those are present in ancient mythology.
And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.So what? Just don't add them to your game. There is literally nothing to gain from making it so those who like it will never have official support for their games.
And that's not the point anyway, just one specific example.
I could just as well have said "All Sorcerers are descendant from genies". The point stands.
I kinda liked the "Old" all sorcerers had dragon blood of the 3.X genre... the alternate bloodline thing took a LONG time to grow on me.
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.ALL the martials already look the same.
Earlier in this thread , I was basically berated for not maxing my str and con and how useless my fighter was because he didnt have max str.
In that case with 20 pt build, EVERY fighter would have the same exact stats....and most do.
So how is dumping int going to change anything?
Demand the fighter get better will saves but refuse to put stats in wis because ....MAX STR dammit!
I would suggest that players be allowed to allocate their primary stats, and that their secondary stats simply be rolled. This is how I run it in my games, and it works great. Players can choose one stat at 18, two at 16, or three at 14. Everything else is rolled, straight 3d6 (no rearranging), with a minimum value of 8 before racial adjustments.
There is player agency in the important areas, and the PCs are always able to do their thing, but the characters end up being quite diverse in their secondary stats, and feel more "real", at least to me and my players. It's one of the many areas where I think the game is best with a blending of the new and old school philosophies.
@Lemmy: yes, it is the "allocation" part of the process, or rather as it pertains to secondary stats, that leads to the sameness of player characters, not simply point-buy systems.
There's nothing inherently wrong with stat-dumping... IME, it's more often than not butthurt GMs who complain about it.The inherent problem with stat-dumping is that it engenders an environment in which PCs of any given class all tend to look the same, which undermines immersion over time. This is the great irony of point-buy systems: in theory, increased player agency should lead to greater diversity, but in practice, they lead to just the opposite.Hah! That has literally nothing to do with stat dumping.
If you can't stat dump, you can still keep your least desired attributes at 10. If you're rolling dice, you can still put your highest bonus on Strength and your lowest on Cha.
Character's feeling "samey" has nothing to do with point-buy, it's just because players will naturally try to make their characters as effective as possible.
Whether that is by allocating attribute points or dice rolls is irrelevant.
you can make three fighters in a row with dice roll and they will never be the same.
I like stat rolling for that reason, because you're forced to deal with your stats.... "Ok what am I going to do with these"? it also. often gets the guy who would otherwise play wizards to play a rogue this time, etc etc.
four people get together, roll stats and make a party right then and there with what fate gave them.... the groups are more organic and less cookie cutter everytime.
I once played a thief with NO stats over 11, it was fun...he was fat, lazy and unmotivated...I used my starting money to buy a cart, pulled by an ox and a driver.
I didnt have the Con for that walking about in the mountains s#@&! and how would I carry my loot? I had a 9 str!
honestly, the crappy stats made a fun character I would not have otherwise played.
I've been on both sides of the caster-martial coin and I found casters much more enjoyable to play due to the variety of options. Unless you're playing from Path of War or porting Bo9S (swordians as I call them), your options on a round by round basis as a martial are essentially limited to full attack, charge, combat maneuver, a couple of feats, or tumble around. Even the swordians don't have a meaningful resource management system, none-the-less regular martials. Over the course of a day, the caster's resources gradually deplete in a way such that their strength in each successive encounter is less. Martials don't have anything comparable, the closest is the Qinggong monk and even then I houserule that get they get 1 free pick from the list at every level starting at level 4.
All of this is why I prefer a game that minimizes the actual impact of attributes [or eliminates them entirely.]
You can have a functional mechanical framework without allocating things to be based on this or that attribute.
Saving Throws, for example, work FAR better when the differences between them aren't exasperated by differences of attributes. [After all, when attributes are involved in saving throws the caster usually maxes his one casting attribute, but the target has 3 separate attributes defending him. That's a losing battle.]
Casters and DC is hugely boring because spells merely happen.
This might just be a classic case of people sitting in different camps on how crunchy a ruleset should be. I tend to think more rules helps more often than less rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know we're past the skills discussion but when I used the consolidated skill list from PF Unchained I took away the +INT to skills and left the skill ranks granted by class alone. (So a wizard or fighter gets 2 per level, monk gets 4 per level and so on.) Part of my reasoning was that in 5th edition there was a similar situation going on and things didn't fall apart. So far its worked out. Under the consolidated skills over half the skills are Int-based so Int was still valuable just not crippling. classes like the fighter, Sorcerer and cleric effectively got more skills making them a bit more useful. The wizard magus and witch effectively had fewer skills but it wasn't that huge of a hit considering the amount of effective skills they retain. The magus actually came out pretty even in terms of effective skills. (Plus I'm not sad about arcane casters losing a few skills.) Rogues became godly at just having skills by being able to max out 2/3 of the entire skill list. One person decided to dump Charisma and Intelligence down to 7 but mostly because it was recommended by an optimization guide and everyone else had some reason to try to retain enough INT for feats or to make good on some skills. So far things have been working to my liking.
you can make three fighters in a row with dice roll and they will never be the same.
Yes, they will. Having a 17 instead of a 16 changes nothing. You still made the exact same decision and created exactly the same character.
The numbers might not be exactly the same, but the character creation remains unchanged. Only the most superficial details are changed ("This Fighter has Str 17 and Con 16! That one has Str 18 and Con 14! COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Whoopie-dee-doo!").
Nothing stops you from creating characters with unusual attribute distribution using point-buy. If you don't, it's simply because you don't want to do it.
If the only reason you play non-cookie cutter characters is because the whims of a dice roll forced you, that's on you and your unwillingness to create something different, not on the point-buy system.
For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.
And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.
It's possible to roleplay and interact even with evil undead, that seems to be missing from your explanation. And 'spirits' occupy a whole other category that is not defined by alignment restrictions like normal undead.
But note that it's 'breaking away' from the traditional, hard lines of what being a lycanthrope and bloodsucker really are that define those games/systems/stories. And its adhering to those tropes that define what the core Pathfinder game is about.
So, adhere to the core system, and house rule it different if you like. But it is adherence to that traditional baseline that makes Pathfinder what it is, and 'opening it up to all options' is NOT going to make it 'better'. It makes it more dissolute, less defined, and more ambiguous, and that's not the type of game/world they are interested in selling, or a lot of people interested in playing in.
Restrictions add flavor. 'You can't add this' is just as much flavor as 'anything goes', which, in the end, is completely flavorless and bland in the eyes of many. Sure, a 'good' werewolf makes a fine exception to the rules...if there's ONE of him. When it's every other werewolf, it loses all relevance whatsoever, and being a werewolf ceases to be a special thing. It's just a bunch of stat mods.
==Aelryinth
I don't know, I thought vampires and werewolves have always been a subtle euphemism for sex?
Neck biting is pretty intimate, plus the focus of blood, then there are werewolves and the whole "once-a-full-moon" aggression and whatever else have you...
I mean, the imagery is all there...
If the only reason you play non-cookie cutter characters is because the whims of a dice roll forced you, that's on you and your unwillingness to create something different, not on the point-buy system.
That's a total cop-out. The complaint is that stat allocation pushes the population of characters on the whole towards cookie-cutter sameness, not that any particular player is forced to play any given character the exact same as any other.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that having a police force doesn't reduce crime because some people break the law, anyway. Every individual has choice, but that doesn't preclude us from observing that all individuals, as a group, are pushed towards certain behaviors by the systems of rules under which they live, or in this case, play.
If the only reason you play non-cookie cutter characters is because the whims of a dice roll forced you, that's on you and your unwillingness to create something different, not on the point-buy system.That's a total cop-out. The complaint is that stat allocation pushes the population of characters on the whole towards cookie-cutter sameness, not that any particular player is forced to play any given character the exact same as any other.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that having a police force doesn't reduce crime because some people break the law, anyway. Every individual has choice, but that doesn't preclude us from observing that all individuals, as a group, are pushed towards certain behaviors by the systems of rules under which they live, or in this case, play.
Your police analogy doesn't work because as a group, players who roll their dice still sue the very same cookie-cutter builds too. Having a +2 instead of a +1 doesn't make a character different in any significant way.
And as a group, players who roll stats will still put their highest number on Str and their lowest number on Cha... How is that different, exactly? Because they get a 16 instead of an 18? s that what you consider to be "different"?
And as a group, players who roll high Int and low Str will play Wizards instead of Fighters... Again, same thing. The only difference is that the Wiard has a 17 instead of an 18 or whatever... And the player is possibly not playing the class he wanted to play.
And here is the thing: If a player wants to only use cookie-cutter builds... So freaking what? If a player wants to always have the same attribute, let him do it. If he wants to use an unusual attribute allocation, let him do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I thought vampires and werewolves have always been a subtle euphemism for sex?
Neck biting is pretty intimate, plus the focus of blood, then there are werewolves and the whole "once-a-full-moon" aggression and whatever else have
...
I dunno about werewolves, but the modern revival of the vampire myth definitely has something to do with repressed Victorian-era sexuality, yeah. Bram Stoker's Dracula is a highly sensual book with sex bubbling naughtily just under the surface from an era when it was not considered decorous to talk about such things openly, even in a novel.
Anne Rice fired that engine back up, and it's pretty much been picking up steam ever since. Now, the vampire has become a cheap pop icon - the sparkly subject of "abstinence porn" (cough...Twilight...cough), and the trite embodiment of teenage sexual fantasy.
Your police analogy doesn't work because as a group, players who roll their dice still use the very same cookie-cutter builds too.
You don't seem to understand that there are other ways of generating stats. A straight 3d6 system is definitely not going to lead to cookie-cutter builds, nor will one with partial randomness where scores cannot be re-allocated. You are making an argument against basic statistics here; no one wins those.
And as a group, players who roll stats will still put their highest number on Str and their lowest number on Cha... How is that different, exactly? Because they get a 16 instead of an 18? s that what you consider to be "different"?
As I said earlier, which I guess you missed, I think the best solution is to allocate primary stats, and roll secondary stats. This leads to meaningful diversity without undermining player agency.
Here is the thing... So freaking what? If a player wants to always have the same attribute, let him do it. If he wants to use an unusual attribute allocation, let him do it.
The "so what" is that over time sameness becomes boring and trite. A bit of randomness is a good way to keep the game fresh. Yes, I think players should be allowed to play what they want and should have the stats to back it up, but allocation of all stats is not necessary to achieve these goals.
As I said earlier, which I guess you missed, I think the best solution is to allocate primary stats, and roll secondary stats. This leads to meaningful diversity without undermining player agency.
I saw that. It still doesn't change anything, only the specific values. It won't stop anyone from using cookie-cutter builds.
The "so what" is that over time sameness becomes boring and trite. A bit of randomness is a good way to keep the game fresh. Yes, I think players should be allowed to play what they want and should have the stats to back it up, but allocation of all stats is not necessary to achieve these goals.
It's obviously not all that boring and trite if the player is still doing it. I don't see why it should matter to anyone what are the attributes of their friend's character. It seems as silly and petty as being bothered by someone else playing a class you don't like.
You don't seem to understand that there are other ways of generating stats. A straight 3d6 system is definitely not going to lead to cookie-cutter builds, nor will one with partial randomness where scores cannot be re-allocated. You are making an argument against basic statistics here; no one wins those.
If the player wants to use a cookie-cutter build, he'll still do it. If he can't reallocate attribute, he'll still choose a class that benefits the most from whatever rolls he got. If he can't do even that, he'll still choose the best feats and class features available. Or maybe he'll simply dive head-first into danger so his character dies and he gets a chance to roll again.
Unless you make every decision based on a random die roll, the player will still be able to make his build as cookie-cutter as he wants.
If the only difference between 2 Fighters is the fact that one of them has attributes Str 18 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 08 and the other has attributes Str 17 Dex 15 Con 17 Int 11 Wis 09 and Cha 18, I still consider them to be the basically the exact same character with minor differences in their numerical bonuses.
As I said earlier, which I guess you missed, I think the best solution is to allocate primary stats, and roll secondary stats. This leads to meaningful diversity without undermining player agency.I saw that. It still doesn't change anything, only the specific values. It won't stop anyone from using cookie-cutter builds.
If you mean that it won't stop people from being crappy roleplayers, you are correct, but stats matter, and having different or unexpected/unplanned secondary stats can be a good incentive to roleplay. I have seen it happen. We had a guy for a long time who played a Wizard with a 17 strength. He didn't really do much with all those muscles, but he did roleplay the fact that this bookish fellow was actually quite burly, and it was occasionally a source of great amusement. On the other side, we had a Tengu Rogue who took Dex and Int as his primary stats and ended up with a 6 Con. The player decided to make him a chain smoker and a bit of a coward on account of his flimsiness. He had a shockingly long life, all things considered.
It's obviously not all that boring and trite if the player is still doing it.
Again...it's not about any one player or any one PC. The simple fact of the matter is that 100% stat allocation punishes statistical diversity in player creation, which is a shame because expressing the stat numbers that the dice gave you is one of the easiest ways (arguably the original way) to come up with new roleplaying ideas. Bob the Barbarian might actually try playing the character in a new way if you threw some different stats at him.
If you mean that it won't stop people from being crappy roleplayers, you are correct, but stats matter, and having different or unexpected/unplanned secondary stats can be a good incentive to roleplay. I have seen it happen. We had a guy for a long time who played a Wizard with a 17 strength. He didn't really do much with all those muscles, but he did roleplay the fact that this bookish fellow was actually quite burly, and it was occasionally a source of great amusement. On the other side, we had a Tengu Rogue who took Dex and Int as his primary stats and ended up with a 6 Con. The player decided to make him a chain smoker and a bit of a coward on account of his flimsiness. He had a shockingly long life, all things considered.
And yet... Method of attribute-generations has literally zero influence over how good of a role-player someone is.
Again...it's not about any one player or any one PC. The simple fact of the matter is that 100% stat allocation punishes statistical diversity in player creation, which is a shame because expressing the stat numbers that the dice gave you is one of the easiest ways (arguably the original way) to come up with new roleplaying ideas. Bob the Barbarian might actually try playing the character in a new way if you threw some different stats at him.
In literally 100% of the cases the player is using a cookie-cutter build, it's because he decided to do so. And point-buy doesn't punish statistical diversity any more than rolled dice, because whether you rolled a 16 or got it through point-buy makes zero difference on what that 16 means and does for you and your character.
What "punishes" statistical diversity is having to lower your more important attributes. But that also happens in rolled stats. If the player adds a higher value to his Fighter's Cha instead of Con, he's still being "punished" for statistical diversity.
Sure, some people may take unusual stats as a chance to roleplay something differently... But those same people would probably try it in point-buy too, if they want.
And as you said, it's not about any one PC or player. As a whole, on average, players wills imply allocate stats to their best rolls to their most useful attributes OR choose a different class that better fits their current roll.
It's literally the same amount of creativity/cookie-cuttery as point-buy. The only difference is how much control the player has over it... And I don't consider "having a 16 instead of an 18" enough of a difference to say it's not the same cookie-cutter build as always.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said earlier, which I guess you missed, I think the best solution is to allocate primary stats, and roll secondary stats. This leads to meaningful diversity without undermining player agency.I saw that. It still doesn't change anything, only the specific values. It won't stop anyone from using cookie-cutter builds.If you mean that it won't stop people from being crappy roleplayers, you are correct, but stats matter, and having different or unexpected/unplanned secondary stats can be a good incentive to roleplay. I have seen it happen. We had a guy for a long time who played a Wizard with a 17 strength. He didn't really do much with all those muscles, but he did roleplay the fact that this bookish fellow was actually quite burly, and it was occasionally a source of great amusement. On the other side, we had a Tengu Rogue who took Dex and Int as his primary stats and ended up with a 6 Con. The player decided to make him a chain smoker and a bit of a coward on account of his flimsiness. He had a shockingly long life, all things considered.
It's obviously not all that boring and trite if the player is still doing it.Again...it's not about any one player or any one PC. The simple fact of the matter is that 100% stat allocation punishes statistical diversity in player creation, which is a shame because expressing the stat numbers that the dice gave you is one of the easiest ways (arguably the original way) to come up with new roleplaying ideas. Bob the Barbarian might actually try playing the character in a new way if you threw some different stats at him.
Stormwind called, he wants his fallacy back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, good roleplayers and bad ones tend to be good or bad regardless of what the numbers on their character sheets are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stormwind called, he wants his fallacy back.
Try reading for content next time rather than posting tired one-liners. I never said that optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive; they clearly are not. What I said is that a bit of de-optimization can be a good thing for roleplaying - can spur players to try concepts they otherwise wouldn't have played.
I think one problem in this conversation is that younger players are often accustomed to building statistically optimal characters, and then completely ignoring those statistics and just playing the PCs however they want. People coming from this paradigm probably don't see any real connection between PC stats and roleplaying, whereas it was just the opposite in OD&D, where the dice were tyrants, and the little numbers they popped out for stats left a deep imprint on character identity before the player had any input, at all.
I am not suggesting anyone go back to the bad old days of straight 3d6, drive on soldier...but I do think there was something good in that style of play which has been lost in the era of "as you wish"-style gaming.
In my experience, good roleplayers and bad ones tend to be good or bad regardless of what the numbers on their character sheets are.
Yes, and average roleplayers, which includes most people, are often greatly affected by them.