point buy or roll for stats?

[redneckdevil]

Title says it all. Usually I have my players roll for their stats but thinking about switching them to the 15 point buy system. Granted we play pathfinder, but wanted to know what yal like using and the ups and downs of using either system.

[Plutone00]

I'll assume we're talking D&D here. If there is no option for re-roll, I'll take the point buy. Otherwise I'll roll and re-roll until I get the stats I want.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I don't particularly like point-buy, it tends to create too neat/optimized stats instead of resembling to how a real person would look like. Then again, Pathfinder isn't too heavy on the "play a real person" aspect, so... *shrug*

[Keyrock]

As a player, I like roll for stats because I can end up with a character that has deficiencies that I need to overcome, and those tend to be the most fun characters to play.  If I get to choose my own point distribution, I can never resist trying to make the most optimized character possible, even knowing full well that I'd have more fun playing a less optimal character.  If I'm GMing (which is rare), I'll usually let the players decide (not individually, majority rules), since it's their characters and I'm not going to make assumptions on which way would be more fun for the them.

[nikolokolus]

Roll it up. Preferably 3d6 in order, but I tend to like Swords & Wizardry (Complete) and DCC RPG as my systems of choice. However, because I am such a magnanimous and generous GM, I do allow players to exchange a score with another on a 1 for 2 basis.

 

In my not-so-humble opinion, I think point-buy tends to create game play that is more about "build testing" than it is about clever play and overcoming whatever sub-optimal statistics your character possesses. 

[redneckdevil]

I can understand why the point system would lead more towards optimizing but so far the players have been really good rolling up their characters were their last 3 characters usually its more average in the 16s (a few low rolls but nothing so far under 11 and quite a few 18s, usually 1 or 2 18s). I guess the dice have been lucky for my players to have basically very well rounded characters stats wise and was thinking with a point buy with nothing dipping below 10 unless racial stats and not going over 18 again except with racial stats that they would have.....eh some flaws I guess?

Not to sound like I'm aying against my players, its just some like to keep rerolling until they have at least 2 18s or very well rounded numbers if make any sense.

So I'm guessing the point buy vs rolled stats basically go down as a case by case or party to party basis maybe overall?

[Keyrock]

If people get to reroll ad infinitum there's no point in rolling at all, just let them write in whatever stats they want.

[nikolokolus]

If people get to reroll ad infinitum there's no point in rolling at all, just let them write in whatever stats they want.

 

Kind of reminds of those characters we "rolled" up when I was about 13 and first discovered the AD&D game and got to take home my buddy's copy of the PHB and practice creating some characters.

 

"Well sure I rolled up this paladin with 18/00 Str, 17 Dex, 18 Con, 12 Int, 14 Wis and 17 Cha, with 4d6 drop lowest. Why would I lie about something like that?"

[Keyrock]

 

If people get to reroll ad infinitum there's no point in rolling at all, just let them write in whatever stats they want.

 

Kind of reminds of those characters we "rolled" up when I was about 13 and first discovered the AD&D game and got to take home my buddy's copy of the PHB and practice creating some characters.

 

"Well sure I rolled up this paladin with 18/00 Str, 17 Dex, 18 Con, 12 Int, 14 Wis and 17 Cha, with 4d6 drop lowest. Why would I lie about something like that?"

 

Oh yeah, I "rolled" those types of characters too.  Eventually it dawned on me that it's much more fun to play flawed characters than min-maxed ones, but it took many years.

 

The whole point of rolling a character is that it's random.  You get what you get and you work with it.  I'll go so far as rerolling any stat that doesn't meet the requisite for the class I want to play(e.g. a 6 str for a fighter in AD&D 2nd ed), but beyond that, whatever I get, that's what I get and I deal with it.  If you're just going to "keep rolling" until you get the exact stats you want, don't bother, just write them in.  I once had a Cleric with 5 Int in a game of AD&D.  That was one of the most fun characters I ever got to roleplay as I did my darnedest to play things like someone who has a high wisdom and low intelligence.  Good times.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

For me, it largely depends on the group I'm playing with and the system we are using. For low-power games focused almost solely on role-playing and with easier encounters I prefer rolling, while for games with mid to high power with challenging encounters and players who have specific concepts already in mind I prefer pointbuy. These days, it is mostly pointbuy because I'm largely playing Pathfinder and GURPS and I design combat encounters to be pretty brutal.

[nikolokolus]

For me, it largely depends on the group I'm playing with and the system we are using. For low-power games focused almost solely on role-playing and with easier encounters I prefer rolling, while for games with mid to high power with challenging encounters and players who have specific concepts already in mind I prefer pointbuy. These days, it is mostly pointbuy because I'm largely playing Pathfinder and GURPS and I design combat encounters to be pretty brutal.

 

The funny thing is that it's always within the power of the GM to inflate or shave statistics to "tune" the game to a certain level of difficulty no matter what the character generation scheme is for attributes. Where a game like 3.x or Pathfinder breaks down in terms of building encounters is when players realize they can game the system with feats and create a very optimized character from a mechanics standpoint, effectively starting an arms race with their Keeper as he or she is forced to devise creatures and encounters that work around those munchkin builds.

 

Not knocking d20, because I currently really like DCC RPG and it wouldn't exist without the OGL and 3.x (unified mechanics and ascending AC aint bad either) but from a game mastering perspective I do not enjoy running Pathfinder or 3.x because of the way they can be so easily "broken." by enterprising players with a gamist bent.

 

As to GURPS, I played a game or two about 20 years ago, but I'm in no position to debate its merits or drawbacks.

[Raithe]

We always made it a group event, everyone gathers around doing the 4d6 drop one method, having the banter, the commiserations, the "you lucky bastard" when someone rolls incredibly good stats, all part of the GM talking through his ideas for a campaign and general themes, and folks discussing what characters they were thinking would fit or would be interesting to play in that sort of environment.

 

Thus group discussion and the GM can have a more relaxed way to keep control on anyone going incredibly gamist/silly over what they try, rather then someone just turn up with a character and have to be stomped on hard because of it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The funny thing is that it's always within the power of the GM to inflate or shave statistics to "tune" the game to a certain level of difficulty no matter what the character generation scheme is for attributes. Where a game like 3.x or Pathfinder breaks down in terms of building encounters is when players realize they can game the system with feats and create a very optimized character from a mechanics standpoint, effectively starting an arms race with their Keeper as he or she is forced to devise creatures and encounters that work around those munchkin builds.

I could tune encounters to make it easier, but quite a bit of encounters I create rely on traps and environmental factors as well. Also, I don't like toning down things myself.

 

Another reason I like pointbuy is that you don't end up with characters that have huge power gaps between them. For example, in the first D&D game I played, I rolled a Paladin with 16 Str 12 Dex 15 Con 10 Int 15 Wis 17 Charisma while my friend rolled a Rogue with 8 Str 16 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 8 Wis 7 Cha. In almost all combat scenarios, he would be killed quickly due to having **** stats while I would end up shining quite a bit. YMMV, but I personally don't like playing games where one player has a superior character simply because he got lucky rolling 4 dice 6 times.

 

As for gaming the system, that will be true of almost any system. I find the best way to avoid that is to play with people who don't like gaming the system.

 

As to GURPS, I played a game or two about 20 years ago, but I'm in no position to debate its merits or drawbacks.

GURPS has always been a pointbuy. Granted, those points are the resource for everything, so overpumping on stats means you won't have many skills or advantages. It works better for futuristic settings than magical ones.

[nikolokolus]

My tendency lately is more towards games like DCC RPG and Swords & Wizardry. In a nutshell, high or low attributes don't matter too much, because A) mortality rates are implicitly higher no matter your starting scores (plus gruesome, spectacular deaths are half the fun in DCC) B) the amount of penalties or bonuses - particularly in S&W - are really narrow and C) levels and equipment seem to have a lot more to do with character power in those older style games than anything innate in their rolled up attributes.

 

No matter, there's a ton of ways to run an RPG, and as long as people keep showing up every week you must be doing it right.

[Jarmo]

I'd bet good money on PE going to be point buy.

 

I like rolling though, much better.

 

Point buy always generates averages, balanced, "everybody is equal" characters.

And that's way too PC for my liking. I want stupid, weak clumsy characters who just have to make do,

or Tarzan-like best-at-everything übermen for whom everything is easy.

 

And I want the companions to be similarly unequal as well, with real character.

 

But it's going to be point buy where everybody is as good and effective as the next guy.

 

 

---

And I thought I was answering on PE forum, not P&P.

The same answer applies  though.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Jarmo

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Another reason I like pointbuy is that you don't end up with characters that have huge power gaps between them. For example, in the first D&D game I played, I rolled a Paladin with 16 Str 12 Dex 15 Con 10 Int 15 Wis 17 Charisma while my friend rolled a Rogue with 8 Str 16 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 8 Wis 7 Cha. In almost all combat scenarios, he would be killed quickly due to having **** stats while I would end up shining quite a bit. YMMV, but I personally don't like playing games where one player has a superior character simply because he got lucky rolling 4 dice 6 times.

 

 

That's why I give everyone freebie points equal to (highest stat total in the party-their stat total)/2. Weaker characters definitely remain weaker, but they can specialize better.

[Keyrock]

 

Another reason I like pointbuy is that you don't end up with characters that have huge power gaps between them. For example, in the first D&D game I played, I rolled a Paladin with 16 Str 12 Dex 15 Con 10 Int 15 Wis 17 Charisma while my friend rolled a Rogue with 8 Str 16 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 8 Wis 7 Cha. In almost all combat scenarios, he would be killed quickly due to having **** stats while I would end up shining quite a bit. YMMV, but I personally don't like playing games where one player has a superior character simply because he got lucky rolling 4 dice 6 times.

 

That's where we differ.  I like the power differences between characters rather than having everybody on some artificial equal playing field, even if I was playing the weaker character.  Of course, that's me now.  Me 15 years ago would be pissed to play the significantly weaker character.  To each their own.  This is why I like to let my players decide if I'm GMing.  I don't assume they think like I do.

[Raithe]

I've been in a few campaigns where the folks with "weaker" characters pulled off way more amazing stuff then the "powerful" statted ones because they got way more inventive in how they tried things to balance it out. Sure, they'd have more chance of screwing up by not making stat rolls, but either way it would turn out to be some really fun game time.

[JayDGee]

I am usually a fan of more randomised stats when GM'ing.

 

I usually let my players roll up to 3 times. If they choose to re-roll they cant pick the last roll.

 

Kind of a gamble but often works well.

[Nonek]

My own homebrew system uses a baseline of three in all four stats, I have the players roll 2d6 four times and arrange the resulting scores in whatever stats they wish, thus they vary from 5-15 (without racial and cultural modifiers.) However these stats are what I use for all skill checks with modifiers for training and such, making the characters far more oriented around their attributes rather than skills and level. A ten is the average and confers no modifiers, while anything above 15 is regarded as an almost supernatural affinity and makes stat checks far easier or even non existent.

[nikolokolus]

I've been in a few campaigns where the folks with "weaker" characters pulled off way more amazing stuff then the "powerful" statted ones because they got way more inventive in how they tried things to balance it out. Sure, they'd have more chance of screwing up by not making stat rolls, but either way it would turn out to be some really fun game time.

 

The dirty little secret of "Auld Skewl" games back in the day was that the way you stayed alive was to keep the dice from rolling. Tapping the floor ahead of you with a ten-foot pole vs. making a "search" check is a prime example.

 

It all comes down to the style of play that a group wants to engage in. If it's an OD&D-esque game with 3d6 in order, part of the fun is taking this random character with obvious flaws and seeing if you can overcome them and achieve something special against the odds. On the other hand, there are a lot of gamers that enjoy playing D&D 3.x, etc. where you carefully construct characters level by level and test your build-making skills against the GM's challenges.  There's no right or wrong way to do it, but I definitely get more enjoyment from the former style rather than the latter.

 

Matt Finch's "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" is a nice, short, little essay that's been floating around on the interwebz for awhile now and is worth a read, even if just to get an idea of how games were played at the dawn of the hobby.

 

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

[Walsingham]

I don't see the point of 'testing' the GM. That kind of oppositional play is for teenagers.

 

My perspective is as follows:

 

1) RPGs should be immersive, and rewarding

2) Both immersion and reward _require_ an element of risk to be meaningful to a Mk1 human

3) Different players find different levels of risk to be optimal

4) I believe that dice rolls are a good way to handle high value risks, such as potential character death

5) I believe that dice rolls are the only way to sensibly handle high perceptual bandwidth or high stress vignettes, such as a fist-fight

[Gromnir]

roll is ridiculous and adds nothing. that being said, if dm/gm is ok with roll, it is no biggie. after all, is the guy running the game sessions that is gonna be working harder if some folks is under-or-over-powered. in pnp it is not too hard for a dm/gm to put finger on scales where and when needed, but in our experience, it is the folks who wanted stoopid roll stats that is first to complain if they thinks gamemaster ain't being honest with rolls or encounters.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[nikolokolus]

roll is ridiculous and adds nothing. that being said, if dm/gm is ok with roll, it is no biggie. after all, is the guy running the game sessions that is gonna be working harder if some folks is under-or-over-powered. in pnp it is not too hard for a dm/gm to put finger on scales where and when needed, but in our experience, it is the folks who wanted stoopid roll stats that is first to complain if they thinks gamemaster ain't being honest with rolls or encounters.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I roll all attacks and other such stuffies out in the open.

 

If player's are stupid foolhardy enough to put their character's fate in the "hands" of a dice roll, then so be it.

[Gromnir]

dm/gm is not limited to rolls to determine outcome of encounters... is why we said "rolls or encounters." and dumping back in the lap o' the players is equal foolhardy.   

 

HA! Good Fun!