Would you chose the point buy system for selecting stats?

[solera]

All righty. Another GBD poll. How many point buyers have we got in our RPI mud? Do these questions make sense?
For my own next PC, on my scrap of paper, I'd rank my stats, roll a dice to get the exact number, fiddle with the answers if I didn't like them, and enter chargen to use the point buy option.

[Majikal]

Suppose my answered in the other thread pretty much summed up my opinion.

Pros
A pt buy system wouldn't make cookie cutter pc's, there's benefits to making your pc stat-lacking in certain areas. Plays get to reliably play their tastes.

A pt buy system would reduce staff workload, suicides happen because of stats. I promise.

Ditto storage.

A pt buy system would let players make the pc they envisioned.

A pt buy system would update the chargen in Arm to... pretty much every RPG MUD ever. System tried. System proven.

Cons
I won't luck into another exceptional/exceptional/exceptional/exceptional d-elf of awesome.

[Jave]

I personally enjoy the random element involved in rolling stats, but I can understand the frustration with that system in Armageddon.

I think it's because Armageddon only has 4 stats to be honest. I've talked a bit about Harnworld before (an RPG I really enjoy. D&D done right, imho). And in that system you have the following stats:

Strength, Stamina, Dexterity, Agility, Eyesight, Hearing, Smell/Taste, Voice, Intelligence, Aura, Willpower, Morality, Piety, Deity, Height, Weight, Hair, Frame, Eyes, Comeliness.

And all the skills in the game are based on a combination of 3 attributes. So for example, your aptitude at climbing is determined by your strength, agility, and dexterity.
Your aptitude with an axe is based on strength, strength, and dexterity while a dagger's skill is based on dexterity, dexterity, and eyesight.

In a system like this, the randomness is a pleasant added sense of realism in that the gene pool is not evenly distributed. But there are so many attributes that your odds of rolling really shitty or really amazing on all 20 of them are slim to none.

In a game like ours though with only 4 attributes, that random factor is a lot stronger.

[Marauder Moe]

I like that some characters are just better.  They won the genetic lottery.  They have greater potential.  All the other chumps have to work harder, kill them, or accept living in their shadow.  It's exciting when you play such a character and thematic when you don't.  Equality has never been a theme of this game, after all.

[bardlyone]

I'd pretty much always choose the point buy system - but would prefer one that incorporated the notion Moe talks about, hence the suggestion of basically being average or below average in all stats, then giving you a die roll of points to allocate (let's say 3d4 or 2d6), but you can also lower one or more of your stats to gain points to put in another, so you could get 2-12 or 3-12 points to play around with on top of all average stats, or let's say you lower one of them and that takes you to 4-14 or 5-14 points to put in other stats. You'll still have pcs who are just "better" and just "worse" because of the random point numbers, but it gives the -players- as opposed to a random dice roll, more control over just how low is unplayable in X or Y stat, and lets you tank some stats to do exceptionally well in others, etc.

[AdamBlue]

Allow a mixture of both. You're given a random stat roll at the beginning, which you can reroll as you'd like (so if you're lucky you can hit that all exceptional or all AI)  but allow someone to fiddle around with the stats you're given, so if you want to play a merchant but you roll AI strength, then you can make your strength average and dump those points into wisdom instead. Or if you had AI wisdom but Below-average everything, you could deduct points to make wisdom very good and everything else above average.

[Jave]

Like Baldur's Gate?

[Narf]

My preference would be to allow either.

I would personally always choose the point buy, but there's no particular reason that people that enjoy the system as is shouldn't be able to keep doing what they're doing.

[Lizzie]

If there were more stats to choose from as in Jave's example I'd be all for point-buy. As it stands now, I much prefer random.
Edit: I prefer random plus option to prioritize, for the current system.
I wouldn't want as many stats as in Jave's example but I would like to see more than there are currently.

In the current system, if you included point buy, you could essentially have 25 points in each to = 100% allocated. There's just TOO much room for customization in each stat, and when you're finished, the result isn't going to make much of a difference. You'll end up with people complaining that they didn't allocate efficiently.

With more stats to choose from, each allocation will MEAN something significant. A single point up or down in any given stat could be coded to show a measurable result. I'd still want the option to randomize AND prioritize, with a more varied stat pool to choose from.

[Molten Heart]

I think some randomization is necessary. I wouldn't like a system with a set amount of points that can be spent anyway a player sees fit because it'd make everyone average overall. There would be no one who's exceptionally poor across the board or exceptionally amazing across the board, or varying degrees in between, A flat system with set points seems like it'd create characters that were too balanced with a zero sum of stats.

I'd go for a system where the base stats were randomized and could be adjusted, or even maybe if stat allocation points were randomized where characters received a random amount of stat points to be adjusted as a player saw fit to round out the character. This would still allow characters to be different, having good and bad stats. Players would just have more control over how bad or good each stat was, making choices and occasionally sacrificing with some stats lower in order to have other stats at a level where they think they need to be.

[Narf]

I think some randomization is necessary. I wouldn't like a system with a set amount of points that can be spent anyway a player sees fit because it'd make everyone average overall. There would be no one who's exceptionally poor across the board or exceptionally amazing across the board, or varying degrees in between, A flat system with set points seems like it'd create characters that were too balanced with a zero sum of stats.

NPCs could still be exceptional (either good or bad). There's no reason why PCs necessarily have to be the ones representing the genetic lottery.

There's a lot of aspects of the game that are already like this. Players like playing certain types of characters, and those types can't realistically represent the population of Zalanthas. So NPCs fill in the gaps of what people don't want to play.

[solera]

My preference would be to allow either.

I would personally always choose the point buy, but there's no particular reason that people that enjoy the system as is shouldn't be able to keep doing what they're doing.

Yes, I meant you would still have the choice at chargen. I do agree with Moe and the others, I like he total stats level being random .

[hopeandsorrow]

I hate bad stats.

But I sympathize with arguments against the point buy.  You'll start seeing a lot of carbon, printed out copies of characters once some one figures out the best min/max build.  Meta-gaming, which is disheartening and boring and a numerous other things that can make most online games stagnate and boring.

Although it seems odd that players who claim stats don't matter complaining about how point buy system will effect the role play or variety of characters... I dunno.  Seems like we try to ignore the stats in its current form when comparing PC's ability.  How many people have below average Wisdom, but aren't exactly playing dunces?  We ignore that stat often, because its convenient for us.  The choice to play dumb/ignorant/ or not isn't every decided by that stat in most cases.

It's a bit hard to ignore something as obvious as Strength, as there is a very coded measure that is on display for other PCs. What you're carrying, what your're wielding, and how effective you are in combat tells can at lest shed some light into a PC's Strength/Agility stat.   You can't hide it behind role play as effectively as you could with low wisdom.

I'm on the fence.

On one hand, -average- sucks, because I stated on the other thread.  That prioritization + storage/suicide of bad stats equates to making higher then "average" stats the norm for those in combat rolls.  The staff perhaps (I dunno) know the true "average" of warrior PC's.  Which I can speculate with much confidence is not Strength: Average.  So even if codely in context of the world strength average should be average, compared to their PC peers their strength is actually low.

Below average really sucks even out of combat.  Especially if you were spoil by high strength before, you become frighteningly aware how much you can carry and the tremendous effect it can have on survival-ability.  Water weighs a fair amount, so does protection, food, tools like climbing gear/torches and this is a sobering experience to the requirements of wilderness survival.  Perhaps my rangers always were a bit OCD to having adequate supplies and back ups, on and off the mount.  Being obsessive about that keep many of them alive.

With a point buy, at lest players exercise some agency over the physicality and nature of their PC's coded innards.  Which no one states you have to meta-game to victory, you could choose to strike a balance and not a min/max.  But once the min/max character build arm's race starts.  There is no un-ringing that bell. 

As well there is that first bit of excitement upon first getting the app approved.  The pre-hall of the kings character, the pre-stat roll holds a huge list of exciting possibilities.  Although this usually for me ends with "Eh, not bad... not great... roll with it".  This would be missed if there was a shift to point buy. 



An interesting equation is Happiness = Reality/Expectations.  In most cases, one part of the equation is easier to change then the other.  Keeping low expectations, will = more happiness. With life or a character concept.  Yet because Armageddon is a game, we actually have some effect over reality (for our pcs) Currently that's stat prioritization, other times it's storage/rerolling.   Point enables the player to exercise some level control over the reality of their character. Low expectations is wise but isn't preferable when it comes to most folks and escapism.

I found it better to not focus on stats or on combat at all because my roll was shit. I focused on other things, and it ended up working out great.

It was playing an average agility human ranger that made me realize you can do great things with a PC even if they are a stat-cripple, and he was.

I pulled Dman's quote from the other thread because he makes a good point but an unfortunate one as well.

You can have lots of fun with out focusing too much on code. I might sound utterly cliche one of my favorite flavor attempts ultimately require so little code and stat focus that I had a lot of fun just being that PC.  It was... magical.

Yet that is an achievement the relies on the player.  Desertman has being playing for years (As many of others) for the folks who lack a lot of the knowledge of the nuances of the community, culture, and world.  Achieving things on the more social side is difficult.  Power and fun is very achievable with out coded combat prowess but it requires something that only comes with time and consistency, experience.  I would dare to say it also requires some level of social ability that not everyone is blessed with. Player awkwardness and shyness can easily carry over into the game, I know it does for me, I'm terribly shy and it perhaps shows with my role play.  I'm an 'OK role player' and I have a surface level knowledge of the player communities nuances and culture.   In other words using myself as an example.  I'm ill-equipped for leader/manipulator/social roles on an OOC level.   There's no code to that (which is good) but it also takes years worth of real life to get to the level some of the members of this community has achieved.  While a player like me, work on developing those soft skills, hard code skills are a happy way to be at lest useful for those players who are good at the politics.

If I'm trying to maximize my fun and escapism, I sadly have to rely on code way more then I can rely on my sheer role playing ability.  That will only come with time and perhaps luck, as a bit of an 'outsider' there is an heavy sense that I'm not always in the know.  That certain bits of nuance are lost on me.   I'm not yet and effective enough role player, a knowledgeable member of the community to be effective or dangerous on a social level.

A friend of mine who doesn't play anymore major gripe about the game when he stop playing was he felt like he was competing against players and not PC's.  That you had to have the soft skills of OOC knowledge and abilities on an OOC level to be an effective leader/betrayer/manipulator.  I can understand what he means, sometimes it can really feel your competition isn't the Character but the player at the keyboard controlling the character.  Stats/skills/code helps alleviate this to a degree.  There is no matchmaking here, there is no ELO score to keep things fair. The game, more-so in terms of social conflict is harsh and those with the best soft skills and tiny bit of luck will win every time.  Can maximize their impact and fun with out the backing of code.  This is not an accusation as much as I pointing it out, as something that people who are new or with less knowledge or plays the game inconsistently should aspire too.

Point buy only helps create that agency that at lest in worse case scenario, you've got code even if you aren't a gold star role player who's mastered the more complex social mechanics that are at work in terms of conflict and players.   You've got the ability to at least player a competent or great warrior/ranger/thief or whatever.  The code works with you.

A good example is a thief.  A good thief doesn't need steal skill at master, being a good con man is about trickery and manipulation, and misdirection.  There is no code for that, there is only the player ability.  Perhaps I could skill up pick pocket to being proficient code wise.  None of that will make me a good con-artist.

Again I wrote all that to state I'm still on the fence, I wish there was a happy medium in which it felt stats were unique, fun, and interesting for a character (mainly those centered around combat) avoiding any overt meta-gaming.  There is no easy fix, Armageddon isn't an MMO or tabletop or an single player RPG.  It isn't inherently competitive but it is competitive.   Stats I guess will also ways be one of those things, any one can make a case for for any system and it will have its merits.  Deciding on whats better for role play and what maximizes player engagement is perhaps the real challenge.

[Drayab]

I picked point-buy because, given the choice, it's the optimal way to build your character. And this is precisely the reason why I think it's a bad idea. If you want your character to be good at what they do, then you have to build your character accordingly. If we want to have un-optimized, non-cookie cutter characters, then we need an unbiased method of doling out the genetic gifts and curses, and that's the RNG.

[whitt]

I chose point buy, because dice hate me.  But I feel that point buy should amount to having one good, one above average, one average, and one below average stat.  You could go to good-good-below-below or even exceptional-below-below-below, but I wouldn't want to see a system where every sneak had AI agility, every warrior had AI strength, every gick had AI wisdom, and everyone playing flavor roles had AI endurance.  Which is where the point buy system would lead us.

[wizturbo]

If I had to design a system from scratch for Armageddon, I would probably keep everything the same as it is now when it comes to chargen, with the exception of letting you write your description after your stat rolls.  When I see a description that says "thick with muscles", or "moves with a feline grace",  I want it to correlate to reality.

You create your character's personality, the environment dictates how good your character is at things relative to others.  You shouldn't get to decide that your character is a bad ass, just how they act. 

But with that said, I would also permit stat boosts with proper roleplay for any stat below average.  Getting up to average in the physical stats should be achievable for anyone who isn't playing someone with a physical disability.

[Narf]

I picked point-buy because, given the choice, it's the optimal way to build your character. And this is precisely the reason why I think it's a bad idea. If you want your character to be good at what they do, then you have to build your character accordingly. If we want to have un-optimized, non-cookie cutter characters, then we need an unbiased method of doling out the genetic gifts and curses, and that's the RNG.

There are many point buy methods that have been developed over the decades that were designed to avoid cookie cutter characters.

To date my favorite was an old 80's game called DragonQuest where you had a random roll that determined your maximum stat, and your total stat points. These were inversely correlated so you either had a character with incredible potential in one stat at the cost of the rest, or one that was overarchingly above average (or somewhere in between).

Other methods to prevent cookie cutter stats is to charge more points on a sliding scale (DnD uses this now) to weight the abilities as having different values (Old Hero system style).

I imagine a proper connoisseur of gaming could give you a few other systems that encouraged stat diversity.

[Drayab]

I suppose implicit in my criticism of the point-buy system is the idea of a set number of stat points that players can allocate however they wish.

Maybe I could get on board of a point-buy system if it were a particularly well designed one. That DragonQuest idea where your total stat points are still determined by the RNG sounds appealing, for example. I wouldn't call that a straight point-buy system, but a kind of hybrid system.

I'm sure a part of the reason why I like the current system is because it's simple and it is working well from my end. Call it a combination of the KISS principle and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[lostinspace]

I would like pointbuy for stats, but keep the random rolls for derived stats.

[wizturbo]

No matter how you design a point buy system, there is always an optimal configuration.  Players will figure it out, and that'll be the new norm.  At best, you might have a philosophical split between option A or B on what's best.  That's perfectly okay for a hack and slash game, in fact, that's exactly what you want...a nice balanced opportunity for all characters.  But in Armageddon I personally like the fact that things aren't balanced.  Equality doesn't contribute to fun roleplay.

[Alesan]

Forcing people to play what they didn't intend to play and calling it "roleplay opportunities" doesn't sit well with people either, it seems. There doesn't look to be any kind of compromise.

[BadSkeelz]

Forcing people to play what they didn't intend to play and calling it "roleplay opportunities" doesn't sit well with people either, it seems. There doesn't look to be any kind of compromise.

Roll stats first, then write an mdesc and select guilds?

[Alesan]

Forcing people to play what they didn't intend to play and calling it "roleplay opportunities" doesn't sit well with people either, it seems. There doesn't look to be any kind of compromise.

Roll stats first, then write an mdesc and select guilds?

Maybe, but most people come up with a character concept first. I don't want my character design to be placed in a boundary of attributes, however loose that boundary is. I wouldn't mind a points buy system, and I wouldn't mind things staying as they are, but I don't want to have to roll stats first to find out what kind of character I get to make.

[wizturbo]

Roll stats first, then write an mdesc and select guilds?

That's my preference.  Not sure about picking guild after though, as guilds typically come with some stat boosts too if I recall.

But the thought of having to write my msdesc without knowing if I'm actually buff, agile or tough has always been silly to me.

[wizturbo]

Maybe, but most people come up with a character concept first. I don't want my character design to be placed in a boundary of attributes, however loose that boundary is. I wouldn't mind a points buy system, and I wouldn't mind things staying as they are, but I don't want to have to roll stats first to find out what kind of character I get to make.

Aptitude isn't what defines a character.  Aptitude is an environmental condition.   People are not strong, smart, or fast in a vacuum, they're strong, smart or fast relative to their environment.  

You create a character and then one of the first environmental things you cope with or benefit from are your stats.  At least that's how I philosophically view roleplaying.

You don't create a character concept as: "A peerless warrior who can kill a mekillot in a single blow."  You create a character like, "A fearless, stubborn daughter of a Yaroch farmer.  Would face a mekillot without hesitation."