Would you chose the point buy system for selecting stats?

[hopeandsorrow]

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.

It's an interesting Idea... I'm almost curious to how people would react if they knew their next roll was going to be utter shit.

Would they bother even playing?

[wizturbo]

If stat rolls are what determines whether or not they're going to play, then I'd rather they not play...  at least within reason.

I can understand if you play a weakling character for 2+ RL years, and are excited to play a tough guy.  But I'm guessing it's a very rare occurance that you literally are forced to toss a character concept (keep in mind, it's a character concept not an aptitude concept) because of low stat rolls.

I will say that it's somewhat unfair that only physical aptitudes are held in check this way.  Social roles tend to have aptitude determined by the player, rather than any stats or environmental conditions, and that's not entirely fair.  It would be cool  if there was a charisma stat that determined how NPC's treat you, how comely your character is, ectera... But that's kind of hard to code, and obviously wouldn't be something that's easy to enforce in player interactions.

[jstorrie]

I would strongly prefer point buy to Arm's current system. very strongly.

if it exacerbates the problem of every $class focusing on $stat, then fix that problem by rebalancing the stats themselves; the current system already fails to address that problem, really.

[Jave]

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.

One has to draw the line in the sand somewhere. In a table top game if the DM is running a campaign set for 1st level characters and one of the players insists that their concept calls for being 5th level at the start or that they need to have maxed strength despite the fact that they rolled a 16, what do you tell them?

We have a setting. We have a chargen system. I've always felt that as players the onus is on us to create concepts within the confines of the rules set down.

I don't player characters anymore but when I did:
I didn't make concepts that hinge around having AI in a particular stat because I know there's no way to assure I get it.
I didn't make concepts that hinge around already being skilled in my guild because I know everyone's skills start the same.



I've just never felt the "but my concept is to play X" argument was particularly compelling. If what you want to play is outside the confines of the normal system,, you can special app for it. If you want to play things outside the confines of the normal system every time, what are we supposed to say?

[BadSkeelz]

I want to play inside the confines of the system, I just don't want to have to play on the shitty end of it due to a RNG.

What does having the Poor stat really accomplish? As far as I can tell it just lets people with good or great rolls get their dicks and clits hard because they get to be randomly better than others.

[Jave]

I want to play inside the confines of the system, I just don't want to have to play on the shitty end of it due to a RNG.

And we don't want you too either. As Nergal pointed out the RNG will already automatically give you a free reroll if you roll shitty dice before guild/age/race modifiers are applied.

[BadSkeelz]

And yet people still wind up with shitty stat rolls.

As I've said, I would just make the default lowest stat average. PCs are already exceptional. If your concept calls for you to have bad stats, people should spec-app in for that. My guess is there's far fewer people who want bad stats than there are people who just want decent ones.

[Narf]

No matter how you design a point buy system, there is always an optimal configuration.  

Don't be so defeatist. There's a number of ways to solve this.

1) Keep the random rolls for players that want them. This will create some gambling players that have stronger, unusual stats in exact proportion to the population that's willing to play such a character.

2) Create a Rock/Paper/Scissors type balance between the stats where each stat is best for specific scenarios, but no stat is best overall. I'd argue this is already true to some extent.

3) Realize that with a game as opaque in its system as Armageddon that while you may hear people claiming that a given stat array is the best ever, the liklihood that they're actually overarchingly correct (ie, their build is really as strong as they think it is) is pretty minimal.

[hopeandsorrow]

It is interesting to think about.

The stat system isn't entirely unworkable and the more arguments I hear for it, the more I understand its been the way it is for awhile.

I'm just of the camp that I really hate those 'bad' stat roles.  They give you a sinking feeling some times when you have some specific or even general in mind and the RNG decide to pull a 'fuck you lol'.   You know, ahead of time, that on some level, you'll never garner the respect and fear of some one of equal status/guild/race.

I know in a perfect world, role play should stand on its own and ultimately that's why people play. Yet things are far from perfect, I can only imagine if the statistical information was gathered on how many pc deaths occurred, was those of less than favorable stats.  
Or how many less than optimal stat'ed character we see hanging around simply because storage/suicide might just equate into a bad account note.  (this is not an accusation). Are people rolling with average stats because the genuinely want to? (One can only speculate).

This always goes back to why high stats are such a terrible drug.  Once you experience them, most everything falls short.  It's hard to get excited about average when you've seen exceptional, hell it's hard to get excited by 'good'.  It takes increasing creativity to continue to create concepts that can dance around code in hopes of an enjoyable experience.  (Some off-peak players I can only imagine at times, ONLY have code to play with some days).

Stats seem to me to be incredibly difficult to work with from a design perspective.  Trying to keep the world varied, interesting, and in some terms 'realistic' while still giving players agency to play and be the characters they want too.  With out creating an entirely new meta and cheesy stuff that comes along with meta-gaming.

The stat roll before creation has some interesting merit, if only to see how the experiment would turn out and to how players would craft their PC's around the knowledge that their next PC will be average or exceptional.

[Jave]

As I've said, I would just make the default lowest stat average. PCs are already exceptional. If your concept calls for you to have bad stats, people should spec-app in for that.

Well if you app a 14 year old expect strength to suck till you age up to 25-30. But with the obvious age modifier set aside ...

Making it so no one ever rolls a stat below average?  

I go back to my previous example: What can you say to a player at your D&D table when they tell you that their concept requires they not be able to have a single bad stat?

I'm sympathetic to, "Jeez, I rolled a 9 strength on my warrior dude ... that's like the primary stat of the class."
I'm less sympathetic to, "I rolled a 16 for strength, a 12 for dexterity, a 9 for wisdom, and a 13 for endurance but ... my concept calls for me not to have anything below average so I need my one weakness shored up."

[Jave]

Just to clarify, I totally get the emotional reaction.

I don't roll up a new PC, see two poor's a below average, and an average and get super excited at all the role play possibilities that's gonna generate either.

I wince and go: shit ... ok shit ... what can we do with this?

But after the initial sting wears off, I enjoy the character all the same. And those downs make the ups of rolling AI's all the more sweet.

[wizturbo]

I guess to be fair, I've never experienced a character where all of my rolls were average or below.  Maybe it's as bad as some people say...  But I've definitely dealt with characters who had low stats in pretty important areas.  They've always been more flavorful than the godly rolls I've had. 

Maybe just add a third re-roll for everyone, that isn't eligible for re-roll undo, as a last ditch, break the emergency glass solution for the improbable situation that both your roll and re-roll are awful.

[Jave]

I've only ever seen multiple poors on my characters when I play children and go in with the minimum age allowed for by chargen. In which case strength and endurance usually come out poor or below average and wisdom takes a hit as well (though agility usually rocks).

But I agree, after the initial sting wears off I've always enjoyed those desperate under dogs. Perhaps it's a perverse masochistic pleasure we share  

[BadSkeelz]

I'm sympathetic to, "Jeez, I rolled a 9 strength on my warrior dude ... that's like the primary stat of the class."
I'm less sympathetic to, "I rolled a 16 for strength, a 12 for dexterity, a 9 for wisdom, and a 13 for endurance but ... my concept calls for me not to have anything below average so I need my one weakness shored up."

Assuming that "9" is equivalent to poor and not average, yeah, that sucks. It's doable, I did it for years, but it's not something I'm really keen to play again.

But wisdom's a dump stat if you play enough.

If you get poor strength, endurance, or agility, it can be debilitating. Limited carrying (and armoring) capacity, hitting power, dodging ability, HP and stamina... Dealing with any one of those that's exceptionally low can be a chore.

If you get poor or below average rolls in two or more (entirely possible) then you may as well go >Kick the nearest templar PC.

Now, if the 9 in your example is equivalent to average, then there's no problem. Average stats in anything is workable.

[BadSkeelz]

Also, doesn't D&D work on a point buy system? Most other TT games I've played do. If you want an exceptional stat, you have to lower another one.

[Jave]

I was doing a D&D analogy so I was referencing D&D stat ranges actually. Where I think 12 is average? 9 is a little below? IIRC 9 is the number when you start getting penalties associated with rolls for that stat.

And again IIRC the point system is an alternate sort of house rule in D&D. It large still runs on rolling dice for stats as the norm.

[hopeandsorrow]

Just to clarify, I totally get the emotional reaction.

I don't roll up a new PC, see two poor's a below average, and an average and get super excited at all the role play possibilities that's gonna generate either.

I wince and go: shit ... ok shit ... what can we do with this?

But after the initial sting wears off, I enjoy the character all the same. And those downs make the ups of rolling AI's all the more sweet.

I can agree with this.

IF exceptional was normal, it cease being exceptional.

GREAT STATS(tm) are like a drug.  I had a roll on a character that literally made me high with his raw, out the door coded abilities.  Since then, every character stat roll I end up comparing to that.  It's perhaps unhealthy but it happens. 

I think (hope) that the discussion is trying to find the optimal solution (if possible) to remove the sting of bad stats, but maintain the high of great stats while trying to side set pure meta-gaming character building where it has no place.

Everyone remembers the two exceptional or time they got nothing below Good.  It's like having high quality meal one night, and every single night after that you're eating a frozen hungry man dangerously close to it sell by date.  You can't really complain, your eating... but you always compare it to the night you had Prime Rib.

[BadSkeelz]

Has anyone ever made a PC hoping they'll be exceptionally bad at anything physical? Has anyone ever desired a poor or below average stat?

[Marauder Moe]

My most disappointing stats:

Code Select Expand

Your strength is below average, your agility is below average,
  your wisdom is below average, and your endurance is exceptional.

This was on a mul that I spent a month of special application correspondence on.   

It really was pretty disappointing, but only for a little while.  Even though he was getting his butt kicked and failing to impress people with his supposed racial beastliness, playing him was pure awesome.  (Right up until an very untimely end by unfortunate sparring accident, but that's not relevant.)

[Jave]

Has anyone ever made a PC hoping they'll be exceptionally bad at anything physical? Has anyone ever desired a poor or below average stat?

I would imagine no.

But has anyone ever thought their stats were horrible and going to ruin their fun at the onset and then later looking back realized it wasn't so bad and actually, the poor stats drove some interesting RP that ended up being quite fun ... absolutely.

Does anyone then, after experiencing that ... hope their next PC has bad stats? Nooooope  

[Lizzie]

Another "what if we could actually make a change" possibility:

Based on a total point value of 100 per stat, preventing any possibility of all 4 stats being an AI (since I think 4 AIs is just as ridiculous as 4 Poors)

Your roll would equal only 300 points total, randomized with or without prioritization, as you chose it.

Then you can allocate another 25 points to any stat you want, in any combination assuming whole numbers, as long as that value doesn't exceed 100 (which would be the top of AI).

So if you had

str = 65 + agi = 80 + end = 70 + wis = 85 = 300

You can add 25 points to str, resulting in a str roll of 90 (that's still AI, but it's the beginning of it not the top) -<---edited cause maths
Or you could add just 10 to str to make 75, then add 5 to wis, then 20 to end resulting in str 75, agi 80, end 80, wis 90 (like if you were playing a mindbender/crafter, for example)

The initial 300 would be exclusive of racial bonuses, and the actual final roll would be whatever it is, after you leave the hall of kings.

No rerolls, if you choose to do it this way. If you choose the traditional random roll or random + prioritize without 25-point allocation, you could still reroll.

[BadSkeelz]

Has anyone ever made a PC hoping they'll be exceptionally bad at anything physical? Has anyone ever desired a poor or below average stat?

I would imagine no.

But has anyone ever thought their stats were horrible and going to ruin their fun at the onset and then later looking back realized it wasn't so bad and actually, the poor stats drove some interesting RP that ended up being quite fun ... absolutely.

Does anyone then, after experiencing that ... hope their next PC has bad stats? Nooooope  

Take the number of PCs that toughed it out, and compare them to the number of PCs that had very abrupt deaths out of character gen. If the former outweigh the latter, great. If the latter are more prevalent, well.....

[Jave]

Take the number of PCs that toughed it out, and compare them to the number of PCs that had very abrupt deaths out of character gen. If the former outweigh the latter, great. If the latter are more prevalent, well.....

Now we're into the territory of folks habitually suicide'ing for better stats. We typically note that on accounts if we see it, and it factors negatively into karma assessments in the sense that we're reluctant to give out roles with a lot of coded power to players who seem to care more about having said power than portraying a character realistically. Players who want the coded power that badly probably want it for a reason ... and unfortunately that reason is often: to grief other players with. -- It may be a one bad apple spoils the bunch situation but, it is what it is  

ETA: Sorry, my reasoning for mentioning that is just to explain that we do watch for it. And from what I've seen so far the number of people derping into the silt sea for a stat reroll isn't all that big of an issue. Our player base seems more inclined to tough it out and roll with the punches than rage quit.

[Riev]

I will say, even though its not the side I agree with, that the "random point generator" method of creating a PC is very ancient in today's gaming standards. Roll 5 toss lowest, roll dice for each stat, etc etc was great with DnD but I think it might be time to look at the 20year old system we have now.

Also I like rerolls.

[whitt]

Back when I played muds on an abacus, gemstone used to let you re-roll to your heart's content. 

I could see additional re-rolls being granted here as well if the maximum achievable stat was lowered each time after the first.  So, if you had some really bad stats and got hosed on the next re-roll?  It'd still be worth trying again, but you couldn't just spam re-rolls to all exceptional stats.