🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <17455@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>bell@pooh.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

>> Any idiot can generate a character randomly under a point allocation system
>> -- although the reverse is not true -- so why are they objecting to point
>> allocation systems on the grounds that they prefer randomness?

>If you impose random generation on a PA system, you have a random generation
>system.

Nick, please try to use the same definitions as everyone else in the entire
civilized world.. GURPS, for example, has a point allocation system, whether
or not you use dice to allocate your points.  What is being discussed is
whether the rules system should have point allocation or random generation.
Since you can use dice with *any* point generation system, why do you persist
in this meaningless noise.  You *can't* logically object to point allocation
systems because you would pick up dice anyway, so to your definitions every
point allocation system *is* a random system with the aid of a few dice.
 
If you (the player) use dice to determine your point allocation, you're still
using a point allocation system; you're simply allocating randomly.  Unless
the GM forces you to decide consciously, you can pick up the dice.

>> But to object to point allocation systems on the grounds that
>> one likes one's creative juices inspired by a little randomness seems
>> specious to me.

>The latter is not specious; it is a valid psychological preference.

So pick up the god-damned dice and roll for your allocation!  Sheesh, do
you have a mental block or something?  If I create a rules system with point
allocation and you pick up dice to determine the stats, what am I going
to do, shoot you?

>The present discussion--as far as I'm
>concerned--has been "start with character concept" vs "develop concept from
>random numbers".

But this is an irrelevant objection to PA systems -- you can always pick up
the dice.

>> The choice for the rules systems isn't selection versus randomness -- it's
>> point-balanced versus random variance.  The two are *not* the same.

>A PA
>system lacks the weighing for each possibility.  It also only works until the
>points run out (you can't "roll" a high last attribute if you've rolled high
>earlier).

Sure you can, you just have fewer points to put towards skills.  In other
words, your objection is to point-balanced versus random variance.  Why didn't
you say so 20 postings ago?  And why are you so gung-ho to have the possibility
of having a "gross" character (lots of high stats)?  That's the only thing
you're missing out on, and I've played in far too many games where there's been
munchkin who cheated on dice rolls or brow-beat the GM into letting him
play some new character class that "just happened" to be powerful enough
to dominate everything in the game.  I don't like it, and don't see character
imbalance as being something worth protecting. 

>Actually, it's probably easier to use PA with an existing random generation
>system, assuming that the players aren't min/maxers.  The players can simply
>choose values for die rolls, then present the character to the GM for
>judgement.  If a player was too greedy, the GM can reject the character.

Not all GMs are experts, or good judges of balance, and many are easily
brow-beaten/influenced/seduced.  They have point allocation systems simply
because such do the balancing job for them.  We're trying to design a rules
system that even inexperienced GMs can use and get reasonable results, yet
experienced players can enjoy.  I've been playing for 15 years now.  Random
generation systems make me angry, because they restrict my creativity.

  Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu