Why Choice Sucks: the Beauty of Random Generation

[Callan S.]

Everyone should immediately note and adjust their understanding of Gamism, for as noted prior, Gamist play is not necessarily impacted by a difference in power levels between characters. The only real impact such differences have is in the Step On Up for each individual player, whether they have a more difficult or easier time in relation to one another is not an issue of the Gamist mode, or even of "fairness" (necessarily -- the word is far too vague to use as a defense, or to object to).

As such, a D&D character with a 5 Strength is not an impediment to Gamist (or tactical) play. A 5 STR has far more to do with expectation and desire than fairness or tactics, for which it simply changes the tactics required in play of that player.

I think you might need to adjust your own idea of gamism. Lack of choice is not gamist...there is no game to be had there (sim can be had, though). As the strength score drops your options as a fighter dwindle. This isn't a case of 'here's what you've got to work with, now step on up'. It's a failure of the rules to provide something to work with to begin with(adequite choices).

If you go random, from the posts here you can see it just ends up being the same. For example, D&D's 4D6 and drop the lowest then assign is basically just gamist point allocation dressed up to look random.

[greyorm]

This is the second time this has happened in this thread, so I'm coming down on it in the hopes of making sure everyone realizes I don't take it lightly and it will henceforth scramble away never to be seen again: Dan, line-by-lines are NOT allowed here on the Forge.
Why is that?

Your segue about "what is the real problem is for my player" illustrates the problem of such responses perfectly: what the actual problem is for the player is utterly irrelevant to the point it was illustrating (the meaning of the term "expected effectiveness"). Did you understand what expected effectiveness was based on the example? I don't know, because you've taken the point, run with it, and spiked it somewhere else.

Another problem with line-by-lines occurs with your response to the bit about "starship captains" -- your refutation fails to take into account any of the prior context to which the text is bound: a game wherein the point was to be starship captains. OF COURSE if someone wanted to play a game where they weren't starship captains, there would be a problem with them playing that game if all it generated was starship captains. That's just bloody obvious, and completely irrelevant in context. Once again, grab, run, spike...to no use.

Folks, if you are going to line-by-line, you'll be pegged for it, and it will likely be ignored. Fair warning. Second, everybody go read Chris' On Charitable Reading. Now.

Regarding ideas about Gamist play: I'm as guilty in this case as anyone, but this is probably not the thread in which to discuss what is or is not  a factor of Gamist play. Let's start another thread about it and we can rip into it over there. I'll be more than happy!

Hmm, I assume your point here is that everyone loves point-based characterization?

Obviously not everyone loves point-based generation, it is, however, the only choice of many gamers, who will also detail the many horrors and valuelessness of randomized generation.

Once you get past my rhetoric about randomized generation, the point of the thread is really not that "it is better than" choice-based generation, but that "it isn't worse than" and even "it is equal to" and there are many good reasons why that is. After all, my own horror stories regarding choice-based generation must count for something if do others' horror-stories regarding randomized generation. To discount or minimalize the problems that can arise with choice-based generation is as great a mistake as to discount or minimalize the problems that can arise with randomized generation.

Hence my advocacy for the slaying of this particular sacred cow in gaming: that choice is somehow "superior" or "better for" gaming or gamers than random systems.

I worry that adding randomness inevitably means deleting options to make the randomness "come out right".

Could you expand upon this statement, as I am not certain what precisely you mean by it? (ie: Deleting what options? Make what particularly turn out correctly?)

[Callan S.]

I thought our central example, the gamist/nar TROS meant that discussion on what would suit it's gamist design is important. As I said, if you want randomisation, that may kill the amount of choices that the TROS design needs to give some gamism.

If were not talking about TROS, what are we talking about? A sim design or nar design? For either of those (in the case of nar, in terms of purely PC powers), is there any arguement to be had as to whether there would be probs with randomisation of stats there?

[inky]

I worry that adding randomness inevitably means deleting options to make the randomness "come out right".

Could you expand upon this statement, as I am not certain what precisely you mean by it? (ie: Deleting what options? Make what particularly turn out correctly?)

Hmm, I guess I didn't write this clearly enough; I was getting at something I'd mentioned earlier in the post. The original post about starship captains posited that if you randomly roll stuff up for (I presume) a star trek sort of scenario, you might end up with five doctors and no captains, which is suboptimal. My point here is that the usual way to fix this in a random-generation system is, like you suggsted, to just remove fringe possibilities like "doctor" from the chart, and everyone ends up as a different sort of starship captain. But while five captains and no doctor is better than five doctors and no captain, it's not as good as four captains and one doctor. It's hard, though, to design a random-generation system that will give this result without sometimes getting the five-doctors result.

So in this sense point-based systems have an advantage over random-generation ones, in that they can include more exotic options and there's no real worry that the group will end up unbalanced by pure chance. (The equivalent advantage for random over point-based is probably that you don't have to balance everything so carefully -- paladins were rarer in 1st edition AD&D due to high stat requirements, so it was ok that they were pretty powerful. But this is a false analysis: it doesn't matter that paladins in general are balanced with fighters, it matters how your particular group with a fighter and a paladin is balanced).

[Caldis]

I dont mind random generation in some games however it's not the panacea that the initial posting made it out to be.  It definitely does not solve the problem of matching player expectations to character performance.  Whether I choose a 14 strength or randomly roll it if I dont know the system well enough to understand what that means then my expectation of performance may not match up to reality.   All you are doing by making it random is changing when the expectations come into the game before or after generation.

[M. J. Young]

Of course, The Five Doctors was a pretty good--oh, no, that was something else.

This went past me the first time without my really considering it; but when Raven brought it back to focus, his response caught my attention.

You do make one good point I want to respond to, however. That in my example I could produce randomness by simply assigning the points I am given willy-nilly, without knowledge of what effect they will produce.

It strikes me that the proposed "fix" of randomly assigning the points does not work as suggested.

A random system presumably has had some thought given to what it should produce as means and extremes. It took a couple of iterations for D&D to produce the aforementioned Method V (I believe that by the time Arcana hit the shelves, OD&D, OAD&D, BD&D1, and BD&D2 had all been published), but once it was developed it provided a means of randomly creating properly weighted characters for the type desired.

If I gave you 63 points to "buy" D&D stats (which is the average roll of 18d6, the total dice that would be rolled for creating an average character), specifying that you must buy at least three in every attribute and cannot exceed 18 in any, most players could craft a reasonably survivable and even useful character. However, if you randomly assigned those points, the odds are against a good character arising from it. So why is that different from the randomized methods used in the game? These methods are geared to create random characters that are not all over the board.

With a more complex point-based system, such as GURPS, randomly assigning points is going to give you a rather disjointed knave-of-all-trades character whose abilities don't really permit him to be effective at anything. That's not a GURPS design flaw. It is there because the point-based system assumes as part of the design that character creation will be done intelligently. Where the random system must build into the randomizers controls to assure playable outcomes, for the points system those controls are the subjective judgments of the player creating the character.

Thus randomly distributing the points in a point-based system is not the equivalent of using a random system. Such systems are generally not designed to produce playable characters without the intelligent supervision of a person involved in the process.

--M. J. Young

[Adam Dray]

I'm not convinced that a random character generation system cannot produce equally-viable play options.

For example, looking just at ability score generation in D&D, I can invent a system in which a roll or set of rolls distributes an 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 among six abilities. Everyone ends up with the same numbers but they're distributed differently.

Taking it further, the system could have you roll to select a class, then have a specific distribution of scores across abilities based on that class. For example, the fighter class would randomize the 10, 16, and 18 across Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, then randomize the 8, 12, and 14 across Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

[Cup of Iron]

Related to this, Iron asks what I mean by "expected effectiveness"...well, just what it says! What I (the player) expect the character will be effective at in the game -- what I expect him to be like, be able to do, and behave as. To return to the TROS character example, if I create a character who I describe to be a fencing master then I expect that he will win fencing matches against the majority of his opponents, know the uses and care of his weapons and armor, be acquainted with various other fencers and organizations. Even if I can pick the (supposedly) "correct" skills to represent all this during generation, as I do not know what the scores will actually produce in play I cannot truly say any of the above is true, and the character may very well end up being only a moderately good fencer, rather than a master.

This also came up in our D&D game: the player expected his elven warrior to be good at melee combat and archery, as that is the way he built the character. This has not happened yet, and has become something of a running joke (if still frustrating for the player) that his expectations about the character are not being met, that the framework he built the character around is incongruent with his in-game experience of the same character. Simply, "He's been a warrior all his life, and suddenly he goes adventuring and can't hit the broad side of a barn from two paces!"

This is what is meant by "expected effectiveness": that the character will perform, in general, as the player expected them to prior to and during creation.

Ah, I see.  More or less what I figured. Whatever response I might have had is now old hat as this thread has gone.

[greyorm]

I thought our central example, the gamist/nar TROS meant that discussion on what would suit it's gamist design is important.

Despite its mention in my opening, this is not a discussion of TROS specifically. My experience with character creation in that game served as a useful lead-in for the subject, however, which is the only reason it was mentioned particularly. If it helps get you over this hurdle, substitute any other game you desire where choice-based generation is the norm.

that may kill the amount of choices that the TROS design needs to give some gamism.

Could you please explain this for me, as I do not see how Gamism apparently necessitates the use of choice-based generation, or how the inclusion of randomized generation would cause problems with providing satisfying play in a Gamist mode?

For either of those (in the case of nar, in terms of purely PC powers), is there any arguement to be had as to whether there would be probs with randomisation of stats there?

I believe that would depend on what sort of randomization occurs -- there might be problems, or there might not be. What arguments do you see regarding the problems that could arise in using randomization for Sim or Nar modes? What arguments can you see for their inclusion or the benefits thereof in those modes?

If were not talking about TROS, what are we talking about?

If you are this far along in the thread and unaware of what the subject of the thread is, there is a serious problem. Basically, the subject line is what we are talking about. Anything else can be considered incidental.

Also, I'm assume the problem is not with the set-up of the thread being misleading, given the number of other posters involved without incident, so what's up? Anyone else feel the purpose of the thread is unclear, or directionless?

PS -- MJ, spot-on, man. I obviously hadn't realized that, so here's me changing my mind: "What he said."

[Callan S.]

I believe that would depend on what sort of randomization occurs -- there might be problems, or there might not be. What arguments do you see regarding the problems that could arise in using randomization for Sim or Nar modes?

I don't see any clear and present probs there. That's why, specifically, I asked whether were talking about TROS or not. If were looking at the design goals of just any game that comes to mind then it becomes pretty directionless, since where judging the value of randomisation contrasted against...no particularly well defined design goals.

[clehrich]

As far as Gamist play, competition among players via characters, and whatnot:

Yes, I think it's usually true that players do compete in this way, so that my wimpy character sucks compared to your tough-guy.  I realize some folks found a way around this, but way back in the day I remember being told right up-front that Illusionists in OAD&D were inherently weak characters, not as good as other classes, and I recall thinking that on that basis I sure as hell wouldn't want an Illusionist character.

But I think Raven is pointing toward a different perspective on Gamism – one that in many ways was probably intended in D&D from the start.  The whole party has to win, you see, so it doesn't matter if one character is a wimp because the others have to make sure he survives.  Because the party is out to beat the dungeon, they can't waste their efforts on carping at each other.  Together we stand, divided we fall, and all that jazz.

Now by extension, suppose we all simply roll random characters and have to take our lumps.  As players now, not characters, we have a purpose: to make this set of characters achieve the mission, whatever that may be.  And if one guy rolled a wimpy character, that doesn't mean we leave him behind in the bar.

Now step it all on up one notch.  As a player, I've been handed a seriously crappy character.  He's weak, and crippled, and no rocket scientist, and he's allergic to dungeon moss.  But wait – is that really a crappy character?  This is the nub of the thing: if you see only "crappy character" then in this sort of Gamism, you're a crappy player, because you can't step up to the challenge.  Sure, he's not great at a lot of things, but nothing here says he can't be one of the most interesting and liked characters.  How is a guy like this along on a mission team anyway?  He must be good at something.  Hmm.  Well, let's suppose he's a natural leader of the subtle kind, i.e. not the one who says, "Once more into the breach, dear friends!" but the one who says, "Hey Bob?  You know, I think if you climb that wall there, and Jane holds the rope, then Fred here can swing across to that ledge.  What do you think?"  You know, quiet, easy-going, but keeping everyone working together as a team.  Now that's an interesting role, and it could be vital – in which case the constant nose-blowing and limping isn't going to be such a problem.

Now to my mind, this implies that Raven's proposed a false dichotomy – but a very useful one.  If you consider this hypothetical crippled sniffle-meister, in fact I had a great deal of choice in the character design.  I just was working within certain constraints about physical and so forth abilities.  But personality and style and such were up to me.  This is a classic division, right back to D&D, right?  But there's no intrinsic reason for the divide.

Suppose I have a huge list of characteristics in terms of personality, and I roll randomly: honest, easy-going, likeable, bad with women, etc.  And then I pick my stats as appropriate, just make them up.  Why is this any different?  It's the flip side of the same coin.  It's less common, of course, but that has a lot to do with the wargame origins and such, in which it's the stats that matter most rather than the personality because it matters how many orcs you can kill in an alley.

Now it seems to me that the move away from random generation has been because character design was already 50% non-random, so things moved toward complete non-randomness as a way of incorporating greater choice, freedom, and flexibility.  But as Raven says, one of the most common things to happen is that people start min-maxing or whatever to get powerful characters.  Which, of course, depends on the same old false assumption that the stuff that used to be random is all that's important, and continues to ignore the stuff that was always non-random.

What I think Raven is implying here, and I'd agree with him, is that random generation has a lot of value partly because it deflects choice into the stuff that really ought to be central to gaming as he sees it: personality, character, style, group dynamics, etc.  Since you can't choose about the other stuff, you put all your effort into these, and that's probably a good thing.

In order to make it work, let's say with OAD&D, I think you'd want to do three things.

1.  Impose a role-playing bonus, where the whole group decides who was the best player for the session, as in a tournament.  Importantly, this isn't the person who most helped toward the mission, necessarily, but the one who was most interesting as a character, someone to interact with, who made the session fun at that level.

2.  Have any character's death be paid for by 100% of the gold and x.p. gained in the dungeon.  So if somebody dies, nobody gains anything for all their trouble.

3.  As was always the case in some campaigns, make absolutely all the x.p. for monsters or treasure exactly divisible, where even if the Illusionist didn't do anything in the fight he gets x.p. just for being there.  If the party decides just to keep him out of the way all the time, though, have a nice spider or something attack from behind.

And, of course, more than anything else:

State at the outset that the random generation is intended to produce characters who have odd strengths and weaknesses, things that aren't completely consistent, and explain that the excitement of playing such a character will be in dealing with the flaws, not in simply highlighting the strengths.  Encourage people to vote, in terms of the roleplaying bonus, for the guy who made his flaws an interesting part of the game.  Be explicit about the false dichotomy of choice: you choose who you are, but you don't choose what you are.  Kind of like life, no?

To sum up:

I think that Gamist play is a matter of stepping up to whatever challenge presents itself.  It's traditional to think of that challenge as exterior to the character: monsters, traps, etc.  But they could be interior to the character and exterior to the player's choices, for example the weaknesses of a character as presented.  The challenge is to step up and make this character, no matter who or what he is, effective and interesting.  So long as the randomness doesn't go to such extremes that I can be handed a character who will die if he trips over his shoelaces, this seems to me a legitimate and important type of challenge.  Gamism isn't about winning some particular kind of challenge; Gamism is about meeting the challenge of the particular game.  And if that challenge is, "Make this character cool," saying, "Yeah, but he's wimpy" is another way of saying, "I can't do it, I lose."

[ffilz]

I think that Gamist play is a matter of stepping up to whatever challenge presents itself. It's traditional to think of that challenge as exterior to the character: monsters, traps, etc. But they could be interior to the character and exterior to the player's choices, for example the weaknesses of a character as presented. The challenge is to step up and make this character, no matter who or what he is, effective and interesting. So long as the randomness doesn't go to such extremes that I can be handed a character who will die if he trips over his shoelaces, this seems to me a legitimate and important type of challenge. Gamism isn't about winning some particular kind of challenge; Gamism is about meeting the challenge of the particular game. And if that challenge is, "Make this character cool," saying, "Yeah, but he's wimpy" is another way of saying, "I can't do it, I lose."

That would be great if that was the way campaigns were run. Unfortunately that hasn't been my experience. My experience with random generation and getting the wimpy character is that I spent a lot of time not contributing to the game. The suggestion that perhaps mister sniffles is the party leader only works if the player has leadership qualities.

I am interested in seeing how randomness could be used in character generation without it writing players out of the game, but all the players (including the GM if any) have to buy into the system.

Frank

[Callan S.]

But I think Raven is pointing toward a different perspective on Gamism – one that in many ways was probably intended in D&D from the start.  The whole party has to win, you see, so it doesn't matter if one character is a wimp because the others have to make sure he survives.  Because the party is out to beat the dungeon, they can't waste their efforts on carping at each other.  Together we stand, divided we fall, and all that jazz.

Frank basically said it already. If you have no choices or have significantly reduced choices compared to the other players, it doesn't matter if your working as a team. Your basically not doing anything...why invite someone to just observe rather than contribute their choices to the game session (perhaps participationism?)

Now step it all on up one notch.  As a player, I've been handed a seriously crappy character.  He's weak, and crippled, and no rocket scientist, and he's allergic to dungeon moss.  But wait – is that really a crappy character?  This is the nub of the thing: if you see only "crappy character" then in this sort of Gamism, you're a crappy player, because you can't step up to the challenge.  Sure, he's not great at a lot of things, but nothing here says he can't be one of the most interesting and liked characters.  How is a guy like this along on a mission team anyway?  He must be good at something.  Hmm.  Well, let's suppose he's a natural leader of the subtle kind, i.e. not the one who says, "Once more into the breach, dear friends!" but the one who says, "Hey Bob?  You know, I think if you climb that wall there, and Jane holds the rope, then Fred here can swing across to that ledge.  What do you think?"  You know, quiet, easy-going, but keeping everyone working together as a team.  Now that's an interesting role, and it could be vital – in which case the constant nose-blowing and limping isn't going to be such a problem.

Say I've designed a game that is primarily about combat and only has a tiny section on diplomacy. Then I design in randomness that will often leave some players pushing to use the diplomacy part...obviously not the strong part of my design. If play is going to end up about diplomacy because of my design, it should have a strong diplomacy design focus.

If a games focus is on X, then the design should not be rewarding players to pursue Y. Randomness without looking at the reward matrix it produces can cause this to happen.

Now to my mind, this implies that Raven's proposed a false dichotomy – but a very useful one.  If you consider this hypothetical crippled sniffle-meister, in fact I had a great deal of choice in the character design.  I just was working within certain constraints about physical and so forth abilities.  But personality and style and such were up to me.  This is a classic division, right back to D&D, right?  But there's no intrinsic reason for the divide.

Suppose I have a huge list of characteristics in terms of personality, and I roll randomly: honest, easy-going, likeable, bad with women, etc.  And then I pick my stats as appropriate, just make them up.  Why is this any different?  It's the flip side of the same coin.  It's less common, of course, but that has a lot to do with the wargame origins and such, in which it's the stats that matter most rather than the personality because it matters how many orcs you can kill in an alley.

Now it seems to me that the move away from random generation has been because character design was already 50% non-random, so things moved toward complete non-randomness as a way of incorporating greater choice, freedom, and flexibility.  But as Raven says, one of the most common things to happen is that people start min-maxing or whatever to get powerful characters.  Which, of course, depends on the same old false assumption that the stuff that used to be random is all that's important, and continues to ignore the stuff that was always non-random.

What I think Raven is implying here, and I'd agree with him, is that random generation has a lot of value partly because it deflects choice into the stuff that really ought to be central to gaming as he sees it: personality, character, style, group dynamics, etc.  Since you can't choose about the other stuff, you put all your effort into these, and that's probably a good thing.

Ie, a drift to sim. Personality and character and style don't help you nail a challenge (baring system or System support), they help you explore that game world situation from the perspective of a certain personality or whatever. I mean, I don't think your talking about someone having the 'snappy one liner' trait that he bought with X points and remembering to use it at just the right time. Your talking about stuff you made up and then present for everyone else to experience.

This isn't some needed central component. It's just a drift to sim. Which I think you can see Raven wanting from his first post. He wants a character that will behave in a certain way, but doesn't know how to get it. Basically he wants to explore a certain type of character (and wants to know how to get that character). But the choices aren't telling him, so he wants to give up choice in favour of a 'explore whatever the dice give' method.

It's a valid desire, but with the wrong game type. And the clash there doesn't really mean randomisation is great.

I think that Gamist play is a matter of stepping up to whatever challenge presents itself.  It's traditional to think of that challenge as exterior to the character: monsters, traps, etc.  But they could be interior to the character and exterior to the player's choices, for example the weaknesses of a character as presented.  The challenge is to step up and make this character, no matter who or what he is, effective and interesting.  So long as the randomness doesn't go to such extremes that I can be handed a character who will die if he trips over his shoelaces, this seems to me a legitimate and important type of challenge.  Gamism isn't about winning some particular kind of challenge; Gamism is about meeting the challenge of the particular game.  And if that challenge is, "Make this character cool," saying, "Yeah, but he's wimpy" is another way of saying, "I can't do it, I lose."

"I can't do it, Vs the primary challenges in the rule book". This is the same as tripping over your shoe laces and dying, because if you trip over and die at the first real challenge presented without the chance for you as a player to influence that with your choices, it's not gamist.

Reducing choices, reduces gamism. You might think that playing a STR 5 fighter would be exciting, but I think you've drifted over to a sim appreciation of the situation because really there's no other way to appreciate it (not gamist, not nar). It's accidental CA channeling by the designer, because if there's no other way to appreciate something in a game, you appreciate it that way or don't play (or break out house rules).

[Callan S.]

I am interested in seeing how randomness could be used in character generation without it writing players out of the game, but all the players (including the GM if any) have to buy into the system.
Frank

I'm interested in direction first. If were talking gamist, then you need to facilitate choice. If it's sim, you just need to facilitate exploration; ie you don't have to worry about five strength, since that's something to explore (in fact, you might worry about a more average strength score being generated...which is average and boring to explore). PC death is sort of a worry, since that can reduce the amount of exploration possible by a player (but doesn't actually remove all exploration, me thinks). Even a dead PC can be fun to explore (funerals or lack there of, what the other PC's think, etc).

[clehrich]

I think that Gamist play is a matter of stepping up to whatever challenge presents itself.  It's traditional to think of that challenge as exterior to the character: monsters, traps, etc.  But they could be interior to the character and exterior to the player's choices, for example the weaknesses of a character as presented.  The challenge is to step up and make this character, no matter who or what he is, effective and interesting.  So long as the randomness doesn't go to such extremes that I can be handed a character who will die if he trips over his shoelaces, this seems to me a legitimate and important type of challenge.  Gamism isn't about winning some particular kind of challenge; Gamism is about meeting the challenge of the particular game.  And if that challenge is, "Make this character cool," saying, "Yeah, but he's wimpy" is another way of saying, "I can't do it, I lose."

"I can't do it, Vs the primary challenges in the rule book". This is the same as tripping over your shoe laces and dying, because if you trip over and die at the first real challenge presented without the chance for you as a player to influence that with your choices, it's not gamist.

Nonsense.  What I'm saying is that imposing constraints and then asking the players to win in spite of them is completely normal.  You always impose constraints.  In chess, for example, pawns aren't queens.  Are you saying that because I have no choice about this, therefore winning at chess isn't stepping up to a challenge?

What seems to be happening here, if you ask me, is you're violently opposed to randomness as a constraint, but you're piling up illogical reasons to defend the position.  I wonder why, since it's used in many parts of lots of games, including gamist ones -- for example, in combat systems.  So what's the objection to putting a little at the start?  A sort of Fortune-in-the-Opening system, as it were?  Why does that somehow break everything, whereas constraint and randomness at any and every other point is perfectly okay?  This is cultural, not logical.

Frank basically said it already. If you have no choices or have significantly reduced choices compared to the other players, it doesn't matter if your working as a team. Your basically not doing anything...why invite someone to just observe rather than contribute their choices to the game session (perhaps participationism?)

But I said, and I stick to it, that you don't have reduced choices compared to other players.  You have different choices, and that is not the same thing.

Look, consider it this way.  I decide to play Champions, and the GM has a number of predesigned characters.  They get distributed randomly.  The guy next to me gets a super-strong brick.  The guy on the other side gets a speedster.  I get a gadgeteer.  All are carefully balanced and built on the same numerical scale.  Now if I whine, "But I can't go as fast as he can, and I'm not as defended as he is, no fair!" I'm a weenie.  Right?

Now imagine that we roll up AD&D characters and you get a fighter and Bob gets a magic-user and I get a cleric.  The cleric, at this level, has minimal combat skill and no combat spells.  So in combat, he's not very useful.  The MU stands well back and fires missiles.  The fighter wades into the fray.  So is this unfair?  Are my choices reduced?  No, I just have to find other ways to become powerful and important in the party.  And saying, "But healing people is different, it doesn't count as a choice, I want to be able to kick ass" is weenie-ism.

Gamism says step on up to the challenge.  If one of the challenges is a randomly-rolled character, then you have to step on up to it.  You can say that you don't want to play a game like that, but you cannot deny that it is a legitimate challenge.  Ever played a card game?  Guess what -- your hand is random.  Does that eliminate your choices?  If you draw a bad hand, is that unfair?  Think poker: if you have a so-so hand, do you just fold and walk away and say, "I don't want to play any more"?  Or do you use things like bluffing and whatnot to make the most of what you have?  That IS the challenge.

Raven, I initially wondered why you posed this problem, but now I think I see why.  I had no idea this would prompt such responses!  Very interesting.  Any suggestions why this happens?