Char Gen, Priorities, Randomness

[toli]

The discussion RE insight got me thinking about this subject.  

I was curious why you (Jake) decided to for a deterministic as opposed to random form of character generation.  I've played many games where the character generation was random (D&D, Pendragon, RuneQuest etc).  One of the best bits was the anticipation of creating a really great (strong) character--rolling an 18  (on 3d6) or being the 1st son of a lord and having castles and land  etc.  

I'm not deriding the deterministic form of char gen in games like TROS or GUPRS or Talislanta (one of my favorites).  The obvious advantage is that you can create the type of character that you want (within limits of course).  I go back an forth between both methods depending on how my day went.....

I've been toying with the idea of a table for random priorities for character generation.  A player could choose to roll on the table or take the standard ABCDEF priorities.  Average rolls on the table would give the standard Priority list (say 9-12 on 3d6).   Obviously better rolls would give additional good priorities...low rolls would cause the loss of good priorities...something like that.  

Just Curious...NT

[prophet118]

randomness is not really a good way to go... why play a character who is random... when you can play the character that you wanted to make?...

why make do with something, when you can make it what you want?

[Mike Holmes]

This is really mostly an opinion thing.

I prefer games to have a deterministic method available for when I want to go that way. Because random methods are easy, and can be made up on the spot if need be. Whereas deterministic systems need much more thought.

So, has it occured to anyone to just roll a d6 for the A allocation, a d5 (d10/2 round up) for the B, d4 (percentile/25, round up) for the C, d3 (d6/2 round up) for the D, d2 (any die divided by half, round up) for E, and the remaining is the F. The only problem is that you may get an E race, which doesn't really make sense. Basically, if I didn't get race in the first three rolls, then race would be automatically assigned to F, and the die type would drop one further.

Simple. Any player who wants the random character can go this way. Traits can then be assigned randomly as well (use the Donjon 3d6 median method, with dynamic adjustment for the max points). You could even use such a system to roll random packages, and proficiencies if you wanted.

Mike

[toli]

randomness is not really a good way to go... why play a character who is random... when you can play the character that you wanted to make?...

why make do with something, when you can make it what you want?

I understand this point of view.  My point, I guess, is that it takes away some of the anticipation of character generation.  To me it also makes a character less unique (technically, of course, one should not use modifiers with unique) because I know that I can alway make exactly the same starting character again (in terms of stats ect) if I die.  

Overall I go back and forth between the two methods and probably prefer something in between.  Instead of 47 points for characteristics for an A priority, one might get 44+d6 or whatever.

[Bankuei]

I think its definitely a player's style thing.  In one point, there's a certain level of strategic glee about taking a so-so character you've rolled and still succeeding with them.  There's also the joy of gambling, in that you might get a perfect character by rolling.  

Another one of those unstated premises of TROS is that the players are taking a big part in making the characters.  The idea isn't "How do I take this and do the best with it?", but, "I know what I want, and this is it!".  

If you really understand the point of TROS, the stats are secondary to your SAs.  You could say your attributes and skills are just how your character fufills their SAs, not that their SAs are the way they boost their stats.

So you could pick the same priorities, same stats, same skill packages over and over, and use different SA's each time and get drastically different characters.  In fact, many stories feature a hero and a villian who are identical except in goals, and the focus is usually about "We're really the same, you and I..."

Chris

[Irmo]

I'd like to introduce another factor in the discussion if no one minds. Beyond deterministic vs. random, there's also different ways to handle each.

Though as for the established point, I think it is a matter of personal style. As was pointed out, some take pride in making a mediocre character succeed. Others on the other hand have a specific concept in mind they want to play. For the latter, deterministic is more useful.

However, there's also mixed forms (assign a random pool, for example) and different forms for each. Priorities is one way to introduce tradeoffs for strengths, but simply assigning a total number of points is also one, or assigning a total number of points to specific subsets of characteristics and competences with the chance to buy certain abilities. I must admit I am not a particular fan of the priorities style. Theoretically, it could be seen as leading to a lower average level of competence among nobility compared to the common man due to nobility using up one priority for social status and the fact that TROS handles skill at combat different than other skills gives it an even stranger feeling for me.

But as always, that's personal style.

[Jake Norwood]

I actually really like random characters, but more when details are random and stats less so. I've often thought of an optional random chargen for TROS, but never have the time to make it.

Jake

[toli]

We all agree that the choice is a matter of style.  I suppose for me 'random' generation is not about succeeding with a mediocre character but the chance of a very powerful one.  There is something in the anticipation of creating the character.  Of course, its a pisser when you can't create the character you'd like.  Since gaming is really about having fun and taking on a persona that you would like to be, overall I probably prefer deterministic methods.  I suppose ideally, I would like a combination where there were choices to make but also some range of outcome.

I was just curious about the rationale for picking a deterministic style.  

Theoretically, it could be seen as leading to a lower average level of competence among nobility compared to the common man due to nobility using up one priority for social status and the fact that TROS handles skill at combat different than other skills gives it an even stranger feeling for me.
.

I agree that it seems a bit strange logically.  In general Nobility were better fed and professional warriors.  Having lower proficiencies seems a bit strange.

However, you can always work around it. For example, if you want to run a knight-based campaign, one could give all characters and extra B priority or declare that all characters have an extra priority A for social status.  

That said, the people I have played with never want to be nobility. They always spend A on stats and B on proficiencies and C on gifts/defaults (unless they are spell casters).  The desire seems to be to create the best 'person'  possible and then acquire wealth and power within the game.

A related thought.  What would the average (non-heroic) NPC get for priorities?  That is the average farmer that isn't really an integral part of the story (not an antagonist etc).   For example if you wanted to draw up a towns militia (just average guys) with what do they start?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I don't think this issue is a matter of "style" at all. I think that random character generation works very well for certain goals of play, and that allocated-generation works very well for others. Both of them, also, must be considered in relation with other functional aspects of the game (character improvment, resolution, etc).

In TROS, and to some extent I'm cribbing from private discussion with Jake, every moment of play is about hard choices. In a fight, you have hard choices, because offense must be traded off with defense; in a scenario, you have hard choices, because your SA's are probably going to be knocking up against one another. Hence, during character creation, you have been handed hard choices as well. It's not random, because that would not involve choices.

Maybe Jake doesn't see it as clear-cut as I do, but I think that random PC generation in TROS would - bluntly - let people off the hook.

Best,
Ron

[Jake Norwood]

Actually, Ron's right. Go figure...

The priority system was very intentionally placed in the game to start TROS right off as a game about choices. It so happens that I do really like random chargen, but then again Ron's point is really valid--it does make the path easier.

Jake

[Bob Richter]

In any RPG that has random elements in character creation, that is inevitably the worst thing about the game. Randomness is for lazy people. Lazy players. Lazy designers. Bah.

I want to play the character I CHOOSE to play. I don't want to be an "Elven Rogue" with no control of my own stats.

[toli]

Lazy players. Lazy designers. Bah.

I want to play the character I CHOOSE to play. I don't want to be an "Elven Rogue" with no control of my own stats.

I don't think it makes one lazy.  And it is a matter of style and opinion as to what you like.  Since gaming is about fun...what is correct is what each group sees as fun.

The generation process really runs a continuum of possibilities not just totally random vs. totally fixed.  I wouldn't want to have randomly rolled and randomly assigned characteristics for example (totally random).  I don't mind rolling them randomly and then assigning them by my choice, but this still isn't totally satifying either.  In the same way having a set number leaves out the thrill of a unique character.

I agree that random end generation systems are frustrating.  When I want to play a particular type of character I want to be able to generate that type of character.  I find it a bit boring, however, to always be ABLE to create exactly the same  character...(I want a ST of 6 so I'll have an ST of 6), that is to have complete control over the creation process.  I find it more interesting to have some possibility of range.  I like the idea of being able to decide to have a strong character, but maybe there is some range in that strength such that I might get lucky and be really really strong (7) or unlucky and just be strong (5) than most people but on average be really strong...(6).(wow that was a long 'sentence')  

In a like TROS system one might generate the character normally and then have the choice to roll (or not) a d6 to potentially increase or decrease a stat.  A (1) might lower the stat and a (6) might increase the stat other rolls would leave it unchanged.  


That said, I still think TROS is the best game out there for many reasons.  Don't get me wrong, I love the game...it makes me afraid to fight....NT

NT

[Bob Richter]

>>>I find it a bit boring, however, to always be ABLE to create exactly the same  character...(I want a ST of 6 so I'll have an ST of 6), that is to have complete control over the creation process.  <<<

It's only boring to CREATE exactly the same character each time, which is a matter of personal choice. TROS has enough different stats (especially SAs) that each character can be unique, thanks to creativity rather than dubious randomness.

What happens in random systems is that there's inevitably one guy who rolls nothing below a 12 and another guy who rolls nothing ABOVE a 12. No matter what guy #2 decides to be good at, Guy #1 is probably better (unless he just can't do it at all...)

[toli]

It's only boring to CREATE exactly the same character each time, which is a matter of personal choice. TROS has enough different stats (especially SAs) that each character can be unique, thanks to creativity rather than dubious randomness.

My initial question was realted to the reasoning behind random vs. deterministic.  That has been pretty much answered (choices etc).  I'd have to agree with it overall (remember I'm playing TROS not D&D or whatever).

A completely determininistic method IS better than a completely or moderately random one.  I agree.  No arguement there.  When I want a strong fighter or rugged ranger or sneaky thief or whatever, that's what I want.  Nothing sucks more that being completely average.  I have no interest in trying to make a weak character survive.  I am in no way argueing for a completely or largely random generation system.  I would go for a highly deterministic one with some randomness around the edges.

I guess my point is really related to the ANTICIPATION of character creation.  There is something I enjoy about the posibility of getting something extra (eg, high stats, more starting $$, more land, higher rank, what ever) vs. the risk of losing out a bit.  A completely deterministic method takes some of the anticipation of character creation away precicely because I CAN create exactly the same character (obviously I don't have to).  If I make a character, go out and die, I can crate exactly the same (starting) character.

With some level of randomness, there might something about that character that I can't replace.  I might have an 18/00 strength (to use a D&D stat from my youth, a game I gave up long ago) something like that--something that is not easily replaced if I die.

In a TROS context, one could still assign priorities, but there could be a range in the output of those priorities.  Instead of 47 stats points for an A priority one might get have the choice of 47 or rolling to get 46-48..(vs 43-45 for a B priority).   That is you can take the average (47) or risk it to try for an extra point.  A landed noble might have more or less land.  BUT overall the system would still be deterministic and allow one to create the character on wants....

Anyway, once the creation is over...the game goes on....to bigger and better things...NT