Greetings All,

I am in the process of revising sections of my Pixies rules find original thread here and was wondering whether character generation should be point allocation or random die generation?

If the latter what sort of die would you prefer to see used?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

I'm not a really big fan of either of those options. Why not go with freeform char-gen?

Alternatively, You might consider first determining the trait limits for characters (highest and lowest possible trait level, and how many total points, etc.) Once you know how you want a character to look numbers-wise, you can tailor two char-gen systems - one which uses random roll, and the other which uses point allocation. Then let the individual group decide which to use.

If you want a straight answer (what a novel concept...) then I would say go with point-allocation. Given the choice between random and non-random char-gen, I'll take non-random every time. But with a game about Pixies, a random char-gen potentially has stylistic benefits.

Would you like some syrup with your waffles? :)
-e.

Greetings silkworm,

Thanks for the input.

silkworm wrote: I'm not a really big fan of either of those options. Why not go with freeform char-gen?

...

If you want a straight answer (what a novel concept...) then I would say go with point-allocation. Given the choice between random and non-random char-gen, I'll take non-random every time. But with a game about Pixies, a random char-gen potentially has stylistic benefits.

Would you like some syrup with your waffles? :)

Well, my current favorite set of char-gen rules is here (towards the middle of the page) as part of Pollies. It's what I had in mind when I mentioned freeform char-gen above. I don't know how well it would work with a set skill list, but it works fairly well as written.
-e.

Hi Kester,

I suggest looking at the other elements of the game in order to answer this question.

Random-feature character creation has a spotty history in role-playing and I don't think we've seen many games in which it's played a constructive role (but I do think that's possible). If you use it, you should consider what specific elements of play are enhanced by its presence. Look at the resolution system, the reward system, and other things - for instance, if Doing X relies on a particular feature, and Getting Better relies greatly of Doing X, then I as a player will be mighty pissed if the particular feature might start very poor due to a random roll.

On the other hand, if Doing X has lots of viable ways to be accomplished, and a random roll gives me a "starting profile" for how I Do X, then I as a player am intrigued and interested in how I might start, secure in my knowledge that whatever comes up (possibly with disadvantages as well as advantages), I will still be able to Do X.

The best example of such a system that I know of is the magic system in Forge: Out of Chaos, in which one's spell features (range, etc) are determined randomly, and the entire reward system for magic-guys is based on increasing one's number of rolls and re-rolls regarding one's spells. I have always wanted to play this game long-term to see how this plays out.

Best,
Ron

Greetings silkworm,

Nice page you have there with Pollies.

silkworm wrote: Well, my current favorite set of char-gen rules is here (towards the middle of the page) as part of Pollies. It's what I had in mind when I mentioned freeform char-gen above.

silkworm wrote: I don't know how well it would work with a set skill list, but it works fairly well as written.

Greetings Mr. Edwards,

I appreciate your feednack but, at the moment, I am really just exploring possibilites. Doing a bit of "brainstorming" if you will.

However I am a bit confused by the following:

Random-feature character creation has a spotty history in role-playing and I don't think we've seen many games in which it's played a constructive role (but I do think that's possible). If you use it, you should consider what specific elements of play are enhanced by its presence. Look at the resolution system, the reward system, and other things - for instance, if Doing X relies on a particular feature, and Getting Better relies greatly of Doing X, then I as a player will be mighty pissed if the particular feature might start very poor due to a random roll.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Random-feature character creation has a spotty history in role-playing and I don't think we've seen many games in which it's played a constructive role (but I do think that's possible). If you use it, you should consider what specific elements of play are enhanced by its presence. Look at the resolution system, the reward system, and other things - for instance, if Doing X relies on a particular feature, and Getting Better relies greatly of Doing X, then I as a player will be mighty pissed if the particular feature might start very poor due to a random roll.

It sounds as if I might have given the impression that I don't have a system in place and am wanting to generating statistics on the fly. That is far from the case. I do have a number of statistics in place, but I want to explore what sort of methods for generating the statistics (meaning the range of numreical values) are currently prefered by active gamers.

Hello,

I just remembered, delayed I'm sure by advancing senility, the perfect modern example for functional randomized character generation mechanics: The Dying Earth. One of the distinctive features of this system is that the random-method is (a) optional and (b) slightly quantitatively superior to the choice-method. Another distinctive feature is that effectiveness is not randomized, but descriptors and modes of the player's effectiveness are.

Kester, in general, "poll" posting doesn't tend to work well at the Forge. That's not a matter of policy, just an observation of what's happened in the past. I think most people here, myself among them, are not very interested in a slew of single-posts of "what I think," or "Yea-Nay" kinds of responses. I also think that such a thread's utility to a designer is dubious at best.

Best,
Ron

Point based--all the way (of the two). Mixed templates ... various "point pools" (something we do in JAGS to a degree), or other limiting factors can go a long way towards mitigating some of the precieved problems with "Here's a buncha points--go at it--" that GURPS and Hero can get accused of.

Something that I have enjoyed is dice for "back-story" (Mekton). When done right, rolling for your arch-nemesis, your relationship with your ex-lover ... I mean, in Mekton it was funny and outrageous--in the right place I could see that being a cool, random char-gen feature.

-Marco

Multiverser's design is freeform; that is, character creation is about defining the character in game terms, not about creating the character through game mechanics. As it's usually played as an I-game, it comes down to trying to represent yourself as accurately as possible in the game; but in those cases where you are playing someone else (or the referee is creating non-player characters) it is the same process: understand who the character is, then put him on paper as you've imagined him.

But against the overwhelming hue and cry, let me make the defense for randomized systems.

There is inherent in the point-based approach this unstated assumption: all characters are created equal, not in law but in fact. It suggests that the star football player and the valedictorian and the president of the student government association are all equally endowed but have strengths in different areas. I'm reminded of a joke made by a balding professor at the beginning of a speech, just after being introduced by the amply bearded long-haired host: "I figure we all get the same measure of hormones, and if he wants to use his to grow hair, that's his choice." The fact is that we are not all created equal, even when you account for differences. And when you look at the heroes of our stories, you realize that they are not equal, either. No one can argue that the nine companions of the Fellowship of the Ring are equally gifted. Clearly Gandalf and Aragorn are superior to the others. Take into account the enemies, and it is obvious that the gifts are not equally distributed. Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, 3PO, R2, Ben, Lando, are not equals, nor are they equals with Vader, the Emperor, Darth Maul, the federation representatives. If these characters were equally gifted from the beginning, the story would be much less interesting.

Point based systems tend to create characters who are equally gifted at the start, except in those cases in which players either don't know how to use the system or intentionally create characters weaker than they might. Randomized systems capture at least some of this aspect of different strengths and different levels of overall strength, making some characters inherently better than others. That's more realistic; it also makes for better stories.

Obviously if the randomized system is geared such that it can create completely worthless characters, it's flawed. This is the real problem with most randomized systems: they create some characters of no value. They also tend to create mostly average characters. Fixes to this run the gamut from preventing any below-average characters at anything (a weakness itself, because sometimes the most interesting characters are the incredibly strong brute idiot and the brilliant weakling) to throwing out characters who don't meet certain minimums (which doesn't prevent a proliferation of average characters) to creating mostly superheroes in every area (again, eliminating the interesting balances between strengths and weaknesses). But there could be fixes that work.

One is a combined randomized/point based system, in which the range of points to be made available is established but each player must roll to determine where in that range his character falls. This gives the variation in total ability while giving the players control of where the weaknesses lie.

One which I think has been suggested worth pursuit is a sort of template and points system. If I understand aright, this would be a matter of selecting a basic character type for its specific strengths, and then spending a much smaller pool of points tweaking it--such as getting a stupid brute, and then deciding whether to make him a bit less stupid or a bit more brutish.

One is to provide for different die roll choices for different aspects of the character. For example, you might say that there are six scores which can be any number from one to twenty; the player is allowed to roll, once each:

• d20
• 3d6
• 3d4
• 4d4
• 2d10
• 2d4+12


and arrange them in any order desired. This gives a lot of different curves, assuring that at least one score will be at least 14, at least one will be not greater than 12, and so forth. It is still very random, but it has a bit more stability in the differences between characters. Clearly you will not get one character with all twenties and one with all twos.

Now, there are probably ways to design point-based systems that overcome this concept of equality; and there is probably a contingent of gamers who like the idea of starting on an equal footing (a very gamist idea, although not all gamists value it). Personally, I think that if you could find a way to get characters to define a character concept and identity and then translate that into game mechanics, that's the best way to get what you want--but it's a lot harder to do in a fantasy setting, because it's tougher to get the benchmarks for what's appropriate.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: But against the overwhelming hue and cry, let me make the defense for randomized systems.

There is inherent in the point-based approach this unstated assumption: all characters are created equal, not in law but in fact.

M. J. Young wrote: Point based systems tend to create characters who are equally gifted at the start, except in those cases in which players either don't know how to use the system or intentionally create characters weaker than they might.

M. J. Young wrote: Randomized systems capture at least some of this aspect of different strengths and different levels of overall strength, making some characters inherently better than others. That's more realistic; it also makes for better stories.

M. J. Young wrote: But there could be fixes that work.

One is a combined randomized/point based system, in which the range of points to be made available is established but each player must roll to determine where in that range his character falls. This gives the variation in total ability while giving the players control of where the weaknesses lie.

M. J. Young wrote: One which I think has been suggested worth pursuit is a sort of template and points system. If I understand aright, this would be a matter of selecting a basic character type for its specific strengths, and then spending a much smaller pool of points tweaking it--such as getting a stupid brute, and then deciding whether to make him a bit less stupid or a bit more brutish.

M. J. Young wrote: Now, there are probably ways to design point-based systems that overcome this concept of equality; and there is probably a contingent of gamers who like the idea of starting on an equal footing (a very Gamist idea, although not all Gamists value it). Personally, I think that if you could find a way to get characters to define a character concept and identity and then translate that into game mechanics, that's the best way to get what you want--but it's a lot harder to do in a fantasy setting, because it's tougher to get the benchmarks for what's appropriate.

Greetings Mike,

Thanks for the input. So “totally random” character generation is out then? ;)

Mike Holmes wrote: The big downside to random generation is that players won't get to play the character they want to play, often. They will instead end up playing, "What they got." This is really offputting to many players.

In general, random generation as it's been done in the past is pretty passe. The other thing Ron is saying is that it doesn't have to be. There are likely ways to make it work for you. But not going with the old style version. You have to ensure that randomized abilities are all as interesting as each other. The randomization only makes them different.

IOW, if by random generation you mean roll up stats, then I think that most around here are going to come out against it. I strongly do.

Ron Edwards wrote: Kester, in general, "poll" posting doesn't tend to work well at the Forge. That's not a matter of policy, just an observation of what's happened in the past. I think most people here, myself among them, are not very interested in a slew of single-posts of "what I think," or "Yea-Nay" kinds of responses. I also think that such a thread's utility to a designer is dubious at best.

Greetings Marco,

I believe this is my first post to you, nice to meet you. Hope all is well in your part of world this fine day.

Marco wrote: Point based--all the way (of the two). Mixed templates ... various "point pools" (something we do in JAGS to a degree), or other limiting factors can go a long way towards mitigating some of the precieved problems ... Something that I have enjoyed is dice for "back-story" (Mekton). ... in the right place I could see that being a cool, random char-gen feature.

Greetings M. J. Young,

That was a very eloquent and informative introductory post. So fine a post was it that, in my humble opinion, I think it could be excised from this thread and expanded upon to form an article cum guide to the basic principles of character generation.

A grade-A excellent effort!

Apologies for truncating it so badly.

M. J. Young wrote: I think that if you could find a way to get characters to define a character concept and identity and then translate that into game mechanics, that's the best way to get what you want--but it's a lot harder to do in a fantasy setting, because it's tougher to get the benchmarks for what's appropriate.

I'm pleased that my post was of some help. I can respond to most of your comments by saying that at no point was I intending for anything said to apply specifically to Pixies, but rather to be a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of point-based versus random character generation in the abstract. I perceive that you did ask for opinions related to the game, but save Ron's none seemed to consider that (and Ron's was that other elements of the game should be considered in that connection).

You wrote: there currently is only the one character type extent; the Pixie. For instance your remark, ?There is inherent in the point-based approach this unstated assumption: all characters are created equal, not in law but in fact.? seems a bit extreme.