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

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?

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

prophet118 wrote: 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 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

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.

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

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.

Irmo wrote:

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.
.

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

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

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.

Bob Richter wrote: 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 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...)

Bob Richter wrote:
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.