Rolling Vs Point-Buying

[DraQ]

But why bother designing your game based on system where the player could cheat at all?

As I said it would be trivial to remediate to the point of being no more abuseable than point buy.

Sure, you will have reroll and if you really want to you will be able to reroll repeatedly but all that it will give you will be an approximation of what you could get in point buy.

But why bother designing your game based on system where the player could cheat at all?

You're assuming that most people, simply because they can cheat, do...

The problem isn't people who cheat because they want to. In the end those will cheat anyway and in SP it isn't even an actual problem.
The problem is games with abuseable enough mechanics that even the players who don't want to cheat cannot be sure where the line is.

That's the issue with IWIN buttons deeply embedded into normal gameplay/metagame and it's the source of endless confusion because you can't be sure what level of optimal cheese the game was designed with in mind, and it's by no means limited to cRPGs:

• How many times can I reroll before it's cheating? What if I get fabulous stats on my first roll? Second roll? Why should I refuse fabulous stats if I got them legitimately?
  
• Should I rest after pretty much every encounter? Why not, what's the difference between legitimate and illegitimate resting?
• Should I jump on tables and spear hopeless AI combatants in the sack? What if I built an acrobatic character and this is how I would imagine they would fight with enemies who could snap him like a twig if he went toe-to-toe with them?
• Should I boost my stats exponentially with perfectly legitimate alchemy? How about just engaging in long training sessions boosting my level from <5 to >30 after I pawn off something very valuable I managed to steal?
  
• Should I use my legitimately obtained Energy Amplifier with my basic Dispersion Pistol on bosses even though it one-shots them and I'm pretty sure it's not exactly intended gameplay? If not bosses, what should I use it with and against?
• When should I reload my save and what exactly kind of behaviour can be considered cheesy given that I have a save to fall back to?
• etc.

Broken and abuseable mechanics remains broken and abuseable even if you LARP your way around it.

They usually have the advantage of actually working since they've been in use for years by thousands and thousands of players all over the world.

By the same logic you can make an effective space shuttle by simply copying chopper designs.

PnP RPG and cRPG are two completely different beasts.
PnP RPG meachanics is pile of loosely associated, always minimalistic and often ambiguous and open to interpretation conflict resolution mechanics layered on top of GM's fiat.
cRPG mechanics is a cohesive and 100% formal system that needs to work in a coherent manner with no outside supervision as it will always be obeyed to the letter.
In PnP RPG you can do pretty much any sort of stuff even if it's not specified in the rules at all, as long as it makes sense to the GM.
In cRPG anything that is not specified in the rules doesn't exist.

Making your own system is insanely hard, time consuming and usually end up in complete clusterfucks as soon as you try to make it past the very simple stuff (ie: PoE).

And here I thought that PoE's main problem was a gamist balancequeen at the helm.

 

[Average Manatee]

As I said it would be trivial to remediate to the point of being no more abuseable than point buy.

Sure, you will have reroll and if you really want to you will be able to reroll repeatedly but all that it will give you will be an approximation of what you could get in point buy.

At that point if you are going to control it so hard you might as well just make it point buy IMO.

The problem is games with abuseable enough mechanics that even the players who don't want to cheat cannot be sure where the line is.

That's the issue with IWIN buttons deeply embedded into normal gameplay/metagame and it's the source of endless confusion because you can't be sure what level of optimal cheese the game was designed with in mind, and it's by no means limited to cRPGs:

ToEE specifically somewhat avoids this, you can see that the game is "balanced" around point buying, since all of the pre-genned characters use it.

But I agree. It's really silly to see any game system where on one hand the player wants good stats, on the other hand the player doesn't want to feel like they cheated or were overpowered because of dumb luck/persistence/cheese rather than actual skill. Of course in many instances (like rest spam) there's often no good solution that doesn't feel like heavy-handed dickering by the designer.

 

[DraQ]

As I said it would be trivial to remediate to the point of being no more abuseable than point buy.

Sure, you will have reroll and if you really want to you will be able to reroll repeatedly but all that it will give you will be an approximation of what you could get in point buy.

At that point if you are going to control it so hard you might as well just make it point buy IMO.

There is a difference between "point buy" and "point buy if you reroll like stupid for an hour", you can also aim for intermediate point between strict point budget and unrestricted roll based system.
OTOH you can also aim for intermediate point between randomness and point buy, for example by rolling up part of the point pool and giving the remaining part to player to distribute freely.

It's not an either-or question and it involves two separate axes - random VS manually defined and fixed VS variable point budget.
BG sucked because it essentially opted for almost completely manually defined characters on one hand and randomized point budget on the other (which is inevitably sucky), while trying to pass it as genuine roll based system.

 

[mutonizer]

PnP RPG and cRPG are two completely different beasts.
PnP RPG meachanics is pile of loosely associated, always minimalistic and often ambiguous and open to interpretation conflict resolution mechanics layered on top of GM's fiat.
cRPG mechanics is a cohesive and 100% formal system that needs to work in a coherent manner with no outside supervision as it will always be obeyed to the letter.
In PnP RPG you can do pretty much any sort of stuff even if it's not specified in the rules at all, as long as it makes sense to the GM.
In cRPG anything that is not specified in the rules doesn't exist.

That's silly.
RPG mechanics are not always minimalist, ambiguous and open to interpretation. Sure if you play some kind of "theatre of the mind" RPG or something but otherwise, rules are pretty fucking clear usually and very, very easy to put into cRPGs.

What's very hard is the true "art" of GMing:
1) verbalizing the results.
2) integrating the results into the current narrative to make it evolve dynamically.

A good human GM can take any roll for any situation and just go with it while keeping not only a completely coherent world, but also evolve the context around the players to reflect the results.
This is impossible to do in cRPGs because every result must either be pre-scripted (in which case we have limited numbers of potential results but the art form persists, if writers are any good) or dynamically generated (in which case we have infinite results but usually very poorly verbalized, lacking context, etc).

Anyone can program RPG mechanics no problem. But the narrative...that's very, very hard to code. Hasn't been done yet to my knowledge. That's why it's people like the Zach Adams and their work on Dwarf Fortress is fascinating. Bugger been trying to code dynamic narrative for a fucking long time. If he solves that, somehow, cRPGs will know a revolution like something we've never seen before (not even close yet really).

 

[Average Manatee]

There is a difference between "point buy" and "point buy if you reroll like stupid for an hour", you can also aim for intermediate point between strict point budget and unrestricted roll based system.
OTOH you can also aim for intermediate point between randomness and point buy, for example by rolling up part of the point pool and giving the remaining part to player to distribute freely.

It's not an either-or question and it involves two separate axes - random VS manually defined and fixed VS variable point budget.
BG sucked because it essentially opted for almost completely manually defined characters on one hand and randomized point budget on the other (which is inevitably sucky), while trying to pass it as genuine roll based system.

If you allow swapping rolls to any attribute (and I doubt that any game in the future will disallow this) getting any desired stat distribution or +-1 on a few stats is going to be pretty quick.

 

[DraQ]

If you allow swapping rolls to any attribute (and I doubt that any game in the future will disallow this) getting any desired stat distribution or +-1 on a few stats is going to be pretty quick.

Well, I wouldn't allow swapping any two stats.
Single swap might be called for, maybe up to two swaps if there were other restrictions in place.

A good human GM can take any roll for any situation and just go with it while keeping not only a completely coherent world, but also evolve the context around the players to reflect the results.
This is impossible to do in cRPGs because every result must either be pre-scripted (in which case we have limited numbers of potential results but the art form persists, if writers are any good) or dynamically generated (in which case we have infinite results but usually very poorly verbalized, lacking context, etc).

A good human GM only needs to do so because the rules don't form a complete system.
GM's main job is dealing with stuff that isn't neatly formalized in the rules, whether it happens player side, world side or somewhere between systems. GM's other main job is dealing with needed content that hasn't been specified in advance.
GM's third main job is overriding the rules if they go stupid.

PnP RPGs rules are allowed to have incomplete coverage because in the end they are a crutch for GM, a tool allowing to resolve certain kinds of situations efficiently and to divorce the results from their own whims.
And because PnP RPGs are, well, PnP, the rules are also expected to be minimalistic in another way - they need to be simple enough to quickly produce easily interpretable result from input and some random variables via simple application of basic arithmetics.
Given the choice of simple mechanics that mostly produces approximately correct results but sometimes goes hilariously wrong, and very complex and slow mechanics that produces correct results, PnP system designer should invariably go with whatever is simpler with expectation that if shit goes particularly retarded (for example players will attempt to implement peasant railgun) the GM will patch it up on the fly.

OTOH in cRPG rules + content ARE the GM. They must offer complete coverage and they must be unambiguous. On the flip side there is no requirement for simplicity. If simpler system sometimes produces dumb results go with the complex one.

The requirements for good PnP ruleset and good cRPG ruleset are almost polar opposites so most of the time chances are that if something works well in one context it will fare badly in the other.

 

[mutonizer]

You and I have very, very different concept of "good PnP ruleset" and what a GM is so yea I understand how you see cRPG rulesets as polar opposite. Fair enough.

 

[laclongquan]

Why the fuck do we have to listen to tabletop-fags masturbate over how good tabletop is? It's not on a electronic platform so why the fuck do you presume we care?

 

[Zombra]

Rerolling is not "cheating". It's a button, right there in the game, you're supposed to press it. In fact the game rewards you for pressing it by giving you better stats if you press it enough times.

What rerolling is is "crap design". Look, I get why random characters are fun. But front-loading the randomness is a horrible way to implement that fun. You're telling the player to his face, "Keep restarting/rerolling until you get stats at the top of the curve." There are easy, easy ways to mitigate this and make your players not only not do that, but not want to do that. Saying, "Well players who reroll a lot maybe shouldn't be playing this in the first place" is completely backwards. If we agree that rerolling 1000 times is stupid behavior and no players should be doing it, then why build it into the game and encourage it when another design would be so easy?

 

[Lhynn]

What rerolling is is "crap design".

Says who?

Look, I get why random characters are fun.

cool

But front-loading the randomness is a horrible way to implement that fun.

Then dont, spread it all over. No one here is saying "dont make it random past character creation."

You're telling the player to his face, "Keep restarting/rerolling until you get stats at the top of the curve."

This comes down to execution

There are easy, easy ways to mitigate this and make your players not only not do that, but not want to do that.

Some, but ive found that systems that tend to force players to do something are always worse than systems that suggest it.

Saying, "Well players who reroll a lot maybe shouldn't be playing this in the first place" is completely backwards.

I agree, players who reroll a lot should reroll a lot, maybe they find some fun in that.

If we agree that rerolling 1000 times is stupid behavior and no players should be doing it

Players should be playing the game, whatever the fuck they do with it after im done making it is their fucking business. Why do you feel the need to tell people how to play and how not to play?

then why build it into the game and encourage it when another design would be so easy?

Because im tired of 18 STR warriors and 18 INT wizards, 18 DEX rogues and 18 WIS clerics. If they get a decent array maybe theyll settle for less, and you have an excuse to actually have NPCs without optimized point distribution.

 

[oldmanpaco]

I like how this thread got 5 posts in 2003 and 130 (so far) in 2016.

Not sure what that says about us.

 

[Zombra]

Players should be playing the game, whatever the fuck they do with it after im done making it is their fucking business. Why do you feel the need to tell people how to play and how not to play?

I don't give a fuck how other people play. I give a fuck about designing games in ways that don't reward boring, bullshit behavior that no one finds fun. I especially don't like games that tell me I'll be more successful at a game if I stare at a fucking slot machine for weeks on end before I actually try to play it - and that's exactly what these games do.

Look at yourself, man - you're one of the most hard core dumb fuck old-school-for-its-own-sake people here, and even you don't claim to like rerolling; "maybe some people do" is your strongest defense of it.

Give me one example of a real person who says, "Yes, I like pushing that little button for an hour and a half instead of just having good stats!", and then we can talk about whether it's acceptable design. I say no such person exists ... and we can do better than making games for people who don't exist.

 

[Lhynn]

I don't give a fuck how other people play. I give a fuck about designing games in ways that don't reward boring, bullshit behavior that no one finds fun. I especially don't like games that tell me I'll be more successful at a game if I stare at a fucking slot machine for weeks on end before I actually try to play it - and that's exactly what these games do.

You should be worrying about making the game part of the game actually interesting, playing a clone that will work because its been tested by someone else, isnt all that interesting.

Look at yourself, man - you're one of the most hard core dumb fuck old-school-for-its-own-sake people here, and even you don't claim to like rerolling; "maybe some people do" is your strongest defense of it.

But im not old school, i just like what works. It seems back then most of what they did worked, todays ideas of games and gaming for the most part dont.

Give me one example of a real person who says, "Yes, I like pushing that little button for an hour and a half instead of just having good stats!", and then we can talk about whether it's acceptable design. I say no such person exists ... and we can do better than making games for people who don't exist.

Better than everyone minmaxing and people asking for respecs.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I give a fuck about how people play the game because it fucking matter to how the game is designed in the first place.
If a game is designed around re-rolling it will be either too hard to people that don't abuse it or too easy for people who do.

And if you are bloody tired with 18 STR warrior etc, the same argument of restraint (don't re-roll 1000 times) could also apply to point buying, that is don't deliberately min-max your build.

EDIT: better grammar

 

[Zombra]

You should be worrying about making the game part of the game actually interesting, playing a clone that will work because its been tested by someone else, isnt all that interesting.

In effect, you're saying that pressing a button for 90 minutes over and over is interesting.

But im not old school, i just like what works. It seems back then most of what they did worked, todays ideas of games and gaming for the most part dont.

Rerolling doesn't work.

Better than everyone minmaxing and people asking for respecs.

Ohhhh I see. So rerolling is good and needs defending because "maybe someone, somewhere, still likes it that way", but minmaxing and respecs are bad because lots of people you know actually do like it that way.

I'm not taking your arguments and reducing them to ridiculous extremes here - your basic, foundational position is blatantly contradictory. Do a little soul-searching and maybe you'll find the real reason you're arguing this, because it can't be out of a sense of logic or passion for good design.