From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Random vs. Point Alloc CharGen
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:09:27 GMT

bell@pooh.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:

> Nick, please try to use the same definitions as everyone else in the entire
> civilized world.. GURPS, for example, has a point allocation system,
> whether or not you use dice to allocate your points.

If you use random numbers to allocate points, it is a random generation
system. It doesn't matter if the dice allocate points or select a combination
of attribute numbers, or whatever; the numbers are selected randomly, and
therefore the system is generating a character randomly.  That definition
applies to the context of the subject of this thread.  It does not apply to
the subject _you_ are trying to debate.

> What is being discussed is whether the rules system should have point
> allocation or random generation.

No, what is being discussed is whether or not random generation is a valid
creative method of generating characters.  Since Dave's apparently gone into
hiding again (to avoid admitting defeat), and no one seems to be arguing his
contention (that random generation is not creative), the issue seems to be
settled.  :)

>+ The present discussion--as far as I'm concerned--has been "start with
>+ character concept" vs "develop concept from random numbers".
>
> But this is an irrelevant objection to PA systems -- you can always pick up
> the dice.

You mean that you can always convert the PA system to random generation.
That also changes the system from "start with concept" to "develop concept
from random numbers".

> In other words, your objection is to point-balanced versus random variance.
> Why didn't you say so 20 postings ago?

I didn't say so because it's not true.  I have not been arguing against PA.
I've been arguing that starting with a character concept is neither superior
nor inferior to developing a character concept from random numbers; it simply
meets the preference of one group.  Whether all characters end up equal or
whether some end up with overall higher or lower attributes than other
characters hasn't even entered my thoughts.

> And why are you so gung-ho to have the possibility of having a "gross"
> character (lots of high stats)?  That's the only thing you're missing out
> on,...

I haven't the faintest idea where you got that idea that I was even concerned
about the ability to have characters more powerful than others.  I don't
think I made any comment on that subject.

As for it being "the only thing you're missing out on", you obviously haven't
been reading my messages.  go back and read the comments about how the
psychology of the two approaches to character generation differs.

> I don't like it, and don't see character imbalance as being something worth
> protecting.

Neither do I.  I haven't seen it as a significant problem in Legacy, or any
other game with a sufficient number of attributes (more opportunity to
"balance out").

> Not all GMs are experts, or good judges of balance, and many are easily
> brow-beaten/influenced/seduced.  They have point allocation systems simply
> because such do the balancing job for them.

If you'd like to start a debate about "balanced characters groups vs
potentially unbalanced characters groups", start one.  Debating that in a
thread that has been about "starting with a concept vs developing from random
numbers" is simply confusing.

> I've been playing for 15 years now.  Random generation systems make me
> angry, because they restrict my creativity.

Goody for you.  There happen to be a number of games out there with PA, and
you are welcome to choose from them and reject any that use random
generation. Since I accept that there are gamers with different preferences,
I think that variety in the marketplace is good.  Dave Nalle seems to think
that it is a bad idea, since only his preferences are valid.  If you are also
wanting to prohibit game designers from using random generation in their
products, perhaps you should join Dave in virtual reality.


You seem to have come into this debate late, and without understanding what
the topic was.  I suggest you make sure you understand what the actual topic
is before jumping in and flaming what you (incorrectly) imagine the
discussion is about.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.design