From: davis@cwis.unomaha.edu (James J Davis)
Subject: Point Allocation vs Random Rolls and GURPS
Summary: Lotsa stuff on this subject
Keywords: gurps, random, points, balance, realism
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:06:17 GMT


The discussion/flamewar about random vs. point allocation (turned into
GURPS vs everything) has taken some interesting turns, but I thought
I'd try to collect my thoughts on this and write them down in some sort
of hopefully meaningful way.  You'll have to bear with me, I'm going
to right off admit I have a lot to say, and problems ordering my thoughts
on this *huge* subject.

First, I will straight out say I find random roll, in it's pure form,
restrictive.  Incredibly restrictive, as it allows only one avenue of
development.  It is just limiting choices I'd like to make.  Now, I do
qualify it with 'in it's pure form', meaning that re-rolling things 
that you do not like converts it (in part) to a design method, moderated
by interaction of the GM and the player.  Now, very few people really
use pure form of random roll characters, and most use the interactive
GM/player method I mention.  In other words, we talk about random rolls,
but we really do something else.

At the same time, I find point allocation, in it's pure form, restrictive.
I will say 'not as', but it is.  It is limiting the choices I'd like to
make.  Now, notice that I used the same qualifier ('in it's pure form') in
this section.  If the points are stretched, fudged or otherwise manipulated
in ways that are not 'by the rules', then you have a design method of
interactive GM/player creation.  Just like what happens in random rolls
when they allow re-rolls.  The difference is that while almost everyone
using random rolls allows re-rolls, almost nobody using point allocation
allows fudging.  [The reason is that since pure point allocation is less
restrictive than pure random roll, there is less impetus to allow fudging.
Now, I'm lucky to be a point allocator tolerant of fudging, and I allow
deviations over 100% in pts, which Sea Wasp claims to have never seen...
Wasp, I guess you see something new every day here on the 'ol internet. :)]
Therefore, the point allocation system does lead to less people realizing
a greater truth about characters (see next paragraph):

So, if you allow re-rolling in random roll, and fudging in point allocation,
you end up with the same thing.  The GM and the player qualitatively hack
out the character.  The character needs to be two things when done:
(1) An acceptable part of the GM's world
(2) Fun for the player to play
If the character is not one of these things, then it is *disfunctional* and
should be modified or removed from play.  It is not serving the purpose of
roleplaying: maximum enjoyment.  This is the greater truth, that this is
all a good character really has to be.  How you get there is really not so
important as whether or not you have both of these qualities.

Ergo, statements like die-rollers saying "get some real roleplaying ability"
just don't do it for me.  The character does not have to be *exactly* the
way the player wants, but still has to be something he wants to play.  Or
there is just no point in it all.  And, even if the player has the character
he likes, does this mean he can't be challenged (on any level, mechanical,
problem solving, or role-play)?  Assuming the character meets (1) from the
paragraph above, the answer is a resounding no!  He can be, without too
much difficulty.

Now, since both point allocation and random rolling, when fudging/re-rolls
are available, tend to lead to viable characters, you might ask what I
prefer.  I prefer point allocation.  Why?  Despite statements to the
contrary, I have found *no* viable system of creating super-powered types
of characters.  And, *no* viable system of personality creation.  These
types of things just do not happen by dice consistantly.

Realism has been used as an arguementative point in the debate of point
balance.  Is it realistic that all PCs have the same points?  No.  Is it
a way to help the players tell how capable the GM wants to make their PCs?
Yes.  But that's about it.  It's NOT realistic, and it was never intended
to be.  It can be useful, but only if not forced when it should not be
(When a balanced character does not meet the two requirements above, I
would venture point balance is no longer relevant and fudging needs to
occurr.)  Now, is it somehow restrictive that the PCs are point balance,
if the fudging is occurring when necessary?  No.  I would point out to a
previous poster that the PCs are part of a *tiny* minority in the populace,
and by no way representative of the population.  The rest of the populace
has the variation to make the world a plausible enviroment.

A note to Dunkelzahn: Just because you enjoyed a horribly underpowered
character doesn't mean you can force others to do so.  For *you*, the
character still passed the two requirements.  If for another, it fails
the 'enjoyable to play' requirement, then they should not forced to play
such a character.  Some people just do not enjoy certian character types.
Is the point to 'educate' them?  No, it's to have a good time.  So, please,
don't insult others' ability to play the game becuase they failed to enjoy
such a situation.  You've not seen these people play, telling them they are
not roleplaying 'properly' is totally invalid (and rude).

Further on what points can do: advantages, limitations, disadvantages,
and points in general can help the GM moderate character generation a
bit.  They are not realistic, but they are useful (again, so long as they
are not used when they should not be...)  And, if given the decision to
play in a game of pure form point allocation and pure form die rolling,
I find the pure form point allocation much better.  Both are restrictive,
but the pure form point allocation is less so than the pure form die
rolling, so I know what is better for me...

Also, game balance with the two methods is interesting.  Both tend to
balance characters to a certian extent (that is, roughly).  Any balance
beyond that is done by the GM and the players, whether the characters are
rolled or not.  An advantage of point allocation is that the die rolls
do not have to be 'witnessed' as is common for the needs of certian 
players.  A character can be created at leisure, which is nice.  And,
I find the balance is a little better than die rolling, becuase so rarely
does a die rolling system have enough die rolls to really balance it all
out.  It takes a *lot* of dice, from my experience, to do that.  And
rolling that many dice takes a lot of time (Space Opera is said to be
quite involved that way...)

So, I feel that game balance is not a myth, but is over-rated.  I believe
that points will not do it alone, and neither will die rolling alone.  It
takes GM intervention all the time.  And, one of the nice things about
rough game balance is that the players tend to feel better about thier
characters.  There is nothing more annoying than knowing some other guy
can do everything you can do, and more, and better.  Why even bother
'adventuring' when he's around?  When PCs are good at different things,
in a roughly balanced manner (and that is vague, I know), they feel good.
Thus the reason for game balance: to have a good time.  Outside of that,
it's no big deal.

Now, I don't think it's true that balance is inversly proportional to
skill in manipulating points.  Rather, it's inversly proportional to
tricks used (from skill).  In other words, people who are good at the
working of points, and maintain ethics, are *good* players, becuase
they stop themselves when they feel slimy.  When there is a lot of skill,
and no ethics, then there is problems.  The GM must step in and intervene
in these situations, just like the GM has to step in and intervene when
a player in D+D rolls solid 3s and his buddy rolls solid 18s.  Same thing.
Now, taking myself for example, I'm fairly well skilled at manipulating
points in Hero (it's my game of speciality, so I'm not bad at it).  If I
had no ethics, I could do silly point rapes and try to ruin the game of
the un-alert GM.  Rather, I do the opposite, trying to fit in the ranges
the GM wants to see.  In fact, my characters are usually in the bottom
third when it comes to raw power.  I try to use my 'skill', as it were,
to create *interesting* effects, not more power.

Now, just like a GM has to 'witness' die rolls in a bad group of gamers
in the random roll system, he might want to consider building all the
characters (from the player's word descriptions) in a point allocation
system.  Then, they become more consistant, and he fully knows what to
expect.  In fact, when either the random roll or the point allocation
GM creates the PC's, he gains the benefit of being more familiar with
the abilities of the PC's.  Not a bad return on a little work.

Now, random rolls have thier merit.  First, if the player is completely
clueless of where to begin.  Point allocation really only works when the
player has the character concept thought out.  If not, then random rolls
can be used to help make decisions.  This isn't bad.  Now, in truth, you
can create various random roll systems for point allocation games (like
Champions III), and you can create various point allocation systems for
random roll games.  I find the latter to be poorer in construction, since
to do it right, a point allocations system usually needs to be well 
thought out.  Die rolling systems, with thier high variance, don't really
have to be.  So again, I prefer point allocation.  If I need random rolls
to help me out a bit, I'll create the charts myself, with fairly little
effort.  It's no big deal.

Steve Spencer correlates acting to roleplaying.  I can see that they are
related, but not the same thing.  You can use acting in roleplaying, and
it can be delightful, but it's not necessary.  I find that roleplaying is
far more than intreptating a script that is given to you.  I call it the
interactive creation of a story interesting to a group.  In roleplaying,
you do more than intrepret the lines.  You determine the lines, and *why*
they are said, and the actions, and why they are done.  It is a bit more
than acting.  Now, I admit, add acting to good roleplay, and you get great
roleplay, becuase the characters *feel* right.  It's a bonus, but not
required to be honestly roleplaying.  I would note that in acting, you
can be forced to do/say something distasteful to you and your character.
In roleplay, if you/your character don't like the idea, you don't do it.
Nobody forces it.  So, the point of all of this is that you can't judge
a person becuase he doesn't want to be in 'acting class'.  It falls back
to the same thing I mentioned before:  You've not seen these people play,
telling them they are not roleplaying 'properly' is totally invalid (and rude).

I often read about 'rules vs players', and how they interact.  I'd like to
suggest the following: Any game system can work, any can fail.  The 'quality'
of the rules tend to change either the chance of the game working, or the
amount of GM work it takes to make the game fly.  It's whether or not the
game system is a help or a hinderance.  Ergo, I find the measure of a system
in a situation with 'average' (I know, vague) players/GM.  So, while we
recognize that the players/GM makes these games work in the long run, we
can't just say 'well it works if the players are good enough'.  This is
always true.  Finally, systems tend to structure behavior.  A bad example
of this is the mandate of realism in GURPS.  I've actually seen people say
"That is the way it is in real life, because that is the way it is in GURPS!"
(Remember, GURPS is based on reality, not vice versa.)  Am I kidding?  In a
discussion of ST in high tech GURPS:

>but the rules say that being absurdly strong
>is a big advantage, and it *is*.

Despite sufficient arguement that high ST is under-powered in that genre,
the poster supported that arguement to the end.  See how a rule can effect
judgement to the point of defending the rule rather than questioning it?
This is one of the bad effects of game systems, and I think they *all* do
it...

I find the arguement of 'point allocation leads to power gaming' or 'random
rolls leads to power gaming' to be silly.  First, I've seen it in both
approaches.  And second, I think that I have established that GM intervention
in PC generation is a good thing, to create the character that fits into his
world.  Abusive characters don't fit, so they are disfunctional whether they
were made by points of random rolls.

Now, I find it irrelevant whether the mechanics in GURPS (or Rolemaster,
for that matter) are similar or not.  Why?  Because, I don't find it
necessary to have a different mechanic to make me believe I'm doing a
different thing in a roleplay situation.  After all, do we ask people to
'see' (as per perception mechanic) different things differently?  No, we
don't.  So, since we believe the roleplay illusion of others' actions,
even though we used the same mechanic to perceive it, then it seems clear
that we don't need different mecahanics to believe the roleplay illusion
of our own actions, do we?  Different in *feel* cones from buying the
roleplay illusion, not from rolling different types of dice (or at least,
we hope so...)  Even though I like my little set of interesting dice.
It is neat to look at.  Now, the reason for retaining the mechanics when
they are similar is for the single classic reason: essentially, since
roleplaying is an agreed story-line, we use mechanics to work out the
agreement between a large group of writers (who often have some ego to
them).  I don't think that this need disappears if the mechanics are made
more similar.  Now, the nice thing about similar mechanics is it's easy
to rough out a new mechanic on the fly.  In GURPS, you know, more or less,
that you roll 3d6, and want low.  This is useful, becuase it makes the
GM's life a bit easier.

As to the GURPS ST sink, I partially agree with Sea Wasp (gasp!, I know...)
I've done it.  ST 15 in GURPS Humanx was not worth the points I spent. 
This is why I think there is a place for fudging costs: to create a guy
that meets both universal character requirements (above).  The low HT
Space Marine is like a random generation character with an unacceptable
roll: both need the GM to step in, or the character has a problem.

Now, my thing with random generation comes out of a rule of dice rolling
I always follow: you don't roll if you can't tolerate all the results of
the rolls.  This is how I avoid 're-rolls' by fudging the die roll with
a change of the initial range.  For example, we're playing AD+D, and good
'ol Wasp wants a Ranger.  When he rolls his STR, he knows he *has* to have
13 or better.  It's in the rules.  And, he'd like to have more.  Do I say:
"Gee, Wasp, roll 3d6, and hope you can roll that 13!"  Heck, no.  Now, as
a good GM, I can have him roll 3d6 until he gets what he needs, or I can
just say, "How about 2d3+12 for STR?"  This character creation, while
using dice, works out to the moderated GM/player creation I was talking
about earlier.

As to the problem of disadvantages in point systems: it's totally a 
campaign control of base points, and allowed disadvantages.  The system
is saying *nothing* to the effect that you *have* to play characters
with disadvantages if the gamers don't want to.  You just say '150 pts,
no disads allowed, instead of '100 pts, -40 pts disads, -5 pts quirks'.
It can be so easily tailored to taste that I don't see it as a reason
to dispense with a point system.  (There are reasons to do so, and I'm
just saying this does not seem like a valid one.)

As to the problem of universal systems and identical costs in multiple
genres: true, this is something that won't always work out.  However, this
is why I'm saying that just like freedom in random rolls is acceptable,
so is fudging in point allocation.  I feel it's a minor problem, and not
worth all the arguement over the strong guy vs the guy with pistol.

Now to get into the torrent of hot water:

GURPS.  I'll be honest.  It's not my favorite system.  As many already
know, I like Hero better.  At the same time, it's not a waste of time
system for 'girly-men' or anything like that.  Here are some opinions
about the system.

GURPS is somewhat restrictive.  More restrictive than Hero, for example.
But, let's be honest here, less so than pure random rolling.  But, contrary
to Kromm, GURPS, like *all* games, carries bias.  Sometimes, it's quite a
bit of bias, more than Hero.  This is why I choose the latter.  For example,
in the high skill situation (75 pts or more mental skills) you are biased
to have full eidetic memory, becuause it's free.  (You pay 60 pts, and reduce
your skill cost to 15 pts, for the same 75 pts, and now you have photo-
graphic memory and learn skills faster.)  This bias makes it more restrictive.
GURPS also has a genre bias: it's towards 'realism'.  This is why Supers
was so hard to make and had problems.  (You play it with the types of ideas
they lay forth, in a non-traditional manner, it's not too bad.  But it
didn't very well support a 4-color enviroment.)

GURPS, however, has a workable basic system, streamlined mechanics that
help GMs make easy decisions.  This makes it a good game.

GURPS further adds a acceptable level of cross-compatability between genres.
Now, it's not awsome, but it's usually workable.  (Example of lack of cross
genre compatibility is Bunnies and Burrows and just about anything.  The
bunnies are just too small to cope with most threats put forth to humans
should the threat be physical.)  I find that Hero and Dream Park have better
cross genre compatibility.  Hero, especially, has it becuase the different
genres come from the same real set of rules.

GURPS does *not* allievate the need for GMs to intervene in PC balance.
As I already stated, no system does that.  (Well, one does, but it's pretty
useless...)  However, it does allow you to use the same basic system (learn
less rules overall than with a bunch of genre-specific games) when you want
to play a new genre.  If you want to play Call of Cthulu, you can play
GURPS Horror.  Don't want to learn Traveller?  GURPS Space.  Etc.  One
system to learn, and you've got a basic grasp of a lot of genres.  (Note
above it's also cross-genre compatible, but not awsomely so.)

GURPS can be quite expensive.  It is noted that getting the supplements
you 'need' can add up.  It's not like AD+D, with player's book, GM's book,
volumes of monsters, a handbook for each class *and* race...  (etc)  But
it can rank up there in cost.

GURPS has rules made around assumptions of what optional rules are to be
used.  Compare the plausibility of the GURPS gunfire rules if you use or
choose not to use the blowthrough rules.  *Vastly* different, and this is
an optional rule!  If it's that important to the system, it should be in
the base rules.

GURPS costs are not a measure of one value, but several.  Namely, they are
a measure of utility, rarity and 'difficulty'.  Hero works from the premise
of utility.  This make the theory driving the creation of rules a lot 
simpler and much more straightforward.  And when the theory is clear, the
rules tend to be a little better conceived.

GURPS puts strange things in sidebars, sometimes rules themselves.  I wish
they'd not do that.  Supplemental info of little rules-value only, please!

GURPS puts too much variation on the value of stats effecting skills.  The
range in a reasonable game is about 10 or less to 15 or less (0 to 60 pts
invested in the stat).  (Hero, comparitively, has a range of 11 or less to
13 or less, representing 0 pts to max pts.  This is about 1/2 the range.)

GURPS makes general disadvantages too specific.  Like Greed.  There is
only 1 level, as I recall.  Well, Greed could come on many levels.  And,
there is no structure to make your own disadvantages, only if they are
quirks (1 pt 'trivial' disads).  The major points of the character's
disads don't have full creative control.

GURPS combat turn is too short to be able to do a reasonable amount of
stuff (complete a thought).  Each turn is only a second, and you can't
do much in a second.  Full turn actions include things like 'draw a
weapon' whereas I tend to think in terms of complete thoughts, like, 
"I spin, draw my six-shooter and plug him!"  I feel the combat system
should handle this type of thought.

GURPS has ome of the characteristics hidden in the advantages/disadvantages
system.  Now, this is good if you like to not deal with those things.
(Like good/bad looks, writing nothing gives you a 'normal' default.)
But, I like to monkey with these a lot, so I prefer to see them as stats
and not advs/lims.  And the 4 characteristics have *hug* ramifications,
like health controlling how well you seduce, if I rememeber correctly?!?

GURPS revels in realism.  I don't feel this is so God-important in a
RPG.  However, at the same time, the attention to realism makes it, in
general, not too bad on the realism scale if that is what you want.  So,
this is another (you guessed it) subjective critizsm.

GURPS has a lot of supplements.  This can be good or bad.  Becuase the
basic rules for doing certian things are in the supplements, along with
world-book information, you have to buy the whole supplement even if you
are not interested in the world.  Me, I don't buy pre-made game worlds,
so any world-book information I have to buy to get the mechanics I need
is a waste of money.  However, if you like to run pre-made worlds, what
a boon!  Just pick it up, and you're ready to go with relatively little
effort.  Also, the players buy into a familiar setting easier than a
totally new/alien one.  So a lot of these books has it's merit too.  It
just depends what you are looking for.  Now, some of these supplements
are questionable in quality.  I've seen *editor references* in completed
GURPS products.  This is horrible.  But, some of the others are well-done
indeed!  (Hero supplements, on the other hand, tend to not have rules
but rather applications of them.  There's a difference, in that all the
true rules are still in the basic book.  They're just making suggestions.)

GURPS has less warnings on the dangers of point abuse, lulling the gamer
into a fase sense of security with "it's legal, so it must be OK" type
mentality.  Since you don't have to do really wierd things to upset the
game, this is important.  (Hero is more easily abused, but attempts to
tell you, "it's not all in the system, the GM has to watch out."  And you
usually have to be strange to be abusive in Hero.)

GURPS mixes special effects into it's mechanics.  If you want a certian
game effect, you often have to have a very specific special effect.  This
shows up in the disadvantages, which are often packages of disadvantages.
Also, a problem with, "if this then that" type wording with disadvantages
and advantages.  Like in dwarfism, if you're not good looking, then you
are homely at no point break.  How many characters with dwarfism having
5 pts of good looks to avoid this little disad that comes with it?  Or
then there's the reverse, where you only get the benefit from a certian
ability if you have something else, like eidetic memory.  If you have
mental skills, you save points on them.  If not, then photographic memory
ended up costing you 60 points!

GURPS re-presents identical mechanics with little change and different
special effects.  I mean, you can have a fire or a water attack in GURPS
Supers, who cares what the label is?  But the basic ranged attack power
is presented so many times in GURPS Supers that it makes me sick.  I think
the gamers can figure this one out on thier own.

GURPS finally requies you agree with the views presented.  If you think
a fire attack should work a certian way, and it's the way SJG thinks it
does, you're in good shape.  But if you disagree, it can be problematic
getting around this little disagreement.  I find myself disagreeing to
the point of making character generation difficult, so I avoid playing
GURPS.  IF you like the definitions laid out in the game, then it might
be the game for you.

Now, these thoughts on GURPS, if you will notice, fall into one of two
catergories:
(1) Things that are a problem, but fixable.
(2) Things that are a problem or a selling point, depending on what
    you want.

Therefore, GURPS is a perfectly valid game.  It does not contain what
I want, but it is fairly useful overall.  Definitely one of the 5 best
games made.  I just happen to oppose many of the ideas set out, rather
taking the opposite viewpoint.  (Like thinking realism is pretty 
irrelevant.)  In other words, what I find as problems are strengths
by other people's definitions.  Good for them.  I wish them well playing
GURPS.

Finally:
A couple of misc. notes that cropped up during the big discussion to
certian people on various issues:

Luc Maillet: I understand the problems with putting accomplishment and
potential in the same stat.  I've considered devorcing accomplishment
from any characteristic/stat al-together in an effort to separate the
two.  In Hero, making all skills 11- base, and then INT would just be
for perception, and being 'smart' would be an indication of how much
you know.  It's something I'm working on, anyway.

Kromm: Comics are not fun to game?  Maybe for you.  In understand that
you think altriusm is for the birds, and that having powers should make
you above such a weakness.  But, no matter how you argue it, me, and a
lot of other people, have fun playing the superhero genre that way.  Yes,
we can have fun and ethics at the same time.  Maybe your opinion is not-
so-humble, but it's quite wrong, and you have no place arguing what others
should find interesting/fun to play.

Drin: I agree that balance and universality, in the same system, cannot
both be had at 100% levels.  Altho, it does not stop me from trying to
maximize both of these as far as possible for the best game I can make.  :)

John Kim: Does complexity compete with balance?  I think it can, yes.
This is why my version of Hero is notably simpler than the current rules.
However, I find that realism is a separate variable to how the characters
are generated, actually.  A point system could be realistic, a random roll
system could be realistic.  I think point allocation has it's strength in
letting the player create his concept, not in balance.  But, that's just
me.

Matt Madsen: I don't find that GURPS point system is better than Hero.  It
is not sure of what should determine a cost (utility, rarity, difficulty to
learn?) and the illusion of balance comes from less options in the long run.
Think of this: with it's horrendous number of combinations, Hero works well.
One of the things that is nice about GURPS is the point of diminishing
returns, which is interesting, but by adding one such scale to another such
scale the point of diminishing returns is not so useful anymore.  I'd like
to see it enacted a little better, but I think it's a good idea.

Well, I think I've just about said about everthing I could ever want to
on one very complex subject (the discussion wandered a bit...)  I would
like to take a moment to re-state my conclusions:

(1) Random vs points: Pure random rolls are very bad and totally restrictive.
Pure point allocation is bad and restrictive, not so much as random rolls.
Give either a little leeway, and both become simply the GM and the player
working out the character one way or another, and any character that fits in
the GM's game world and makes the player happy at the same time is OK, no
matter how it was generated.

(2) GURPS: It has it's strengths, and it's weaknesses.  Or, to be much
more specific, it's points.  These points will be taken as strengths or
weaknesses by different people.  It has a few pure weaknesses, but I think
these can be worked out.  GURPS has the basic structure that lets it be
a viable game, and if it's points are strengths to you, then *play it*.
If they are weaknesses, then *don't play it*.  But I am satisfied that
it indeed is a functional RPG.

-james
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy