From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Random vs. Point Alloc CharGen
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:37:29 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <17560@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>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.

This is rec.games.design, not rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Here it is only
revelant whether a particular aspect of *game*design* is good or bad.
So if a point allocation system is fine with you as long as you can pick
up the dice, you shouldn't be arguing the issue here.  Having a little
trouble context-switching, are we?

>No, what is being discussed is whether or not random generation is a valid
>creative method of generating characters.

As I have said, I have no problem with you picking up the dice, and agree
that you will make perfectly acceptable characters that way.  I see your
approach as valid, just not my preferred system.  Good enough?

>> 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.

You aren't converting the rules system, just how *you* interface with it.
Also, it's not a "pure" random system, since the variance in the total is
clamped by the points.  Since the standard usage of "random generation
system" with respect to character creation systems refers to how the
*rules*system* is set up, you will find yourself and your postings better
received if you adopt this standard usage, at least in this newsgroup.

>> 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.

PA is *not* the same thing as above.  *Please* read more carefully.  Besides:

bell> But to object to point allocation systems on the grounds that
bell> one likes one's creative juices inspired by a little randomness seems
bell> specious to me.

janow> [This objection] is not specious; it is a
janow> valid psychological preference.

You claimed an objection to point allocation systems was valid.  Sure sounds
like objecting to point allocation to me.

>I've been arguing that starting with a character concept is neither superior
>nor inferior to developing a character concept from random numbers

Then go back to rec.games.frp.advocacy if you want to discuss that.

>> 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.

You said that if you rolled high for most stats, then you know the last
stats was going to be low, and you didn't like this.  There are too many
postings for me to find the exact quote.

>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").

Question:  does Legacy have you generate anything randomly other than stats?

>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.

This particular thread on this newsgroup started with someone else, then
my response that it wasn't a rules debate.  You're a latecomer this thread
in *this* group, save one remark about Dave Nalle and stubbornness.

>If you are also
>wanting to prohibit game designers from using random generation in their
>products, perhaps you should join Dave in virtual reality.

Different issue -- now you're talking the rules system.  I say any *player*
can use randomness with any point generation system, so game producers
shouldn't just provide a random system (if they need to provide one at
all), since anyone can just pick up the dice with a point system.  In
the case of the net.rpg, I don't believe we need to provide a random
system because the *player* can choose to do this anyway, and the less
work there is to do for the system, the better.

>You seem to have come into this debate late, and without understanding what
>the topic was.

Feh.  You don't even know what newsgroup you're in.

>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.

I've read every article in r.g.f.advocacy and this group (hint: it's
rec.games.DESIGN) dealing with the subject, thank you very much.  I
suggest that you make sure you understand which newsgroup you are in
before posting...

   -Andrew "now go away before I taunt you a second time" Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu