From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:53:15 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 253-1481

In article <83070@ut-emx.uucp> dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>David Lewis writes:
>
>>You're all missing a very important point in this silly debate: How is
>>creativity judged, by examining the process or the product?
>>
[snip snip]
>>In summary: will creativity is a process, we don't generally try
>>to judge the worth of a particular creative technique except by
>>looking at the results of applying the technique.
>
>Apparently you missed the point as well.
>
>The point is that point allocation IS a creative process, while random
>generation is a random process, or at best an interpretive process.

I think you're making the mistake of judging the system itself creative or
not.  Neither PA nor random systems are creative.  People are creative.  The
system is just the tool for creativity.  One can argue the merits and
disadvantages of various tools, but creativity is a funny thing and people can
create the most amazing, wonderful, artistic things with the most unwieldy 
tools, and not be able to create anything nearly as good with what one might
consider the "better" tools.         

This discussion is a lot like the continuing discussion among artists as to
whether photography is "art".  There's a lot of similarity.  A photographer
is limited to what is really there, as random generation is limited to the
die roll unless one "cheats" in the darkroom (or allows a lot of extra leeway
in rolling numbers, rerolling and rearranging).  One could argue that even
if an artist draws a still life in the most realistic fashion (drawing only
what is in front of them) the "process" of putting the lines on the paper with
a pencil (as opposed to snapping the picture with the camera) is inherently
_more_ creative.  The problem with this arguement is that the true creative
process is inside the "artists" head...whether a photographer or any other
kind.  The creativity comes from inside somehow, whether in deciding what one
wants to photograph, or how to deal with the outcome of random rolls, or
whatever other thing allows the artist to get out of the process something
close to what he or she has envisioned somehow at some point.  It simply can't
be limited.  If you tell someone that they _can't_ create something with a 
given process, someone will immediately prove you wrong...and the photographer
will create a picture that is undeniably art, at least to some viewers.  Art
teachers continually tell students never to use black paint, never to outline
figures, never to paint from photographs (limited light sources if nothing
else) etc. etc. and artists continually prove them wrong by breaking the "rules"
(Boris and Frazetta both outline human figures as an example).  If photography
is less creative than drawing with a pencil, the natural continuation is that
drawing the scene that is in front of you is somehow less creative than 
drawing one entirely out of one's head...of course, the still life could be
Leonardo or Van Gogh and the entirely "creative" picture could be a comic book,
but if one was to make those kind of value judgements then the comic book would
still have to be considered "more" creative.  The truth is that one can only
decide what one personally prefers and not really decide which is "better"
in the creation process itself and in viewing the outcome.  The upshot of
all this is one can't choose tools for artists, they must choose that for
themselves and you can just like something else better yourself.  

I prefer PA systems myself, but this is no different than saying I prefer pencil
to brush or oils to watercolors.  _I_ may not be creative with a brush, but
that doesn't hold true for someone else.  What's more my current favorite
character was created in a random system (AD&D somewhere between first and
second edition) and while it's not my system of choice, it was what the group
was playing, and I defy anyone to claim she is not just as "creative" a 
character as any of my others.  She's a witch using the 2nd Edition witch kit
with a well-researched Greco-Roman witch background (worshipper of Hecate) and
loads of personality.  The roll-up was slightly more liberal than "straight"
AD&D, but not that much, and her stats are really unimportant.  The GM did 
allow me to slightly modify spells for her use.  By that, I mean that I renamed
spells and modified the components without changing damage, range or any of
the other "stats" etc.  She casts a "hail of toads" instead of a "hail of
stones" and chants things like "Hecate with the  3 bodies, pour out from your
torch a gloomy pallid light through the air!" (which I actually role-play)
when casting a "Hecate's _Light_" spell.  She shocked other PC's by appearing
with a pale, pale face, glowing red eyes, barefoot, tangled hair with snakes
twined in it, her (conservative Grecan) gown pulled up to her knees, and 
smearing the blood of her enemies all over her body.  I never had more fun in
my life and in AD&D too <sigh> <grin>.

Well, just my opinion.
				Laura Mollett

>
>Do you see the difference?
>
>Even if the results of the two systems are identical, point allocation
>would still be more creative.
>
>Whether that's enormously significant to all players is open for debate.
>
>Dave