From: batemanc@p4.cs.man.ac.uk (Mad Chris)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:05:43 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: ANYONE PLAYING IN MALCOLM'S DARK CONSPIRACY GAME, PLEASE DO
NOT READ THIS POST. THANK YOU.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

dfn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) opines:

>The point is that point allocation IS a creative process, while random
>generation is a random process, or at best an interpretive process.

Are you suggesting that interpretation is not creative? That interpreting
is a mechanical process? You've got to be kidding! Let me just take
one example: and it is at random because it's the most recent character
I've generated. 

Attributes were rolled randomly, and looking them over I could see I 
was looking at someone who was intelligent, emotional and agile, but
a little short of stamina. The image that I began to get (by a creative
process known as 'thinking') was one of a pre-op transexual. A deb.
Character generation then continued and I finished up with what I consider
a 'good' (i.e. fun to play) character. She/he is an
entertainer/environmentalist with the somewhat embarassing problem of
being female with a certain male organ.

Naturally, I've compressed the description to a brief summary, but I
think it still demonstrates a degree of creativity. The point being?
Interpretation and extrapolation are STILL creative.

Am I saying RG is better than PA? No. 
Am I saying PA is better than RG? No.

But I AM saying that RG can be just as creative as PA.

Next task: Anticipate and neutralise 90% of generated replies.

"But you could have generated exactly the same character through PD."

Yes, but would my mind have been set about thinking on those lines?
I would probably have come up with a nice character concept, and a 
character I'd have been happy to play, but I don't doubt it wouldn't 
be the character above.

RG prevents thoughts from falling in a rut.

"But the initial idea was given to you by a random method, and hence
 it is less creative."

Why? Suppose you read two sonnets, one written by someone on a subject
they chose, the other written by someone on a subject they were given
randomly. Is the 'random' sonnet less creative? 

>Even if the results of the two systems are identical, point allocation
>would still be more creative.

But the two systems are UNLIKELY to prodcuce the same results. Just 
suppose I got the transexual image to start with, and not through
interpretation. During stat assignment, there would have been a tendancy
for me to make the attributes in whatever form I consider to be appropriate
to a deb. This would have tended to make my stats somewhat charicature,
which is a trait I find common in PA games. It's not a BAD trait, 
because there's nothing wrong with it (unless it's taken to extremes) but
it is certainly not particularly creative.

In summary, as I see it, the two methods work like this.

Point Allocation:
----------------

CREATIVE PROCESS --------> POINT ALLOCATION -----------> ROUNDING OFF
Thinking up concept        Matching mechanics to idea    Tidying up.

Random Generation:
-----------------

DIE ROLLING -------------> INTERPRETIVE AND CREATIVE PROCESS ------------>
Determining mechanics      Creatively interpretting the mechanics.

-----> ROUNDING OFF
       Tidying up.

I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged back into this, but, what the hey!
A little rough-housing with the pets is good for a man's appetite.

Mad Chris.

PS: That's a quote, not an insult.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc