From: belcinski@slacvx.slac.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:40:58 -0800
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Nov17.170353.8161@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.142501.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.165943.3825@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
>>> In article <loren.199@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:
> 
>>>     As I've explained in other newsgroups, nobody walks around
>>> waiting to be persuaded to the opposite opinion.  Oh yeah, and don't
>>> try to "force" me to think I'm wrong on this by writing a rebuttal.
>>

 [ Lots of thinly disguised flames by both parties deleted ...
    ... now for my own diatribe: ]

Sorry to interject, but I was reading this thread with interest for a few
days (gosh... could it be weeks???), and felt like it would be good to get
back to the original point: PA vs RA.  This is a very interesting debate,
and I think that there are still things to be learned in continuing.

I find that I have sat on the fence for a number of years about it, and 
after all of the "sound and fury" here on the net, I'm still undecided. 

The whole debate seems to hinge on whether one method or the other is more
capable of producing an internally consistent character (i.e. "the character
makes sense.").  It doesn't really have to do with "power gamers," since
characters produced by such a person *are* internally consistent; they hold
to the concept of maximum combat effectiveness under any circumstance, under
any game system, whether it is PA or RA.  This doesn't bother me too much,
since these guys tend to find the best combinations of weapons/armor/magic 
for defeating the "bad guys" and hence define character niches using these
combinations.  Since I have never been in a game when *somebody* hasn't taken
a swing/shot/whatever at me, I feel that there *should* be a healthy interest
in what works in combat and what doesn't.  Power gamers thrive in both PA and
RA systems.  

(I'll define a "power-gamer" here to mean a "Min/Max-er," *not*
a "cheater" or "Monty-hauler."  These will exist under *any* circumstance,
I'm convinced...)

RA tends to try to enforce character power-limits using randomness, while
PA tries to rigorously enforce limits using an accounting method which is 
usually rather flawed.  The power gamer will try to defeat these limitations 
by either minimizing the effects of randomness on the output or by
exploiting a hole in the rules.  Either method can produce wildly effective
characters, and do so at about the same rate (I have observed).  

PA can lead to incongruous characters about as often as a RA system can.
Since I almost always have to build-in some mechanism for preservation
when "the orc pops up from behind a rock," I often find that I have to spend
points (under PA) to find some way of maintaining the integrity of my precious
behind no matter how incongruous (at worst... at best it is a diversion of re-
sources which might be better used elsewhere) it might be to the character 
concept.  It is no fun spending hours building that *really cool* pacifist/
philosopher/stand-up-comedian if he's going to be shot in the first session
because the GM "wants to have a great shoot-out for the MERC in the party."

In the words of a famous smuggler: "Look... Jabba... even *I* get boarded
sometimes..." (excuse me if I've paraphrased...)

so...

MY POINT: PA and RA are vulnerable to abuse... but the abuse isn't necessarily
from "power gamers."  The abuse comes from players who view the whole process
of character creation as a way to make another player feel superfluous.  I have
been in any number of games (only once... never stayed...) where *one*
character had all the powers/items/contacts/etc. and brow-beat everybody else
into doing whatever he wanted.  They put together the toughest character they
can and the entire game is a continuous exercise of "you're along for the ride,
if you don't like it... I don't need you."  Good RPG systems promote inter-
dependence and team-play.  In terms of interdependence I still think AD&D does 
an admirable job, although it is a popular game to bash because of the
relative lack of control (using the basic rules; most "house" rules I have
played under have nice flexible rules for generating a PC along a character 
concept line...) in what you play as a character.  GURPS does so as well, since
most characters can't be good at more than a few things (unless you exploit
a hole, like buy DX:17 and 40 1/2-point skills... and your defaults ain't
too bad either...)

Figuring out the best way to "win" is OK... successful parties are literally
BUILT on this.  But figuring out the best way to "win" all by yourself defeats 
the purpose of the game.  PA and RA are value-neutral in this respect.

So, I guess I still sit on the fence.  If my character has an interesting niche
in the party, this keeps the fun in the game.  In PA or RA, I try to think of a
possible niche to fill that nobody else does.  In PA, I find that it may
sometimes be very difficult (or impossible) to "afford" what that niche demands
and still have a character that can survive the prick of a needle (Look, I 
don't play these games to *die*, OK??  I'm not bashful about stating it.)  
In RA, it might be that I'd have to wait a *long* time before the necessary
rolls happen.  In any case, the result is the same for many concepts regardless
of whether I'm playing AD&D2 or GURPS-3rdEd: 

"think of something else because you can't play that idea under this system."  



-Rich                       e-mail: Belcinski@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Standard disclaimer:
--- SLAC has no idea what I'm doing.  Probably a good thing... ---