From: dunkelza@titan.ucs.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Random Rolls
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:13:30 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <21JAN93.17912834.0153@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L) writes:

>>  Oooh...  Now you've got my hackle up!  Random roll restrictive??!!??!!

     You said Random Roll was restrictive.


>Yup: those are my words.
>So, you like this:       "You roll x & y & z! Here's your character!"
>                         "I can't play this: it's a random mass of
>                          unrelated abilities!"
>                         "Guess you're an infantile wimp, then, buddy!"
>Geez. What fun it must be to game with you!

  If a player can not deal with a character, then they re-roll.  Part
of being a good GM is being able to handle situations like this.  Also,
if a random roll system is well designed (Just as easy as a well done
PA system.  I know.), it doesn't just give a random mass of unrelated
abilities.  

>>  Only for those infantile wimp gamers who can't cope with a character
>>that doesn't fit their stereotypical concepts of what "THEIR" character
>>is like.
>
>I play games for *fun*, not for acting class practice or a challenge.
>If I want to learn to act out roles I hate, I'll go to theatre school.
>If I want a challenge, I'm a particle physicist: there's lots of nasty
>problems out there to be solved. Yes: I want my character to be "my"
>character. This is fun. I get to construct a concept and follow it
>through its evolution, controlling the process according to my desires
>and whims. Hand me a heroic "righter of wrongs", randomly summoned
>from chaotic fluctuations in "character space", and I'll spit it back
>at you. I (Kromm) am not a "pure good" moralist, and do not believe
>they exist, or like those people I meet who try to be like that. Why
>would I willingly portray a character I object to morally and
>philosophically? There's millions of characters like that -- and a
>select few I enjoy. I'm out to have fun, QED, I play those I enjoy.

  So be it.  Build a character that isn't like that.  It's not too hard
in any random roll system I can think of.


>My characters are neither conventional, nor predictable, nor optimized,
>nor anything else people seem to think point-allocated characters are.
>Where these misconceptions come from, I sure as hell do not know. All I
>know is, try roleplaying with me before you slam my ability to roleplay
>in public. I could argue that anyone as close-minded as you needs to
>learn something too . . . but that would be rude.

  I don't know where the misconceptions that Random Roll is unrealistic
(It's actually more realistic), restrictive, and for power gamers comes
from.  I am close-minded.  And I could stand to learn some things.  But,
then again, I only wrote that flame because you flamed random roll.


>> Or amybe you should realize that
>>everyone is not the same.  What is this Advangtage/Disadvantage crap?
>>Since when has it been true that if you add up everyone's advantages and
>>disadvantages, they come out equal?  Since never!

>True, in real-life. However, in a game with challenges that all of
>the player characters must face, some of which may be deadly, it is
>no fun if some characters have their survival and usefulness almost
>guaranteed, while others suffer through being useless and peripheral.
>Giving everyone the same potential for ability, usefulness and
>survival is a fair way of ensuring that no PC ends up dead, ignored
>or overshadowed. This is more fun for the players. Although finding
>"n" people who are, overall, "equal" in real-life is unlikely, as
>long as the system handles real-life situations well, this can be
>ignored in the name of fun.

  This is called ROLE-PLAYING.  My favorite character of all time
was an all-but worthless character in terms of attributes.  His highest
attribute was in Intelligence, but he was an uneducated orphan.  Yet,
I had more fun with him than with any of the "Perfect" characters I have 
ever run.  (Partially because he had an inferiority complex brought
about by his lot in life.)

>     I remember a Stormbringer game where I was a Pan-Tangian noble,
>warrior, wizard-priest, with amazing equipment, frightening magic,
>deadly combat ability and a good chance of getting direct help from
>the gods: all due to random rolls my GM supervised like a hawk. My
>friend, using the same system, got a lame, leprous, one-eyed sailor
>with two skills at terrible levels, lousy attributes, and *no*
>equipment whatsoever. Let me tell you, it was just soooo much fun for
>him! Not to mention, the GM couldn't come up with a balanced adventure!
>If you enjoy this, fine. I puke upon it.

  If you don't enjoy it, then you must not be very good.  That one-eyed
sailor could have been a load of fun.  Partially because that lame, 
leprous dude could have been a very bizaare person (a la The Fisher King)
or something.

>Thanks, I have lots. Lots of folks agree with me. I've been doing this
>for years and years, and am always in demand as both a player and a GM.
>Try this line on the guy you see in the mirror in the morning. Like I
>said, don't criticize me this way until you've gamed with me, pal.

  Same here pal.  Few and far between are those who dislike my work.

>>Note:  This post was only intended to insult Kromm.  If anyone else is
>>       insulted, apology quickly rendered.
>
>Curious I should be singled out, considering the number of targets
>you would have had during the points vs. random rolls debate that
>raged here for years. What did I say? Just curious . . . I don't
>really care.

  You said Random Roll was restrictive. :)


Dunkelzahn

I still like the Word Perfect comment.

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc