From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:32:09 GMT

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

>+ Second, you have hit on one point that some people seem to have trouble
>+ understanding: some players don't have a particular character concept they
>+ want to play.
>
> Aren't roleplayers supposed to be imaginative?  I would think that
> something as simple as thinking up an interesting character from scratch
> would be second nature to any decent roleplayer.

*sigh*  Another example of Dave's inability to comprehend the way other
gamers think.  Wanting a particular character concept or not wanting any
particular character concept has nothing to do with imagination.  It is
simply a personal preference, just like some people prefer hot dogs with
"everything", and others prefer the simple taste of just mustard.  Some
prefer to paint their rooms in three complementary colours; others prefer
variations on one colour.  Some prefer to travel to faraway places; others
prefer to spend their vacations working in their own garden.  This is not an
issue of imagination.

As far as rpgs are concerned, some players prefer to role-play a character
concept based on something in their mind; others prefer to role-play
something they did not base on a preferred concept from their minds.  I
prefer to explore something not based on the biases and preferences that
would affect my choice of character concept using point allocation.  The
easiest--and possibly only--way to avoid those biases is to allow an external
factor to make some of the decisions.

>+ Practically every character has potential to be a great, interesting
>+ character to role-play.  I usually don't immediately like the character
>+ that I roll up; I often think, "that's boring".  However, once I've filled
>+ in some history, and thought about the person behind those statistics, I
>+ usually find a great character.
>
> And isn't it annoying that you have to do all that work and juggling of
> ideas around when you could have started with an interesting character from
> the very start?

"All that work"?  That's not work; that's _fun_!  I have great fun generating
a new character using random generation.  I love creating an interesting
personality from some random numbers.  For me, those characters are more
interesting than anything I'd generate from point allocation, to a large
extent due to the lack of personal bias in the initial generation process.
Like my example with the house: a randomly-generated character may be a bit
more work than simply moving into a dream house, but for me it is a lot more
fun.  Dream houses are interesting to dream about, but boring to live in...at
least for me.

>+ In my experience it's rarely necessary to reroll a character.  It is
>+ possible to get one that you really have an aversion to playing, and in
>+ that case the GM can let you reroll one or more stats, or start over.  Out
>+ of two characters, one is likely to be good.
>
> But, with point allocation you NEVER have to get an exception or have the
> GM give you a special favor.  You start with the character you want from
> the beginning.

Wow, that's one dandy of an argument there Dave.  Instead of maybe having to
roll a second time once in ten years of gaming, by using PA, you can avoid
all that hassle!  :-)

Seriously Dave, it is not a significant concern, at least in my experience.
Even a character that looks dreadful when I first roll it can be just as good
as one that looks great at first.  It could be great fun developing a
personality from it.

>+ As for you example, that *ox* is extremely rare, and might actually be an
>+ interesting character to role-play.  Even an *ox* has a personality.
>+ Maybe he's a great romantic: his romantic poetry is really awful, but he
>+ tries hard and is really a warm, caring person.  Furthermore, maybe he
>+ rolled high in something else, such as Voice.  When he enters a tavern,
>+ the patrons look on him with fear and/or disgust.  However, when he joins
>+ the harper at the hearth and sings a love ballad, the patrons weep with
>+ joy and sadness.
>
> I don't see an interesting character here...I see an imitation of a
> character who's got some funny quirks you found on a table, but is NOT the
> product of any kind of imaginative vision.  He's just a patchwork of
> unrelated ideas, a common problem with random characters.

Oh you poor blind gamer, unable to see the beauty and imagination in a
randomly-generated character.  I do feel sorry for you.  That spur of the
moment character is not "funny quirks"; those are simply the characteristics
of that person.  Here's a man who differs from the "average" man.  He's got
his problems, but also has his gifts and strengths.

...and here you are making fun of him.  Shame on you!  :)

>+ How's that for creativity Dave?  Ththththp to you!   :-)
>
> Got to admit that your rationalizations for an indefensible position ARE
> creative.

Thank you.  I rolled them up.  O:-)



BTW, I noticed that you criticized my poor romantic *ox*, yet didn't offer
one of your own examples of incredible PA creativity.  I think you're just
jealous of my imagination.

Double-Ththththththththtp to you!  :-)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy