The kind of GM who is married to having to roll for stats is probably not going to care about bad dice rolls causing an ogryn to have low toughness and strength scores. If they do care about one but not the other, that is a good place to try convincing them of the error of their ways when it comes to randomly rolling stats.

The basic argument is:

"Does it seem right to you to roll a die once at the beginning of the game that gives you +10 or -10 to every roll you'll make in the future? Because that's what random rolling for stats is."

If the GM wants new players to quickly generate characters, I can see doing random rolling, but the players should be allowed to go back and do point buy after they learn the game a bit.

If a GM thinks it's more fun for character generation to be unfair and forcing people to play what they roll, make the above argument and consider a different GM if it doesn't work, because they may have an incurable case of grognardia.

I have a pretty bad case of grognardia and I'm not that hardcore. Even if I was running a campaign where the predominant Chargen method was random gen, If a player presented me with a well thought out character concept I would probably go with point buy. It make no sense to be thinking of playing a highly intelligent academic and ending up with Jet li the assassin!

Huh, guess I really am the odd man out here. Point buy systems just feel way too much like a videogame's generation system. Which kind of defeats the point of a pen and paper roleplaying game to me. That and I've seen it lead to some impressively broken characters.

Truth be told I always try and roll, I always tend to roll terrifically bad as well, but I try and make it work. I guess other people don't like to do that.

If I were to ever use one then I'd have to have everyone use one, it'd feel a bit unfair otherwise.

I'm all for random chargen in old-school dungeon crawls, but in games where roleplaying is centre stage and characters are meant to survive for a while, I find random chargen to be wildly inappropriate.

- That, however, is just me. You definitely don't have to agree

In my opinion, random ability score generation is the worst game mechanic to be blindly propagated from early RPGs.

If you're worried about players min-maxing their ability scores too much, then discourage the practice by making sure every stat is important, rather than outright taking the control away from the player.

Anyway, I'm glad to see a point-buy option in 2e, though it seems a little poorly thought out.

Huh, guess I really am the odd man out here. Point buy systems just feel way too much like a videogame's generation system. Which kind of defeats the point of a pen and paper roleplaying game to me. That and I've seen it lead to some impressively broken characters.

Truth be told I always try and roll, I always tend to roll terrifically bad as well, but I try and make it work. I guess other people don't like to do that.

If I were to ever use one then I'd have to have everyone use one, it'd feel a bit unfair otherwise.

Using 'video games' as a criticism of tabletop games is dumb for a lot of reasons. Try to think of a more intelligent way to express why you don't like point buy.

What's funny is in my games we've always used a variation on random rolls - roll 10#2d10, drop the lowest, assign as desired. It's not inherently a bad way to do things, but when it gets in the way of people playing the character they want (as RAW DH2 rules do) there's a problem.

Huh, I've always preferred random char generation over point buy, in every game for which that is the default. And I'm hardly an old grognard, I just think it's more fun that way.

Using 'video games' as a criticism of tabletop games is dumb for a lot of reasons. Try to think of a more intelligent way to express why you don't like point buy.

That, or I can keep my reason and you can stuff your opinion up your Eye of Terror.

I don't like point buy because it isn't in the spirit of tabletop gaming to me, it reminds me of videogame character generation which is legitimate in that format in my eyes, but not at a table.

You by no means have to accept my opinion as valid, but I'm allowed to have it and have no reason to come up with more that are valid in your eyes.

If you're worried about players min-maxing their ability scores too much, then discourage the practice by making sure every stat is important, rather than outright taking the control away from the player.

The system doesn't always follow that ideal however.

Yeah, I think every path has its merits. The thread kind of shows that they all have their fans.

It may be a question of whether you want to focus on playing "a guy/gal who became X" or "guy/gal, the X". Small but important difference in approach. I absolutely agree that in most cases, a character's profession should be reflected in their stats, as some roles use them as a professional requirement and your character might not really make sense otherwise - a factor even more important in Dark Heresy as you're supposed to be good enough at what you do to warrant recruitment by the Inquisition.

So imo, even random rolls should include some small element of control (like, being allowed to swap two characteristics), just so that you can make sure your character is good at something . And then there is of course compromises like doing all rolls random, but freely distributing the results between all stats.

In my opinion, random ability score generation is the worst game mechanic to be blindly propagated from early RPGs.

If you're worried about players min-maxing their ability scores too much, then discourage the practice by making sure every stat is important, rather than outright taking the control away from the player.

Anyway, I'm glad to see a point-buy option in 2e, though it seems a little poorly thought out.

Some people actually like thinking up the character after they've rolled random stats. What's good to have is both options, but neither is inherently "better". Full agreement to making sure everyone can play their strengths, though. The opportunity, at least, should be present insofar as it makes sense. Wether the character acts on it is entirely the player's business.

Huh, guess I really am the odd man out here. Point buy systems just feel way too much like a videogame's generation system. Which kind of defeats the point of a pen and paper roleplaying game to me. That and I've seen it lead to some impressively broken characters.

I find myself wondering, and if you want to PM me about this rather than continue to derail this thread that's cool... but what do you feel "the point" of a pen and paper roleplaying game is that point buy character generation defeats it. I'm honestly just curious because you seem to a very different view than I do and I'd love to hear a little more about it.

I find myself wondering, and if you want to PM me about this rather than continue to derail this thread that's cool... but what do you feel "the point" of a pen and paper roleplaying game is that point buy character generation defeats it. I'm honestly just curious because you seem to a very different view than I do and I'd love to hear a little more about it.

I scratched the surface of that in my response to CPS saying my response wasn't intelligent enough for them. And as many already gave the same statement of the op I don't see a reason not to continue it here.

When I tabletop game I try to use dice as often as I can, actual dice, actual paper, actual pencils (because pens just beg for irreparable changes to characters). It speaks to the concept of chance for me, the possibilities of things not working out the way you may even want them, but soldiering onward regardless. Frankly it makes the characters more interesting to me.

Point buy systems aren't bad in itself, they work. If a system were to only have a point buy system I'd use it, I'm not against them if it's the only option as I like playing games and hearing stories. But point buys feel like you're playing a videogame. There's no chance in point buys, you figure out what you want and you make it. If you know how to break the system you can break it there, heck you can break it without meaning too. It sours the stories to me and defeats the purpose of the advanced form of storytelling that roleplaying games are to me.

Call me old fashioned or a grognard (although I think I'm a little more flexible than that), but I just like rolling. Point buys have never appealed to me over rolling a dice and accepting the fickle hand of lady luck when it comes to table gaming. It's a tradition thing and oh no I like the concept of tradition in roleplaying, I must be a backwards facing rose tinted glassed fool who can't stand change. Not really, but to me it's PnP for a reason, dice exist for a reason, rolling randomly was started for a reason. It's funner to me that way.

I may have rambled a bit...sorry about that.

I like rolled systems because they allow me to see how the dice fall and work that into a character concept that I may have, had I been using point by, never even thought about in the first place. Sometimes, you just sit there and think "I'm going to try something different", pick up the dice and take them as they fall. in other words, I dislike redundancy in my active characters, and rolling is an easy, convenient way to avoid that. Spread over the whole party, pure chance on creation can change the dynamic of an entire campaign, and if you like things to be a bit unpredictable from the get go, both for players and DMs, it's pretty much the way to go.

Not saying point buy systems are completely invalid, far from. Two of my favourite systems ever are primarily point-buy, but, it's nice to have options and sometimes, it's quite nice to be surprised by what you have on your sheet and turn those numbers into a concept, rather than the other way around.

Point buy systems aren't bad in itself, they work. If a system were to only have a point buy system I'd use it, I'm not against them if it's the only option as I like playing games and hearing stories. But point buys feel like you're playing a videogame. There's no chance in point buys, you figure out what you want and you make it. If you know how to break the system you can break it there, heck you can break it without meaning too. It sours the stories to me and defeats the purpose of the advanced form of storytelling that roleplaying games are to me.

And why do you think figuring what you want and making it is bad? Most players I know would enjoy the game more if they played the character they wanted as opposed of the character they rolled.

Also, I find breaking the game is more of a player issue. A player who wants to break the game will break the game with the tools he has at his disposal. A player who doesn't will not. Simple.

Regarding breaking the game by mistake, I find rolling be more at fault for that than PB. Usually PB, especially when built into core rules generates characters that the system can handle. I couldn't say the same about rolling really well (like having most of your stats close to maximum which, albeit rare, I have seen happen more than once).

And why do you think figuring what you want and making it is bad? Most players I know would enjoy the game more if they played the character they wanted as opposed of the character they rolled.

I answered that, I think it takes away from the story as a whole. What most players enjoy doesn't happen to be a factor in my opinion of the matter, merely a factor in how I implement a system.

Also, I find breaking the game is more of a player issue. A player who wants to break the game will break the game with the tools he has at his disposal. A player who doesn't will not. Simple.

A player who doesn't still might accidentally, they might be more willing to adjust things however if it becomes an issue. It becomes a part of trying to hedge off ways of breaking the game, which I've seen abused more in point buy than random rolling.

Regarding breaking the game by mistake, I find rolling be more at fault for that than PB. Usually PB, especially when built into core rules generates characters that the system can handle. I couldn't say the same about rolling really well (like having most of your stats close to maximum which, albeit rare, I have seen happen more than once).

You might find. I haven't however.

It would also be pretty easy to make a random roll system that is actually fair. Just have a limited number of points to be given out (e.g roll 1d10 add the result to stat 1 and add 10-the result to stat 2, repeat) so that characters are mathematically equivalent.

That said, I don't buy the feeling that point buy in this system is going to lead to THE DREADED POWERGAMER (which is at least equally to be blamed on the system as the player) or to artificial looking values. If I do point buy, I'm recommending everyone so my multiples of 5. Why? The one's digit only comes into play on 10% of rolls; it's basically vestigial. Your roll your 2d10 for the d100. There is a 1/10 chance that the tens digit will be the same as the tens digit of your target number. Only in that case do you need to bother checking the ones digit. The change to DoS means you ignore the ones digit now. All of the modifiers in the game also are in 10s, other than Psy rating. Again, the ones digit is mostly ignored. The game might as well get rid of the 1-100 scaling. I've already heard arguments that people like having the ones digit to differentiate things on a very small scale, but this seems to me like having a fireplace installed on a submarine for ambiance. There are better ways to differentiate things that involve actual working mechanics.

And I state that random generation of your character stats is wrong because it's making some characters better or worse right from the get-go. If the system used was something like what I suggested that worked fairly, then fine. One person whose 2d10 rolled an average of 15 and another who rolled an average of 5 is not fair, though. Rather than adding house rules like "well you get one reroll" or "if you get really unlucky you can roll a new character" (no thanks, I've just realized I was wasting time) just use a random roll system that actually works fairly.

That and I've got to agree with CPS that whenever someone compares RPGs and video games unfavorably based on unfair randomness in RPGs or player freedom, I'm left shaking my head. If players can't just be whatever they want, why not play a video game? If RPGs must have constant dice rolling, why not play an old school video game that automates that? I thought the point of RPGs is the social aspect, freedom, and making a story, but maybe it's about arbitrary unfair roles and forcing people to conform to bad or good luck?

Using dice rolling for characters reduces freedom not increases it, although the chance that you get an interesting character is probably ok.

Sure you can have fun with a low intelligence adept if the game masters supports you, but after a the initial fun is over the stupid adept routine just gets old and you will need to develop your character in another direction anyway if the character is going to feel capable of something.

Maximum freedom is putting 30 in every stat and letting home world and character development differentiate the characters. I have tried this for one campaign (the stat roll was 29+1d5 so it "looked" random) and it worked much better than I expected.

Sure you can have fun with a low intelligence adept if the game masters supports you, but after a the initial fun is over the stupid adept routine just gets old and you will need to develop your character in another direction anyway if the character is going to feel capable of something.

Which is what cybernetics, daemonic pacts, and characteristic increases are for? Some people might not even get bored with it.

That said, I don't buy the feeling that point buy in this system is going to lead to THE DREADED POWERGAMER (which is at least equally to be blamed on the system as the player) or to artificial looking values.

You don't, I however have seen it, the players in question didn't mean to, but they understand the system and things they want their character to be able to and they happen to be much more impressive than anyone else in the party. I never said the values looked artificial, they just don't have any chance in them, which is what I stated bugged me because it reminded me of a videogame's characteristic generation.

And I state that random generation of your character stats is wrong because it's making some characters better or worse right from the get-go. If the system used was something like what I suggested that worked fairly, then fine. One person whose 2d10 rolled an average of 15 and another who rolled an average of 5 is not fair, though. Rather than adding house rules like "well you get one reroll" or "if you get really unlucky you can roll a new character" (no thanks, I've just realized I was wasting time) just use a random roll system that actually works fairly.

It's not wrong, there isn't a wrong way to generate statistics if you're following the core rules. You just don't like it or think it's fair, those are two different things. You'd leave if someone suggest you just reroll a statline? You must be blessed in rolling well all the time. I'm not one of those people however, I've had to do it a few times to get a character that had near average stats. Maybe I'm just used to rolling poorly.

That and I've got to agree with CPS that whenever someone compares RPGs and video games unfavorably based on unfair randomness in RPGs or player freedom, I'm left shaking my head. If players can't just be whatever they want, why not play a video game? If RPGs must have constant dice rolling, why not play an old school video game that automates that? I thought the point of RPGs is the social aspect, freedom, and making a story, but maybe it's about arbitrary unfair roles and forcing people to conform to bad or good luck?

Weird you agreeing with CPS when he actually insults someone. No offense but randomness doesn't have the capability of being fair, it's random. There are old videogames with random stat rolling, a very good one is interplay's Swords and Serpents. You're missing my point, I like rolling physical dice. What you think the point of RPGs are doesn't have to be the point that I find in them. I find better story in the random chance of dice, you don't. Happens.

How can game stories be made better in general by randomness? I'm having trouble thinking about any story (as in fiction written by someone) that would have been better if the protagonist had been randomly generated as opposed to just the guy the author wanted to put there.

How can game stories be made better in general by randomness? I'm having trouble thinking about any story (as in fiction written by someone) that would have been better if the protagonist had been randomly generated as opposed to just the guy the author wanted to put there.

Point buys come across, to me at least, of setting a tone in stone of how you plan on the character being personality wise as it already reflects in their characteristics. Leaves room for less growth.

That's just me, my opinion apparently isn't shared by many people in this thread, and that's fine.

If you've got a concept in mind, and the stats don't match up entirely, I feel it promotes a bit of role playing of the character trying to become the player's concept. Rather than being there. Helps with background too explaining why stats are the way they are.

The dice can "force" you to consider alternatives that you end up considering interesting, but just did not think about at first. It also may feel "more real" in that the character's stats being out of the player's control reflects genetic aptitude and upbringing/experiences (including randomised flaws/weaknesses) as opposed to potentially getting minmaxed into the role they are supposed to assume or even develop into. Buzzword: "dumpstat".

Also, it is frighteningly easy to fall into the trap of cookie-cutter clichés just because of a subconscious image of a "default" character, which is probably the reason for why 90% of all protagonists ever are heterosexual white men. In most cases, there is no agenda, and it doesn't add anything to the story - it's just that it was the first thing the author could think of. As a franchise, 40k is a prime example of this issue. Random chargen can take care of this problem, too.

But as mentioned earlier, this does not apply to all classes. Certain professions will only accept characters that fulfil certain requirements - sometimes in terms of characteristics (elite soldiers, established savants), sometimes gender (Marines, Sisters), sometimes other aspects (depending on local culture). This of course should be taken into consideration. Completely randomised chargen means that it is entirely possible to invalidate character concepts, forcing you to go for a different role. But that's why we have the "hybrid systems" with reassigned rolls, rerolls, etc, right?

How can game stories be made better in general by randomness? I'm having trouble thinking about any story (as in fiction written by someone) that would have been better if the protagonist had been randomly generated as opposed to just the guy the author wanted to put there.

I have had a number of games made much more interesting by random die rolls. I've generated whole adventures on the fly using random tables to help shape events, and my group has enjoyed them immensely. The need to improvise and incorporate random elements into a story is part of the joy of roleplaying for me.

That said, I personally do prefer point buy character generation, so the players can have the character they want. After that, the dice shape destiny. However, I can see ThenDoctor's point very well. It's really a matter of preference.

Sure you can have fun with a low intelligence adept if the game masters supports you, but after a the initial fun is over the stupid adept routine just gets old and you will need to develop your character in another direction anyway if the character is going to feel capable of something.

Which is what cybernetics, daemonic pacts, and characteristic increases are for? Some people might not even get bored with it.

Except that some people might want to play their character concept from the get-go rather than after a dozen or so sessions. If the game offers the possibility of a character concept from the beginning of the game, it should be available to everyone, not just limited to random chance.

That said, I don't buy the feeling that point buy in this system is going to lead to THE DREADED POWERGAMER (which is at least equally to be blamed on the system as the player) or to artificial looking values.

You don't, I however have seen it, the players in question didn't mean to, but they understand the system and things they want their character to be able to and they happen to be much more impressive than anyone else in the party. I never said the values looked artificial, they just don't have any chance in them, which is what I stated bugged me because it reminded me of a videogame's characteristic generation.

That's not a power gamer. That's the system being crappy. Also, random character generation can easily result in the same things that a point buy can, leading to the same situation. If both situations have the same maximum numbers, it's very possible to get an identically broken character from point buy as in random gen. People are rejecting this argument from you because it makes no sense. That random character will also be even more broken in comparison to other random characters that had no chance for optimization. It's easy to have point-buy not create broken characters, and the current random chargen can produce identically broken characters.

And I state that random generation of your character stats is wrong because it's making some characters better or worse right from the get-go. If the system used was something like what I suggested that worked fairly, then fine. One person whose 2d10 rolled an average of 15 and another who rolled an average of 5 is not fair, though. Rather than adding house rules like "well you get one reroll" or "if you get really unlucky you can roll a new character" (no thanks, I've just realized I was wasting time) just use a random roll system that actually works fairly.

It's not wrong, there isn't a wrong way to generate statistics if you're following the core rules. You just don't like it or think it's fair, those are two different things. You'd leave if someone suggest you just reroll a statline? You must be blessed in rolling well all the time. I'm not one of those people however, I've had to do it a few times to get a character that had near average stats. Maybe I'm just used to rolling poorly.

I think what's being said is that the core rules for generating characters randomly are bad and should have been changed a long time ago. A large number of people allow point buy or add house rules for the random rolling, and that's because the rules as written are not good for the game. It's wrong because it creates unbalanced characters, wrong because it interferes with character concepts, and wrong because it encourages a mindset of having to roll dice to decide every little thing, which wastes time and doesn't produce a better story. The game would be improved by having random rolling be relegated to a sidebar, with the default being point buy.

Also, this is a niche industry with a shrinking player base. I'd assume that FFG would like to get some new players in. Most people, if told that they can just roll everything over again are going to either say no and just try working with a disappointing character (this is not fun gameplay) or just decide they'd rather do something else that doesn't punish people for trying to play it. It is bad game design, unequivocally, to try claiming that an error can be fixed by restarting everything and hoping it doesn't repeat itself. That is unacceptable in literally every other kind of process that involves system-human interaction; why should it be acceptable here? I get that you're okay with having to "reboot the computer" several times in a row before it works for you, but you can't claim that it is well-designed.

That and I've got to agree with CPS that whenever someone compares RPGs and video games unfavorably based on unfair randomness in RPGs or player freedom, I'm left shaking my head. If players can't just be whatever they want, why not play a video game? If RPGs must have constant dice rolling, why not play an old school video game that automates that? I thought the point of RPGs is the social aspect, freedom, and making a story, but maybe it's about arbitrary unfair roles and forcing people to conform to bad or good luck?

Weird you agreeing with CPS when he actually insults someone. No offense but randomness doesn't have the capability of being fair, it's random. There are old videogames with random stat rolling, a very good one is interplay's Swords and Serpents. You're missing my point, I like rolling physical dice. What you think the point of RPGs are doesn't have to be the point that I find in them. I find better story in the random chance of dice, you don't. Happens.

Let me rephrase. Claiming that an RPG being more like a video game is intrinsically bad, is a dumb argument, because you now have the burden of proof for why video games are bad. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that most people on here play and enjoy video games, so good luck making this argument. A better argument would to say that the more an RPG becomes like a video game, the more its flaws in comparison to video games become obvious and the less it focuses on its strengths. That would in turn require saying what those strengths it's losing are, though.

The only thing thing you've said about RPGs and video games being distinguished is in rolling dice, which is bizarre, because plenty of video games have random number generators (and even will tell you your percentage chance of success!). Also, that brings to question why you don't just play a board game, instead. The only other thing you've mentioned is story, which dice-rolling does not inherently support, as you can't achieve cohesive narratives out of random input, or at least not ones that are superior to those made from more intended input. There's a difference between working within restrictions (which can foster creativity) and working out of randomness (which is random in how well it can help creativity).

I honestly think it's sad that you feel that random dice can tell a better story than you can. This I think is in part to a bad habit of RPGs failing to give people any real guidance on how to run games. DH2 falls into this same trap where it just plops an uncohesive bunch of random mechanics down and tells you to figure them out for yourself. Of course a random story seems good in this case, because you otherwise have no idea what you should be doing (the "you" in this case being the general second person plural, not you specifically).

That and there's a difference between having dice act like a choose your own adventure for when the outcome is in doubt versus determining how well your character can do things for the rest of the game. No one is saying randomness is bad. Just that it's bad for randomly determine how good your character is at things. Like I said, I wouldn't mind it that much if it was restricted so that characters were at least mathematically equal (although I'd still prefer point buy, but that's just preference), but the current system only serves to make some characters worse than others.

The dice can "force" you to consider alternatives that you end up considering interesting, but just did not think about at first. It also may feel "more real" in that the character's stats being out of the player's control reflects genetic aptitude and upbringing/experiences (including randomised flaws/weaknesses) as opposed to potentially getting minmaxed into the role they are supposed to assume or even develop into. Buzzword: "dumpstat".

This sounds nice enough at first, but it's kind of paternalistic, isn't it? If a player wants to try something different, let him or her do it. If he or she wants to play the same thing every time, let him or her do it. I don't need the game to dictating to me or my players to try out something new. Randomness can also feel less real when a character ends up with weird stats or really good or really bad stats. I don't buy that it's THAT immersion breaking to create characters good at certain things. Keep in mind that out of the billions of people in the Imperium, THIS is the character they've chosen to play. Why shouldn't they get to dictate what that character is like? And again, min-maxing is a system flaw, not a player flaw.

Also, it is frighteningly easy to fall into the trap of cookie-cutter clichés just because of a subconscious image of a "default" character, which is probably the reason for why 90% of all protagonists ever are heterosexual white men. In most cases, there is no agenda, and it doesn't add anything to the story - it's just that it was the first thing the author could think of. As a franchise, 40k is a prime example of this issue. Random chargen can take care of this problem, too.

But as mentioned earlier, this does not apply to all classes. Certain professions will only accept characters that fulfil certain requirements - sometimes in terms of characteristics (elite soldiers, established savants), sometimes gender (Marines, Sisters), sometimes other aspects (depending on local culture). This of course should be taken into consideration. Completely randomised chargen means that it is entirely possible to invalidate character concepts, forcing you to go for a different role. But that's why we have the "hybrid systems" with reassigned rolls, rerolls, etc, right?

Interestingly, gender and sexual preference have never been random rolls in the system.

As I stated earlier that's why you discuss these kinds of things before the game is ever run.

That's not a power gamer. That's the system being crappy. Also, random character generation can easily result in the same things that a point buy can, leading to the same situation. If both situations have the same maximum numbers, it's very possible to get an identically broken character from point buy as in random gen. People are rejecting this argument from you because it makes no sense. That random character will also be even more broken in comparison to other random characters that had no chance for optimization. It's easy to have point-buy not create broken characters, and the current random chargen can produce identically broken characters.

It's not very possible at all, You don't control whether you roll incredibly high when you roll a dice unless your a jedi. As for people rejecting the argument, it's not an argument, it's my opinion I don't really care if people accept it or not. They certainly aren't going to change my mind over it.

I think what's being said is that the core rules for generating characters randomly are bad and should have been changed a long time ago. A large number of people allow point buy or add house rules for the random rolling, and that's because the rules as written are not good for the game. It's wrong because it creates unbalanced characters, wrong because it interferes with character concepts, and wrong because it encourages a mindset of having to roll dice to decide every little thing, which wastes time and doesn't produce a better story. The game would be improved by having random rolling be relegated to a sidebar, with the default being point buy.

Also, this is a niche industry with a shrinking player base. I'd assume that FFG would like to get some new players in. Most people, if told that they can just roll everything over again are going to either say no and just try working with a disappointing character (this is not fun gameplay) or just decide they'd rather do something else that doesn't punish people for trying to play it. It is bad game design, unequivocally, to try claiming that an error can be fixed by restarting everything and hoping it doesn't repeat itself. That is unacceptable in literally every other kind of process that involves system-human interaction; why should it be acceptable here? I get that you're okay with having to "reboot the computer" several times in a row before it works for you, but you can't claim that it is well-designed.

I never encourage rolling for every little thing. Rolling for character generation just makes more entertaining characters that have a better chance at developing in more interesting ways in my opinion. It's not wrong, the main method is rolling in the core book, they offer the ability to point buy.

Why does everything with you have to come back to the industry being niche? I also never claimed it was well designed, I claim merely that's how I do it and enjoy it being done.

Let me rephrase. Claiming that an RPG being more like a video game is intrinsically bad, is a dumb argument, because you now have the burden of proof for why video games are bad. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that most people on here play and enjoy video games, so good luck making this argument. A better argument would to say that the more an RPG becomes like a video game, the more its flaws in comparison to video games become obvious and the less it focuses on its strengths. That would in turn require saying what those strengths it's losing are, though.

The only thing thing you've said about RPGs and video games being distinguished is in rolling dice, which is bizarre, because plenty of video games have random number generators (and even will tell you your percentage chance of success!). Also, that brings to question why you don't just play a board game, instead. The only other thing you've mentioned is story, which dice-rolling does not inherently support, as you can't achieve cohesive narratives out of random input, or at least not ones that are superior to those made from more intended input. There's a difference between working within restrictions (which can foster creativity) and working out of randomness (which is random in how well it can help creativity).

I honestly think it's sad that you feel that random dice can tell a better story than you can. This I think is in part to a bad habit of RPGs failing to give people any real guidance on how to run games. DH2 falls into this same trap where it just plops an uncohesive bunch of random mechanics down and tells you to figure them out for yourself. Of course a random story seems good in this case, because you otherwise have no idea what you should be doing (the "you" in this case being the general second person plural, not you specifically).

That and there's a difference between having dice act like a choose your own adventure for when the outcome is in doubt versus determining how well your character can do things for the rest of the game. No one is saying randomness is bad. Just that it's bad for randomly determine how good your character is at things. Like I said, I wouldn't mind it that much if it was restricted so that characters were at least mathematically equal (although I'd still prefer point buy, but that's just preference), but the current system only serves to make some characters worse than others.

Never said I didn't enjoy video games either. I do, I also enjoy making characters in them based on builds I have in mind. To me however that's where point buying really does well. Not at a table, sorry that's not enough for you. Wait, no I'm really not.

The only thing I've talked about is character generation, not systems as a whole Nim. You're expanding my points into a vastly greater category than their intended to be in. Who said I don't play board games? They certainly don't have anything to do with the topic however. You are correct random dice can't make a story, easily at least, I never implied that random dice make a better story. Merely that I feel they make more developed characters that contribute to a story better.

I honestly don't give a fakking grox dump (Please replace with actual swearing) if you feel anything about me at all. I also never said that at all.

I don't think character's should be equal either really. Some people are just better than others. That's life Nim and it sucks, Something that happens to be a main theme of Warhammer 40K as a whole. it's something I try to portray through the medium known as roleplaying.

You seem to want to expand my opinion on character generation to gaming as a whole. It's not what the opinion is about.

While your opinion on these things is your right to have, it's my opinion that the mechanics you endorse make for worse games, and that those poor mechanics are a large reason why RPGs are a niche industry. It's great that you have fun playing these things, but I think it's important to clarify that they're not really the best way to go for most people. It's like the difference between enjoying I Wanna Be the Guy (a notoriously unfair/difficulty video game) and recommending that more video games should be like that.

There's also the fact that your stated reasons for liking random rolling stray over into objective statements rather than subjective ones.

It's not very possible at all, You don't control whether you roll incredibly high when you roll a dice unless your a jedi. As for people rejecting the argument, it's not an argument, it's my opinion I don't really care if people accept it or not. They certainly aren't going to change my mind over it.

There's no difference between a power gamer giving the max in strength and weapon skill versus a random roll giving the max in both of those, save that the random roll can also max out everything else. The fact that you don't control that means that you can literally power game by accident by rolling a character that is just better than everyone else's.

I never encourage rolling for every little thing. Rolling for character generation just makes more entertaining characters that have a better chance at developing in more interesting ways in my opinion. It's not wrong, the main method is rolling in the core book, they offer the ability to point buy.

Just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's not a bad rule or the wrong one to use in most cases.

I don't think character's should be equal either really. Some people are just better than others. That's life Nim and it sucks, Something that happens to be a main theme of Warhammer 40K as a whole. it's something I try to portray through the medium known as roleplaying.

If some characters aren't meant to be equal, then you should assign some of the players to play as NPCs who don't interact with the story at all unless the other players show up and then get killed off randomly while they're not playing. Do you see how silly that is? It's also much more thematic to Warhammer. This is a roleplaying game in which the players play as protagonists. Their mechanical stats have far more to do with their ability to interact with the game than they do with what kind of character they're playing. You're not making unequal characters, you're making unequal players. Basically saying that they're all going to run a relay together but some of them get to wear running shoes, some of them are barefoot, and some of them have to wear weighted clothing.

You're not actually portraying the setting through roleplaying, you're just playing a game that's unfair.