. About the equailty of players from the beginning...again this is no game like monopoly where everyone has to start equal. RPG try to create a alternative world. Not everyone starts equal in the real world either. Players who want that to be transported in their game, might want to roll from the beginning...just like the "stats" of every human are rolled for them

I really have a hard time somebody actually wants to be the guy that contributes less and doesn't really pull his weight. Playing the underdog from a story perspective may be compelling, playing the underdog from a mechanical perspective somewhat less so IMO.

To elaborate, if it's so important for people to play the underdog or an unfair world, why not just roleplay that? Why does it also have to be tied to the players ability to affect the story how he or she wants? It's the difference between being an underdog character and and underdog player. The unlucky player with a worse statline is now dealing with a handicap in the game of telling a story.

I do not see how being mechanically worse in any way limits the impact my character can have on the story in a typical, no-PvP gaming group.

"I want to hack the terminal"

Okay you failed.

"I want to shoot this guy"

Okay you failed so you don't.

"I want to charm this guy"

Okay you failed.

"I want to say that my character does an action, thereby dictating part of what happens in the story."

Sorry, you failed. I tell you what happens.

Just existing in the story isn't the same as having player impact on it. The parts where you don't roll are equally available to everyone else, but for rolling you can end up screwed by bad luck once at the beginning.

I do not see how being mechanically worse in any way limits the impact my character can have on the story in a typical, no-PvP gaming group.

Color me boggled. What game are you playing?

Name one, I've probably played some incarnation of it, either as a one-off on conventions or regularily in a group. DnD, BESM, WoD, Cthulu, Battletech, TDE, Shadowrun, WHFRP, DH1, OW, BC, Lot5R, and probably a good bunch more I've forgotten.

The only thing I've ever seen restricted, because it truly effects the amount a player can impact a story, is social connections and social status. The mechanics in DH2 don't even touch that, because your entire team has the same starting rank.

. About the equailty of players from the beginning...again this is no game like monopoly where everyone has to start equal. RPG try to create a alternative world. Not everyone starts equal in the real world either. Players who want that to be transported in their game, might want to roll from the beginning...just like the "stats" of every human are rolled for them

I really have a hard time somebody actually wants to be the guy that contributes less and doesn't really pull his weight. Playing the underdog from a story perspective may be compelling, playing the underdog from a mechanical perspective somewhat less so IMO.

I guess for some people the stats are the guideline on how to play your character. If you like it, to meet the challenge to play a random character, than you probably like the challenge. Rolling for stats does not necessary mean you get a just bad underdog character...and if you do maybe you like the drama of failing...

Again I would not count me to the group of players who like that nor do I favor the rolling stats system.

The problem with this is that you're basically implying that the mechanics of a game shouldn't be held to task of working properly because players and GM are free to ignore them. The game mechanics are not independent of the story being told. They directly affect how it is told, and it's outcome. If players want to ignore it, that's fine, but that doesn't change core issues with the rules themselves and the kind of game they lead to. You're also implying that there's some dichotomy between "real roleplaying" and engaging in the mechanics of the game. Again, these things are not separate. Mechanics inform story and vice-versa. In addition, if players want a "real roleplaying" experience, there are better options than a roleplaying GAME to do it with. You can't just ignore the game part of the game. There are a couple hundred pages of rules telling me that this is a game I'm playing. Just because some people like to ignore the rules and some people like to heavily engage in them is not an excuse for the rules to not be well-done.

I did not state that game mechanics and the rpg-part are seperated or should be, as I agree the mechanics influence the outcome of the story. I stated you can modify them, so they fit the outcome and game experience you and your group want to have.

And as for the "people are unequal in real life" argument, you're right, but this isn't real life.

True. But many players want the experience to be as close as possible...

It's a game where you play as the main characters and in order to do things in the game that you want, RAW, you need to have good stats. There's no good reason for one player to be 15% less likely to do what he wants than another player because of unlucky and lucky rolls. This isn't a game like monopoly (which is also poorly designed for similar reasons, hello random rolling for movement), but it is still a game. The way you "win" this game is by telling a fun story for your character. That typically means succeeding at your rolls (please I hope no one argues that only power gamers want to succeed at their rolls), which in turn allow you to dictate a part of the story. The more a player fails at rolls, the less of the story he is able to affect. Randomly determining the ability to do this is counter to the point of the game, which is to allow people to tell a story together.

This is quite philosophical. Always succeding is more boring than often failing. With failing in tests, drama rises, it gets thrilling. A story where the players march through the hordes of enemies and overcome every epic obstacle with ease are boring...at least to me. There needs to be challenge. The best RPG rounds I had are those where the players succeeded merely being alive or dieing a heroic death. But! that's only how I like my rpg rounds...

"I want to hack the terminal"

Okay you failed.

"I want to shoot this guy"

Okay you failed so you don't.

"I want to charm this guy"

Okay you failed.

"I want to say that my character does an action, thereby dictating part of what happens in the story."

Sorry, you failed. I tell you what happens.

Just existing in the story isn't the same as having player impact on it. The parts where you don't roll are equally available to everyone else, but for rolling you can end up screwed by bad luck once at the beginning.

The story does not progress only through skill tests...most of the time you talk with each other in character...solving the mystery, forging a battle plan, talking with NPCs. You do not need to have good stats to have impact on a story...in a fight yes.

Besides you try to prove you point through painting a black and white picture. Random characters automatically fail all the time? Even with STR 20, I can lift the crate every fifth time ,)

Personally, I believe it comes down to a very careful balance between succeeding often and thus "looking good", whilst still retaining a chance for failure - big or small, depending on what the characters attempt to do.

Unless you've specifically designed a character to be lacking, it is not fun to play someone who comes off as incompetent just because the dice gods do not smile upon you - especially if a certain amount of capability is a requirement for their profession.

At the same time, there must always be some amount of risk, just so that you keep sweating whilst rolling the dice, and having to keep contingencies ("Gak! That didn't work, now we have to do X!") and alternative approaches ("That'll never work, we have to look for another way.") in mind.

This is quite philosophical. Always succeding is more boring than often failing. With failing in tests, drama rises, it gets thrilling. A story where the players march through the hordes of enemies and overcome every epic obstacle with ease are boring...at least to me. There needs to be challenge. The best RPG rounds I had are those where the players succeeded merely being alive or dieing a heroic death. But! that's only how I like my rpg rounds...

This isn't that philosophical. We're talking about a system where one player has a character who is totally incompetent and another's character is good at everything because one got spectacularly unlucky and the other spectacularly lucky.

Nobody said anything about always succeeding. Nobody has ever advocated for that, so don't waste time arguing against that position. What we've been saying is that the rules should provide a level playing field.

But hey, if you want a game that models real life and sometimes you just get born a weak, drooling idiot, then I really don't see how we'll ever agree on this.

Okay, let me rephrase this. Players have plenty of opportunity to impact the story through roleplay. This opportunity is available to every player. No one randomly rolls at te beginning how many words they are allowed per sentence. Given that everyone has equal opportunity through roleplay, we can safely ignore it as working just fine and say each player has 100% chance to impact narrative there. This leaves the mechanics. Players who roll worse stats will have less chance to tell part of the story, because it is only by succeeding that the player is given this chance. Thus, you wind up with players who have an average of 40% chance to dictate their story and other players with an average of 30% chance to dictate their story. This is unfair. One person has 40% chance mechanicaly on average and other has 30%, and this difference is not balanced by both of them having 100% chance in roleplay. Again, this handicaps the PLAYER, not the CHARACTER.

I'm also not advocating for people always succeeding. The point of the game is that players maximize their resources to try getting the benefits of success. The problem is when those resources aren't the same for every player. Players aren't competing for most successes, but they do all want to contribute equally. That can't happen with random stats.

Like I said, it's fine if people want to use a random rolling system. That doesn't change that it's a bad mechanic that shouldn't be presented as the primary option in the core rulebook.

The issue is more that, despite actual examples to the contrary existing already, some folks seem to think it impossible to include both options in a gaming system.

The issue is more that, despite actual examples to the contrary existing already, some folks seem to think it impossible to include both options in a gaming system.

Sets a bad example for most players and is more likely to result in unfun circumstances due to bad luck. Also, this hasn't been mentioned, but all the people I've known who love random rolling just so happen to arrive with immaculate stats and it seems to encourage powergaming for people who have the time to reroll over and over. It's a bad mechanic that deserves to be phased out of newer games, making them better for new players. Older players are free to add it in if they want. Or at least not include it as the default mechanic in your book.

This isn't that philosophical. We're talking about a system where one player has a character who is totally incompetent and another's character is good at everything because one got spectacularly unlucky and the other spectacularly lucky.

Again just taking extreme examples and trying to paint a black and white picture is besides the point...

Nobody said anything about always succeeding. Nobody has ever advocated for that, so don't waste time arguing against that position. What we've been saying is that the rules should provide a level playing field.

Neither did I write anyone did... so maybe you don't waste your time claiming I did

I do not state that rules should not do this...I simply state that there are people who like random systems and that this position should also be respected.

But hey, if you want a game that models real life and sometimes you just get born a weak, drooling idiot, then I really don't see how we'll ever agree on this.

We don't have to, do we? And once more, I do not care about it that much. I mainly participate here, to strengthen the position that there are other styles to play RPG out there and that they are fine...

Okay, let me rephrase this. Players have plenty of opportunity to impact the story through roleplay. This opportunity is available to every player. No one randomly rolls at te beginning how many words they are allowed per sentence. Given that everyone has equal opportunity through roleplay, we can safely ignore it as working just fine and say each player has 100% chance to impact narrative there. This leaves the mechanics. Players who roll worse stats will have less chance to tell part of the story, because it is only by succeeding that the player is given this chance. Thus, you wind up with players who have an average of 40% chance to dictate their story and other players with an average of 30% chance to dictate their story. This is unfair. One person has 40% chance mechanicaly on average and other has 30%, and this difference is not balanced by both of them having 100% chance in roleplay. Again, this handicaps the PLAYER, not the CHARACTER.

Ok I agree, this leads to imbalances. But that is what you want, if you use the random system...you do not want artificial equal characters and chances. Most times the characters will still be quite equal simply statistic probability.

I'm also not advocating for people always succeeding. The point of the game is that players maximize their resources to try getting the benefits of success. The problem is when those resources aren't the same for every player. Players aren't competing for most successes, but they do all want to contribute equally. That can't happen with random stats.

Like I said, it's fine if people want to use a random rolling system. That doesn't change that it's a bad mechanic that shouldn't be presented as the primary option in the core rulebook.

I did not meant to imply you wanted always succeeding characters. It was meant as an exemplary argument, that always succeeding would not be better.

But I still have to disagree. I do not see the point in maximizing my resources and becoming more powerful. This is for me a side effect or reward for a good session. I think the point in RPG is experiencing a good story, where I contribute to. I for my part strongly emphasize the roleplaying part over the skill tests. Yes, skill tests are important and I always take the results seriously and implement the effects. Except it would hurt the story and my players played well.

For your last sentence: Then we are not too far away after all, but I for my part do not care, what system is advocated to create a character. I use the one I prefer

The issue is more that, despite actual examples to the contrary existing already, some folks seem to think it impossible to include both options in a gaming system.

Sets a bad example for most players and is more likely to result in unfun circumstances due to bad luck. Also, this hasn't been mentioned, but all the people I've known who love random rolling just so happen to arrive with immaculate stats and it seems to encourage powergaming for people who have the time to reroll over and over. It's a bad mechanic that deserves to be phased out of newer games, making them better for new players. Older players are free to add it in if they want. Or at least not include it as the default mechanic in your book.

The storyteller system, as seen in Vampire or Werewolf, was amazing when it came to this matter. It pretty much forced everyone to use points buy, but it provided mountains upon mountains of pages for improving the character portion of your character to match your stats allocations. It was impossible to make a sheet in that game which was either nothing but powergame stats or nothing but roleplay information. The Warhammer 40,000 rpg's do an okay job at this, but they really do need to add more layers to character creation: Factions within your backgrounds, wealth and status while growing up, personal hobbies and stats therein?

In all honesty, random rolling is horrible and I find it all too sweet that the game which is regarded for popularizing actual roleplaying is also the game which required everyone to use points buy without any leniency for random roll. But still, some people just like the fates to decide.

WoD's contribution (the impact of which is...regional at best, and around here practically nonexistant, because we already had a "story based" system before white wolf even got off the ground. And it was random roll based, amusingly enough...) is not an argument for "point buy is more story". It's an argument for "setting info is a good thing, as is rules directly supporting what's there in fluff".