The Gaming Outpost

  Three weeks ago we were discussing CharGen, that is, character generation in role playing games.  Then we focused on freeform approaches; but there is much to be said for other ways of doing it.  The majority of games break down between two types, randomized and point-based, but there are a wealth of variations of each.

  A lot of gamers don’t like random character generation; they want the ability to use points to build the character of their dreams.  Against the overwhelming hue and cry, let me make the defense for randomized systems.

  There is inherent in the point-based approach this unstated assumption:  all characters are created equal, not in law but in fact.  It suggests that the star football player, the valedictorian, the president of the student government association, and the school nerd are all equally endowed but have strengths in different areas.  I’m reminded of a quip made by a balding professor at the beginning of a speech, just after being introduced by the amply bearded long-haired host:  “I figure we all get the same measure of hormones, and if he wants to use his to grow hair, that’s his choice.”  The fact is that we are not all created equal, even when you account for differences.  Humans are equal in law, but would anyone argue that physicist Stephen Hawking, major league baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan, entrepreneur Donald Trump, President George W. Bush, evangelist Reverend Billy Graham, and actress Angela Lansbury are equal in fact?  And even if after comparing strengths and weaknesses we decided that their abilities all came out roughly to the same amount, would we then be willing to include ourselves and our friends on the same list?  If all game characters are the same, then you don’t need character generation–you just say, Here’s a one each character sheet, please write your character’s name at the top and you’re done.  The game is made interesting because characters have differing strengths and weaknesses, but also to some degree because they have different total strength.  When you look at the heroes of our stories, you realize that they are not equal, either.  No one can argue that the nine companions of the Fellowship of the Ring are equally gifted.  Clearly Gandalf and Aragorn are superior to the others.  Take into account the enemies, and it is obvious that gifts are not equally distributed.  Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, 3PO, R2, Obiwan, and Lando are not equals, nor are they equals with Vader, the Emperor, Darth Maul, or the trade federation representatives.  If these characters were equally gifted from the beginning, the story would be much less interesting.

  Point based systems tend to create characters who are equally gifted at the start, except in those cases in which players either don’t know how to use the system or intentionally create characters weaker than they might.  Randomized systems capture at least some of this aspect of different strengths and different levels of overall strength, making some characters inherently better than others.  That’s more realistic; it also makes for better stories.

  Obviously if the randomized system is geared such that it can create completely worthless characters, it’s flawed.  This is the real problem with most randomized systems:  they create some characters of no value.  They also tend to create mostly average characters.  Fixes to this run the gamut from preventing any player characters from being below-average at anything (a weakness itself, because sometimes the most interesting characters are the incredibly strong brute idiot and the brilliant weakling) to throwing out characters who don’t meet certain minimums (which doesn’t prevent a proliferation of average characters) to creating mostly superheroes in every area (again, eliminating the interesting balances between strengths and weaknesses).  But there are fixes that work.  These ideas might stimulate some of your own.

  One fix is a combined randomized/point based system, in which the range of points to be made available is established but each player must roll to determine where in that range his character falls.  This gives the variation in total ability while giving the players control of where the weaknesses lie.  The same result can be achieved by first rolling stats and then adjusting them by moving or spending points.

  In an interesting reversal of this, I recently saw a suggestion in which the total number of points were fixed but the distribution was random.  The implementation of such a system might be complicated, and it does suffer from the flaw of assuming overall equality of characters and the lack of control over the character strengths by the player, but it provides interesting variation between characters empowered in one or another area and those with generally balanced ability.

  One idea which has been suggested is a sort of template and points system, selecting a basic character type for its specific strengths, and then spending a much smaller pool of points tweaking it–such as getting a stupid brute, and then deciding whether to make him a bit less stupid or a bit more brutish.  What a templates and points system allows the designer to do is devise character concepts, whether as strong as classes or as weak as primary areas of ability, to use as a starting point.  Thus you could have templates for the character who tends to use force, versus the one that tends to think, or negotiate, or outmaneuver.  Each of these could represent a core set of abilities, possibly associated skills, and a splash of points that would be used to customize them.

  Another quite workable and little-used idea is to provide for different die roll choices for different aspects of the character.  For example, you might say that there are six scores which can be any number from one to twenty; the player is allowed to roll, once each:

1. d20 (1 to 20, linear)
2. 3d6 (3 to 18, fairly strong tendency toward 10 or 11)
3. 3d4 (3 to 12, fairly strong tendency toward 7 or 8 )
4. 4d4 (4 to 16, very strong tendency toward 10)
5. 2d10 (2 to 20, weak tendency toward 10 or 11)
6. 2d4+12 (14 to 20, weak tendency toward 15 or 16)

and arrange them in any order desired.  This gives a lot of different curves, assuring that at least one score will be at least 14, at least one will be not greater than 12, only one could be below 2, and so forth.  It is still very random, but it has a bit more stability in the differences between characters.  Clearly you will not get one character with all twenties and one with all twos.

  There are ways to design point-based systems that overcome the concept of equality.  One fascinating idea that has been floated but not, as far as I know, implemented in a published game is the notion of borrowing points at interest.  Thus you would give players a hundred points with which to build characters, and if they spent these hundred points they would have a novice character with which to begin play.  However, if desired, a player could borrow another hundred, two hundred, several hundred points, and use these to expand his character into a master at the high end of ability.  This would appear inequitable at the beginning of play, perhaps; but then, assuming the same points that are used to build the character are also earned during play and spent on improvements, the character who borrowed tremendous numbers of points would have debts to pay, and so would have to be out earning the points just to pay off his debt; the novice character meanwhile would be rapidly catching up, as he has no debts, and in theory at least would pass the master at some point, because due to the interest on the loan the master has to pay more points for the same skills in the long run.  The details of such a system have not yet been worked out.  What’s the rate at which the loan has to be repaid?  What’s the interest rate?  Is there a maximum amount you can borrow?  What happens if the character is in arrears on the loan?  The bookkeeping might be prohibitive.  However, for creating a game in which characters like Luke Skywalker, Obiwan Kenobi, and Han Solo all begin together, this has a lot of promise.  Luke, the one who spent only his starting points, would improve fastest.  Han would have borrowed some extra points for his skills, and so be better than Luke initially but advancing more slowly.  Obiwan would have borrowed very heavily, and now be spending nearly all his earned points on his debt, unable to significantly improve in the foreseeable future.

  There is a contingent of gamers who like the idea of starting on an equal footing (a very gamist idea, although not all gamists value it).  No character generation system is right for every player or for every game.  If you can find a way to get characters to define a character concept and identity and then translate that into game mechanics, as we discussed in CharGen, that’s the best way to get what you want–but it’s a lot harder to do in a fantasy or sci-fi setting, because it’s tougher to get the benchmarks for what’s appropriate.  Having options is important; understanding their strengths and weaknesses is essential, or the options don’t matter.

  Next week, something different.

—–

M. Joseph Young is co-author of Multiverser and Vice President for Development at Valdron Inc.  His many contributions to online literature are indexed for convenience, and he looks forward to discussing these things by e-mail or on our Gaming Outpost forums.