A question on point-buy systems

[ERYFKRAD]

How does one work out how many points are to be given to be distributed between stats?

For example, Fallout has seven stats, that can range from one to ten, so you end with a total of 40 stats distributed one way or the other. AoD has 6 stats, and about 16 points to assign between them, though each stat ranges from 4-10 rather than 1-10, so effectively you end up with 39 stats distributed either which way, though of course you would not have the extremely varying builds as in FO. If I recall correctly, DnD, maybe 5e, not sure, allows different limits to the point-buy of stats, depending on the level of challenge decided upon.

Is there some mathematical relation between no. of stats and the points you can distribute between them, or is the allotment of points that can be distributed based on trial and error?

Vault Dweller, any thoughts?

 

[Norfleet]

How does one work out how many points are to be given to be distributed between stats?

In some cases, tradition dictates how many points you should give. Other times, you pull a number from your ass that befits the range of stats and the level of power you want characters to be have.

 

[SniperHF]

You asked about maths, well maths are teh hard so I'll talk about other stuff

I think you have to look at how your level progression is structured and what type of game it is.


So you used Age of Decadence as an example, which is generally task based experience rewards, a high degree of character influence on results, and a short game. It has a sort of cascading plateau leveling.

Since the character system matters a lot you want each of your choices to have a huge perceived impact to coincide with that actual impact in-game. So for example back when AoD had that 1-300 system on skills it generally lacked the feeling of significance that was truly present when spending points. You didn't feel it until after you made your choice and saw the results. But when they switched it to the current system of 1-10 with increasing costs per level it better conveyed that feeling of each point mattering. If you weren't meta-gaming, you agonized over which points to place where. But in the old system you just sort of chucked them everywhere to see what worked until it was too late.

SO getting back to the actual question on attributes, I'd say similar ideas apply but AoD is a special case because it doesn't have +attributes on level up. It's your baseline, it's your concept instead. So when you think about how to represent the increases, capping it at 10 makes sense since you want the person putting a full 10 points in strength and CON to know that character is a BAFM. If AoD had more attributes with greater granularity it would reduce the sense of your character creation choices mattering and once you hit the game you'd be surprised to find out how much it does.


But let's take another game on the opposite spectrum that I happen to be playing now and is a convenient example, Divintiy 2. In Div 2 your attribute choices largely mean fuck-all since you get dozens of them. Heck you don't even pick attributes to start the game. Div 2 is almost straight up linear in it's progression, it's a combat romp and you're meant to keep on fighting and fighting. Find yourself getting too weak? pump constitution. It's a moment to moment thing and not about planning out what you want to do. Just keep getting more awesomer.


Underrail is a lot more similar to AoD but it has more granularity and the feat system to consider. The most fun thing you do with the Underrail character system is plan out how after a set of 5 levels your character will look. It's not about passing a check or getting past a couple quests to hit that next plateau. Instead you plan out how you want access to Feat X,Y,And Z and in that order so you know you need this many attributes in perception now and later you'll pump will to get another couple feats which will make your character a psi-power murdering powerhouse.


tl;dr, think about the goal of the character system and how the player will react upon seeing the character screen and what impression it will give. Tailor the maths to fit that after the fact.

 

[vivec]

This is a good question.

A point-buy system can be used to 'balance' the game. A crucial aspect of a game is the challenge. If the player has too much to spend of the critical resource, the game is easy. To prevent that from happening, the developer by instinct or by playtesting can decide how to balance to satisfy a challenge level.

Interestingly, in my D&D sessions, this question comes up often, why I use the 24 point system instead of the default 28-point one. The reason is that my gut *feel*ing is that anything above 24 makes the game too easy.

 

[Norfleet]

Of course, the flipside of that is that the fewer points you have, the more critical it becomes to minmax those points, resulting in a lot of cookie-cutter characters.

 

[Endemic]

Fallout was 1-10 but in practice you couldn't lower more than 2 or so stats to 1 (aside from save editing), since they all start at 5, with 5 points to allocate in addition. You were required to use all your attribute points in chargen. If you used Gifted it was a minimum of 2.

 

[Lhynn]

Of course, the flipside of that is that the fewer points you have, the more critical it becomes to minmax those points, resulting in a lot of cookie-cutter characters.

This will always be the case unless you give enough points to max all critical attributes. Its the reason i dislike point buy.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller, any thoughts?

I'd say it depends entirely on what you want to achieve design-wise. In other words, it's about balance.

 

[vivec]

Of course, the flipside of that is that the fewer points you have, the more critical it becomes to minmax those points, resulting in a lot of cookie-cutter characters.

Not really. It all depends on how the content is implemented. Check AoD. All the combinations, even a 4 4 4 9 9 10, potentially, can carve out their story. in cRPGs it's all about content.

 

[DavidBVal]

As pointed above, it is meaningless to say "how good is system of spending X points on Y stats" without also considering what effects such points will actually have, and how varied are the stat requirements of the game. Most RPGs out there have completely useless stats, or stats that can be neglected having no in-game consequences. That will lead to minmaxing, or A/B builds, so the perceived variety of options is not real.

Personally I think stats should be rolled, especially on games in which you build a party, not a single character, and there's enough stats and other rolled factors to make it difficult to simply reroll to success.

 

[Lilura]

Point buy works fine in 3.x RPGs like NWN, NWN2 and ToEE.

The real probs start when the DM has to balance their campaign around builds (made up of not just ability scores, but also feats, skills, classes, special abilities and spells), and party compositions (i.e, multiple builds).

This is where you need to say a big "fuck you" to a few ppl; like, f.e, those who can't build characters and compose parties. Never design for these ppl who don't RTFM, they are irrelevant. Yes, at this point, 90% of pro devs will walk away: well, they won't be missed.

Balance for semi-optimal builds and compositions, and use your encyclopedic knowledge of the systems to ensure players are, at all times, given the right length of rope with which to hang themselves; and punish severely with the threat of kill off if they neglect to uphold the standard of play demanded of them (it was because they were lazy, but don't worry, they will learn fast and feel elite once you start rewarding them for good play).

This is the only way to make a good RPG.

 

[Sacred82]

Personally I think stats should be rolled, especially on games in which you build a party, not a single character, and there's enough stats and other rolled factors to make it difficult to simply reroll to success.

You can make a point-buy system with few points, or you can roll for stats with few dice. You can make a point-buy system with many points to spend, or you can roll for stats with many dice. The only difference I see is that rolling is more unpredictable, thus harder to balance and making it harder to make builds that need a certain exact attribute score.

Please enlighten me what I've missed.

 

[vivec]

Lilura
Indeed. But you don't even have to do that in D&D. The system is built to punish idiots. You can make a Monk/Bard/Wizard hybrid. Go ahead, be my guest. Good luck trying to get anything done, though. Also, good luck surviving the first round of every battle.

 

[Lilura]

Well, the NWN OC is such a faceroll you could actually get through with a build like that. What I had in mind was Swordflight, which is made for the top 5% of players. And if they don't use consumables and STOP THINK before acting, they are severely punished or killed off (consumables are used for balance, unlike most RPGs, where they're there just to make an already EZ encounter even EZer).

 

[vivec]

Gotta give this a try now. Goddamnit. There goes my weekend.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Of course, the flipside of that is that the fewer points you have, the more critical it becomes to minmax those points, resulting in a lot of cookie-cutter characters.

Not really. Unless attributes are the only part of the character system, there is scope for creativity in creating a character. For instance some of those weird AoD builds like that guy who had no points in defense, but had them in blacksmithing who could offer a hell of a challenge in the arena.

Haven't really seen any RPG with such a miserly allocation of points that makes it utterly vital to min-max stats/attributes at least. Skills are a different matter though.

 

[DavidBVal]

Personally I think stats should be rolled, especially on games in which you build a party, not a single character, and there's enough stats and other rolled factors to make it difficult to simply reroll to success.

You can make a point-buy system with few points, or you can roll for stats with few dice. You can make a point-buy system with many points to spend, or you can roll for stats with many dice. The only difference I see is that rolling is more unpredictable, thus harder to balance and making it harder to make builds that need a certain exact attribute score.

Please enlighten me what I've missed.

Randomness is the salt of life.

Imagine you get a fantastic strenght for your warrior, but other very low stats that lead to poor saves, yet you decide to go with it, and that leads to a different play experience, one you might have never chosen on your own. Of course, assuming the system and game are able to make such things matter.

 

[Sacred82]

Randomness is the salt of life.

Imagine you get a fantastic strenght for your warrior, but other very low stats that lead to poor saves, yet you decide to go with it, and that leads to a different play experience, one you might have never chosen on your own. Of course, assuming the system and game are able to make such things matter.

If you like the idea, chances are you would have chosen to do it anyway (especially if it's well done - like low Int fighters in Arcanum). If you don't like the concept or the way it plays out, you will probably just start over. I just don't see the point in rewarding the player for length of the entire game for some lucky rolls at character creation, or punisihing him for the entire playtime for a few bad rolls at the start.

 

[Lhynn]

Not really. Unless attributes are the only part of the character system, there is scope for creativity in creating a character. For instance some of those weird AoD builds like that guy who had no points in defense, but had them in blacksmithing who could offer a hell of a challenge in the arena.

Haven't really seen any RPG with such a miserly allocation of points that makes it utterly vital to min-max stats/attributes at least. Skills are a different matter though.

You make it sound like min/maxing was some sort of skill.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

You make it sound like min/maxing was some sort of skill.

Granted, it's not particularly hard to do for most.

 

[DavidBVal]

Not that stat allocation is actually meaningful in 3.5 past the mid levels. a +2 here or there, when you end up rolling with a +24.

 

[vivec]

Not that stat allocation is actually meaningful in 3.5 past the mid levels. a +2 here or there, when you end up rolling with a +24.

That is simply not true in regular D&D until level 12 or so. Before this level, the max BAB you are getting is clearly benefited by a +2.

The real and very well known problem is that D&D has a linear increment in abilities/skills/hp. That results in high levels being ridiculous like you suggest, and magic at level broken.

This is why the best D&D experience is below level 12. This is very easily fixed by making the leveling pay less with each increase.

More importantly, however, this has nothing whatsoever to do with point buy/rolling.

 

[DavidBVal]

Not that stat allocation is actually meaningful in 3.5 past the mid levels. a +2 here or there, when you end up rolling with a +24.

That is simply not true in regular D&D until level 12 or so. Before this level, the max BAB you are getting is clearly benefited by a +2.

The real and very well known problem is that D&D has a linear increment in abilities/skills/hp. That results in high levels being ridiculous like you suggest, and magic at level broken.

This is why the best D&D experience is below level 12. This is very easily fixed by making the leveling pay less with each increase.

More importantly, however, this has nothing whatsoever to do with point buy/rolling.

couldn't agree more, really. I meant mostly NWN/NWN2, in TOEE every stat counts.

 

[DraQ]

How does one work out how many points are to be given to be distributed between stats?
(...)
Is there some mathematical relation between no. of stats and the points you can distribute between them, or is the allotment of points that can be distributed based on trial and error?

Two off the top of my head:

1. Normal distribution. Most of the traits IRL follow it, so presumably ones in cRPG should too. This is what rolling multiple die for attributes simulates, actually (without any of that roll 4 keep 3 best faggotry). With that you can calculate what percentage of people would be that far from the mean and map out what the corresponding score mean in-universe. Then, for point buy, you can determine how normal or special a character with given number of points would be and adjust accordingly.
2. Entropy. This is based on maximizing the build diversity. Assuming perfect synergy (every combination of skills plays qualitatively different from any other combination of skills even if they overlap) you get the most possible differently playing builds when your point distribution is half-full. For less than perfect synergy you'll probably want to round down, as extra skills will mean redundant routes, rather than combination based routes, but you may still benefit from those by having routes that are dead (even literally) ends forcing player to think about how they will approach an obstacle instead of just applying a skill they have and by having less than full complement of routes, knowing that this won't leave players on the ice because they didn't pick the right stats. Ideally, half-full should probably account for distribution of different difficulty "checks", rather than mere point values.