Buy stats with points option.

[Tarumath]

Will there be an option in the GM book for buying stats with points instead of rolling for them? 

I mostly like RQG so far but I really don't like rolling for stats. 

[David Scott]

Page 53 says

Quote

The Gamemaster’s Guide contains optional methods of characteristic generation, and the gamemaster is free to come up with their own methods or point values as desired. It is strongly recommended that all adventurers use the same method of determination.

just use any point system you like. For example, the system in Basic Role Playing 4th edition is completely compatible. It's boxed on page 19.

https://www.chaosium.com/basic-roleplaying/

 

[TrippyHippy]

Divide 80 points among 7 stats - keep the scores within the respective dice ranges. Done. 

[Madrona]

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Divide 80 points among 7 stats - keep the scores within the respective dice ranges. Done. 

Up it to 90 if you feel that's too weak. (It should be about on par with an average person but RQG is ridiculously generous on those rerolls.)

 

Is it weird I've not played with a group that's used pointbuy, even in D&D, for 10 years? Everyone got sick of it and quit it after 3.5 D&D.

[soltakss]

As has been mentioned, you can split any number of points across characteristics. 

Just because it isn't in the rules doesn't mean you cannot do it. Rules are guidelines to help you play, not constraints to stpo you doing enything else.

[Tarumath]

4 minutes ago, soltakss said:

As has been mentioned, you can split any number of points across characteristics. 

Just because it isn't in the rules doesn't mean you cannot do it. Rules are guidelines to help you play, not constraints to stpo you doing enything else.

I mean, I understand the principle but in this case knowing how much points you are "supposed" to use would be better than choosing whatever you want, otherwise player characters would probably end up either underpowered or overpowered.

Changing rules unless you really understand them is just going to break the game most of the time.

[David Scott]

3 minutes ago, Tarumath said:

I mean, I understand the principle but in this case knowing how much points you are "supposed" to use would be better than choosing whatever you want, otherwise player characters would probably end up either underpowered or overpowered.

Changing rules unless you really understand them is just going to break the game most of the time.

It says just make sure you use the same system for all characters. Work out the average, add more if you want. Nothing will be broken in your game.

[Joerg]

2 minutes ago, Tarumath said:

I mean, I understand the principle but in this case knowing how much points you are "supposed" to use would be better than choosing whatever you want, otherwise player characters would probably end up either underpowered or overpowered.

Changing rules unless you really understand them is just going to break the game most of the time.

RQ3 offered a ridiculously low number of characteristic points (IIRC 80) to distribute among the stats, obeying species maximum restrictions. The combined method aimed at 93 points (IIRC) as the cap sum to which rolled stats could be raised with up to ten characteristic points allocated by player choice, obeying species maximum restrictions.

Characters having higher stats aren't really game breakers - it is legitimate (though exceedingly rare) to roll up a character with maxed values in all stats. One of the few cases where the old joke that the character's only weakness is his humility might be true.

Having maxed out stats all over doesn't make a RQ character a Mary Sue. The skills play too much of a role, and maximal hit points are nice to have, but will result in maybe 2 or 3 more location hit points than your average human - nothing an overhead troll maul or a trollkin spear impale/critical in the abdomen, chest or head couldn't cure.

[styopa]

if you want to give all players the same building blocks, let them allocate using the 4e method: 16,14,13,12,11,10 (RQ has one more stat, so it's up to you which you give them; I'd probably say another 13 or if you're feeling generous, a 15 since it's missing from the sequence.  

Then let them allocate stats as they want.  The "power scaling" of stats is approximately the same as D&D.*

*It's worth noting in chargen that RQG has decided to go back to RQ2 break-point-based stat bonuses, instead of RQ3's smooth scaling.  That means that:

for HP, the breakpoints for locations are at CON 10+, 13+, and 16+

for skill bonuses, the critical breakpoint is 13.  (a 13 will give you the same bonus as 14, 15, or 16).

[PhilHibbs]

45 minutes ago, Joerg said:

RQ3 offered a ridiculously low number of characteristic points (IIRC 80) to distribute among the stats, obeying species maximum restrictions. The combined method aimed at 93 points (IIRC) as the cap sum to which rolled stats could be raised with up to ten characteristic points allocated by player choice, obeying species maximum restrictions.

80 is 1.5 points above average for a full set of straight dice rolls, so not really ridiculously low.

[simonh]

1 hour ago, Tarumath said:

I mean, I understand the principle but in this case knowing how much points you are "supposed" to use would be better than choosing whatever you want, otherwise player characters would probably end up either underpowered or overpowered.

Changing rules unless you really understand them is just going to break the game most of the time.

A GM can break any game with the greatest of ease, or even a thoughtless miscalculation anyway. Being a little under or over generous isn’t going to break a game by itself. As long as the stats are within the rollable range and not egregiously above or below an average set of rolls, you’ll be fine.

Im glad the game doesn’t waste space on alternate ways to do this or that. Whatever alternate systems they put in for generating stats, a lot of GMs would just use their own favourite method anyway.

Simon Hibbs

[Unferth]

IMO it depends on whether you're trying to approximate the listed die rolls with none of the optional "It's ok to reroll/discard" rules, to approximate die rolling with some or all of the reroll rules, or to match the pregens.

Rerolling 1s, one of the reroll rules, shifts the average value of a d6 from 3.5 to 4, meaning the average of a 3d6 stat shifts from 10.5 to 12. A 2d6+6 stat shifts from an average of 13 to 14. So across the board average stats for such rolls would be 5*12+2*14 = 60 + 28 = 88 points. Slightly less if you read it as "reroll 1s once" rather than "reroll until you get a non-1 result".

The optional "you may discard the stats if the average is 12 or below" rule would give a cutoff of 84 stat points.

All of which would be before the 3 discretionary points granted for characters with a total of 92 of fewer points.

So you could easily make a case for 87, 91, or 95 points - the first from the minimum average cutoff after the floating +3, the second from average rolls, and the third from the cap to qualify for the floating +3. Again, all before rune bonuses.

All of which ignores the issue of picking exactly the breakpoints for skill bonuses - already a slight risk given the floating +3 most rolled characters will have and rune bonuses. But I trust anyone considering using bought rather than rolled stats can work around that either through group consensus or perhaps adding some random jitter to the bought stats - EG reserve some of the points to be distributed randomly or perhaps by the GM.

The pregens are all around 100 stat points give or take 2-3 points each after rune bonuses, so either they suggest a very generous ability score generation method or are not useful as examples. If I wanted to take them as indicative of the kinds of characters the game was designed for, I'd give at least 95 stat points before rune bonuses. They certainly make it look like 3d6/2d6+6 unmodified is not even close to the "default".

[Madrona]

3 minutes ago, Unferth said:

The pregens are all around 100 stat points give or take 2-3 points each after rune bonuses, so either they suggest a very generous ability score generation method or are not useful as examples. If I wanted to take them as indicative of the kinds of characters the game was designed for, I'd give at least 95 stat points before rune bonuses. They certainly make it look like 3d6/2d6+6 unmodified is not even close to the "default".

I TBH, would take between 93 and 95 as a point buy thing. But I'd probably, if my players objected to rolling, just tell them to take the D&D elite array +an average score and deal with it.
( 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. ) + an 11. Cos 83 is A-O-K by me.

[Joerg]

47 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

80 is 1.5 points above average for a full set of straight dice rolls, so not really ridiculously low.

Let's be honest: how long have you played a character with characteristics like that in an ongoing campaign? A character with average stats throughout has plenty of disadvantages, like being unable to cause damage to an opponent in leather armor even for unparried hits quite often. Without the damage bonus, playing any kind of fighter is an exercise in "pling", as the range of weapons you are limited to doesn't really offer a fixed number added to the die roll.

"Roll stat times 5" is a penalty game, too. Even more so when it comes to "stat times 3".

To make a character at least somewhat above average, you have to choose dump stats (note the plural). If you are fine with playing the charming damsel in distress in your party of adventurers, no big deal. If the dumb hitter is your forte, bad luck - 8 is the minimum score for INT. RQ3 allowed to play the ugly brute (APP 5 or less) who still could inspire and use spirit spells, but RQG returns with CHA, combining leadership and spirit mastery with appearance.

One in four characters will have one stat or more above 16 without any modifications. Every second player will have at least one stat at 16 using unmodified dice.

True, you can buy down SIZ and INT to 10 to get these 6 points to raise a stat to 16 or more, and a second stat at 14 or so. Enough to give you a damage bonus and a slightly better strike rank, and to be able to wield a heavy hitter weapon. Or you can opt for the nerd wizard with pitiful STR and CON - the very D&D stereotype that RQ made obsolete. You can plan on lowering trainable stats at the start of your career, opting to spend valuable time and effort to get them to somewhat effective levels without capping your personal maximum attainable value well under species maximum (as per RQ3).

Playing an imperfect character can be challenging and fun. Playing an ineffective character can be jarring, leading to a much higher death rate of such characters even beyond their greater vulnerability.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

 Or you can opt for the nerd wizard with pitiful STR and CON - the very D&D stereotype that RQ made obsolete.

RQ made it non-compulsory, but you absolutely can do it, and I have done so. In fact that was the primary answer to the problem of crap stats - if you can assign them, assign them to STR, CON, SIZ, CHA and play a sorcerer or shaman (although low CHA is no longer a shaman option).

And as a general principle of game design, it's better for the GM to give than to take away, so the rules should not give too much by default, and the GM should be encouraged to supply the generosity. This would tend to start the GM-player relationship off on the right footing.

Edited June 4, 2018 by PhilHibbs
Principle of generosity

[Roko Joko]

4 hours ago, Tarumath said:

I mean, I understand the principle but in this case knowing how much points you are "supposed" to use would be better than choosing whatever you want, otherwise player characters would probably end up either underpowered or overpowered.

Changing rules unless you really understand them is just going to break the game most of the time.

I think RQ is much less aggressively balanced than say D&D 5e, where point buy is standard (in practice IME, and even then, preferences vary and there isn't a firm default.)

But if you read between the lines it seems evident that there's a guideline of 90ish.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Roko Joko

[Greville]

12 hours ago, Madrona said:

I TBH, would take between 93 and 95 as a point buy thing. But I'd probably, if my players objected to rolling, just tell them to take the D&D elite array +an average score and deal with it.

I agree with Madrona in terms of a straight point total, especially as the rules (on page 53) say:
 

Quote

 If the total of all these results is 92 or less, you may allot up to 3 more points to your adventurer’s characteristics, as desired.

The average would be 13.5. The only issue with point buys is that players can get carried away min-maxing, but given that Runequest is pretty unforgiving, the in-game consequences of having some very low stats would prove educational for all.

[Jeff]

I'm perfectly happy if folk come up with their own point-buy mechanics, although I've got to confess that I am biased against them in RQ. To me, what is significant about rolling dice is not the spread (I think the rules make it very clear that I am perfectly happy to let players discard lousy rolls) - it is that it usually generates numbers that are slightly "imperfect" and characters that are not truly "optimised". A character's STR+SIZ might end up being just a bit too low for that higher damage modifier, SIZ+CON might result in you still having only 3 hit points in the arms, and so on.
In my experience, point-built characters in BRP systems tend to feel "constructed," because they tend to be fully optimised for various modifiers. I admit that is only an aesthetic feeling, but it is the same as with the Family Background - I always let a player choose a result if they think it is important for their character concept, but most of the time they just end up rolling results because they don't. As a result, the results feel more "natural".

[simonh]

IMHO roll and allocate generally gives the best results. You put your best stats on the ones that matter the most to the things you want your character to be good at, but can't guarantee hitting all the right optimization points spot on. Bear in mind a lot of sub-optimal stats can be mitigated by magic. There are spells to augment Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma, etc and if your relevant stat is only a point or two below some threshold a small magical bump can make a big difference. Conversely highly optimized characters tend to be too far away from the next break point for such magic to be effective.

Simon Hibbs

[Tarumath]

To be honest I said buy points as an example but anything that isn't random and out of the player control, arrays and that kind of thing are just as good and are probably saner alternatives to rolling stats if you think that buy points systems are abusive.

The problem I have with rolling stats is that luck chooses what kind of character you will play instead of yourself, makes players inherently unequal and ruin the character you are trying to make if rolling is not the first creation step (even choosing your runes will generally be done with a cult in mind); unless you reroll so much after bad results that rolling in the first place is a waste of time.

IMO even by old school standards, rolling stats was always a weird thing much more appropriate for generating dozens of characters for meat grinders like Tomb of Horror than as a sane and worthwhile measure against min-maxing.

31 minutes ago, simonh said:

IMHO roll and allocate generally gives the best results. You put your best stats on the ones that matter the most to the things you want your character to be good at, but can't guarantee hitting all the right optimization points spot on. Bear in mind a lot of sub-optimal stats can be mitigated by magic. There are spells to augment Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma, etc and if your relevant stat is only a point or two below some threshold a small magical bump can make a big difference. Conversely highly optimized characters tend to be too far away from the next break point for such magic to be effective.

Simon Hibbs

I dunno, these justifications about why rolling stats is good begin to sound convulated, that kind of results still sound like much more of a problem than a player trying to minmax a little too much with their starting stats generally is.

It's not an horrible problem that ruins everything...but you could say the same thing about all bad things without real benefits that just happen to not be that bad.

And it makes the point about minmaxing moot given that the reason minmaxing is bad is that it's not fun if a player is much stronger than the others but power imbalance between the players is a premise of rolling stats so I don't even get how it's helping against the problems caused by minmaxing if you include them in the game by default; what is the point of curing a disease if it's to get all of its symptoms?

[RosenMcStern]

The core problem is that character generation should produce a character that you have fun playing. Rolled, sub-optimal stats are appropriate if they produce a challenge that your character has to overcome during play. However, if a low stat gets in the way of developing the character concept you have in mind(low STR and DEX halving your skill with weapons if you want to play a fighter, low INT preventing you from learning sorcery, etc.), then rolling stats becomes anti-fun. It is not a problem of munchkinism but of actually being able to play the role you prefer.

I think your problem is more the fact that the "Generate characters you have fun playing" principle is not written in boldface in the rules, rather than the fact that you do not have an official method for point buy. 

It is also true, however, that having the standard rules say "You must roll" may bring the GM to misinterpreting the requirement and not letting you choose the character you prefer. It must be very clear that you are not supposed to play the character that the dice decide for you - unless you are actually willing to roll everything randomly. 

[soltakss]

The rules, as they stand, have some variety. You roll on Characteristics, but if they are uniformly low, you can add some points. Runes increase Characteristics. There are options in the rules that allow you to pretty much roll whatever you want. It even says that different ways of rolling up Characteristics will appear in the GM Guide.

However, for a game like RuneQuest, having higher Characteristics doesn;t break the game, so if you have 85, 90 or even 95 points to spread across 7 Characteristics, it won't break the game.

What might cause problems is inconsistency, so ine player rolling and another uising a Points Buy. I don't think even that will break things, but some players will get their calculators out and say "Your Characteristics before Rune Modification add up to 93 but I only had 90 points to spend, Waaaaaahaaahaaa!".

[PhilHibbs]

1 minute ago, soltakss said:

What might cause problems is inconsistency, so ine player rolling and another uising a Points Buy. I don't think even that will break things, but some players will get their calculators out and say "Your Characteristics before Rune Modification add up to 93 but I only had 90 points to spend, Waaaaaahaaahaaa!".

That's why the GM Pack will come with a rolled up newspaper.

[styopa]

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

(Rolling) usually generates numbers that are slightly "imperfect" and characters that are not truly "optimised". 

I *personally* would agree with you 100%...but I rather suspect is that is because of our common ages and history.  It's certainly not the gamer marketplace today, where the bulk of players likely played a handful or more of computer/console adventure games before they ever cracked a PnP roleplaying game book.  The paradigm today is very much not "you get what you get and the fun is in dealing with it"...it's "you get to play what you want to play because that's what's really fun".  I'll leave the Psych 101 implications of what this means generationally to others.  

[styopa]

6 hours ago, Tarumath said:

IMO even by old school standards, rolling stats was always a weird thing much more appropriate for generating dozens of characters for meat grinders like Tomb of Horror than as a sane and worthwhile measure against min-maxing.

Not true at all.  I don't think I "designed" a single character for the first 4-6 years I played RPGs.