the things table top can't seem to get right

[Jay R]

Also using a DnDish example I aren’t sure how creative I am being if I roll average, dex, int, wis and cha, great str and con and thinking I will be a fighter.

If "a fighter" is all you build, then no, you're not being creative with it, and you probably are better off with a game in which you choose everything, and the focus is entirely about mechanics.

But if you're building Sven, the wanderer from the north, whose high constitution comes from enduring the long winters, but whose lack of high mental abilities is related to the boring and repetitive life in the fjords, who has traveled south to alleviate boredom, who doesn't use words to try to convince the king that orcs are raiding, but merely throws seven orc heads at his feet, whose first impression of another man is based almost entirely on strength, and takes a long time to learn to respect a mage, then you are being creative.

Note how much of that description was based on the stats you described.

In a game of original D&D, I rolled STR 4, DEX 16, CHA high, WIS low, and the rest low-to-average. I was considering dumping him, when the DM said, "That's a nine-year-old kid." So I went with it. He became David, a nine-year-old street kid who was a 1st level Thief. (There was more background than that, of course.)

He once took down a sentry by walking up sniffling and crying, and saying, "Where's my daddy? I can't find him. I'm cold, and I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'm thirsty, and I want my daddy!" As the sentry turned to get some food, the kid sneak attacked.

Even in 3.5e, the stat sheet with all the feats and skills and chosen stats is only about one half of my PC's character development.

[ImNotTrevor]

If "a fighter" is all you build, then no, you're not being creative with it, and you probably are better off with a game in which you choose everything, and the focus is entirely about mechanics.

But if you're building Sven, the wanderer from the north, whose high constitution comes from enduring the long winters, but whose lack of high mental abilities is related to the boring and repetitive life in the fjords, who has traveled south to alleviate boredom, who doesn't use words to try to convince the king that orcs are raiding, but merely throws seven orc heads at his feet, whose first impression of another man is based almost entirely on strength, and takes a long time to learn to respect a mage, then you are being creative.

Note how much of that description was based on the stats you described.

In a game of original D&D, I rolled STR 4, DEX 16, CHA high, WIS low, and the rest low-to-average. I was considering dumping him, when the DM said, "That's a nine-year-old kid." So I went with it. He became David, a nine-year-old street kid who was a 1st level Thief. (There was more background than that, of course.)

He once took down a sentry by walking up sniffling and crying, and saying, "Where's my daddy? I can't find him. I'm cold, and I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'm thirsty, and I want my daddy!" As the sentry turned to get some food, the kid sneak attacked.

Even in 3.5e, the stat sheet with all the feats and skills and chosen stats is only about one half of my PC's character development.

That first one is still a Fighter, with fluff attached. Which is an entirely different matter than picking a class to play as or getting creative with the build. Saying you can fluff anything doesn't actually mean much when your mechanical options are limited. There is no difference between a Cleave by Generic Fighter 84 and a Cleave by Ragnar, Knight of Sovetska, whose sword was forged by his dying uncle from iron extracted from the blood of 1000 orcs. Both will do the same thing: hit another guy.

Complaining about a randomly imposed lack of build options is a perfectly valid complaint.


As an example that not all random rolling is done terribly:
Stars Without Number does a good job meshing random rolls and player agency. You roll stats randomly, but if your total modifiers add up to -1 or less, you can reroll. (So that nobody is trash. It is worth noting that there is no method to boost up your base attributes.) Once you pick a class, you have two Prime Attributes. You can instantly buff either to a 14 (a +1 modifier). You can also take points from stats higher than 13 and spend them into attributes below 8, but can neither lower a stat beyond 12 nor raise one above 10.

Randomly rolled, but you can nudge them about a little, giving the player increased agency for their character build. I find it very elegant and makes for a nice mix of interesting stat arrays and happy players.

[Earthwalker]

If "a fighter" is all you build, then no, you're not being creative with it, and you probably are better off with a game in which you choose everything, and the focus is entirely about mechanics.
But if you're building Sven, the wanderer from the north, whose high constitution comes from enduring the long winters, but whose lack of high mental abilities is related to the boring and repetitive life in the fjords, who has traveled south to alleviate boredom, who doesn't use words to try to convince the king that orcs are raiding, but merely throws seven orc heads at his feet, whose first impression of another man is based almost entirely on strength, and takes a long time to learn to respect a mage, then you are being creative.
Note how much of that description was based on the stats you described.

It certainly is a creative description but there is nothing in the world stopping a player having the same creativity with stats that he has obtained with point buy. It’s not randomness that made the description it’s just that you like rationalizing your stats, which can be done with points buy.

In a game of original D&D, I rolled STR 4, DEX 16, CHA high, WIS low, and the rest low-to-average. I was considering dumping him, when the DM said, "That's a nine-year-old kid." So I went with it. He became David, a nine-year-old street kid who was a 1st level Thief. (There was more background than that, of course.)
He once took down a sentry by walking up sniffling and crying, and saying, "Where's my daddy? I can't find him. I'm cold, and I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'm thirsty, and I want my daddy!" As the sentry turned to get some food, the kid sneak attacked.
Even in 3.5e, the stat sheet with all the feats and skills and chosen stats is only about one half of my PC's character development.

This was touching on my other point. Low stats seem to be the ones that force more creativity in the game. Again it’s also true with point buy you could make the same character.
I am still not convinced that random rolls = creativity.
I can be creative with random rolls and I can do the same with point buy.

I have nothing against random generation I just don’t believe that it is the best way to increase creativity, because sometimes it just doesn’t.

[Democratus]

It certainly is a creative description but there is nothing in the world stopping a player having the same creativity with stats that he has obtained with point buy. It’s not randomness that made the description it’s just that you like rationalizing your stats, which can be done with points buy.

With points buy there is no need for rationalizing because you place the scores wherever you like. The concept drives the decision on what scores to buy for what stats.

With randomly rolled stats, the result of the die rolls drives the concept. You look at what you ended up with and then back-fill why the stats are what they are.

Not saying one is better than the other. But there is a difference.

Edit: There are also stat combinations that simply aren't possible with point buy or standard array.

[PersonMan]

Some of the greatest characters i've ever played had average stats and spent most of their time talking or thinking their way out of situations.

...Which just runs into the issue of "Wait, so I need 18 Strength to get my +4 damage, but he can play the smart, quick-on-his-feet guy with only 11 Intelligence and 12 Charisma?"

[goto124]

From what I gather, if someone is low on ideas and wants something to work with, random rolls can help. As can other tools such as random character generators.

[Earthwalker]

With points buy there is no need for rationalizing because you place the scores wherever you like. The concept drives the decision on what scores to buy for what stats.
With randomly rolled stats, the result of the die rolls drives the concept. You look at what you ended up with and then back-fill why the stats are what they are.

Equally there is no need to rationalize with random stats. You can but certainly nothing requires you to.
If you want to rationalize your stats you can.
Neither system NEEDS it.

Not saying one is better than the other. But there is a difference.
.

They are certainly different. I think I am talking myself in circles. At the end of the day some people like point buy and some people like random generated.
I kind of feel the advantage of point buy is that everyone starts on the same footing stat wise. Weather this is an advantage for a system is a big debate.
I can see some logic in the thought “we want the PCs to have a balance between them so we are going to use point buy in our system”.
I can’t even see the counter in the random rolls set as the statement; we want different stat distribution for our players and so are using random generation. After all random generation might end up with players with the same stats.

Edit: There are also stat combinations that simply aren't possible with point buy or standard array.

Again this is true. Not sure if that is a pro or a con.

[Cosi]

I don't buy random stats driving role playing. If I'm not interested in a detailed background for my Fighter, I'm not going to magically become interested in that because he is instead a Wizard as a result of 18 INT and 8 STR. I'm just going to make a Wizard just as bland as my Fighter would have been. If you want to get people to role play more as a result of character creation, give them a chance to pick up a character hook with some of their mechanical abilities. Maybe backgrounds give you extra class skills, which means the Wizard's player takes Street Rat so that he can get into Unseen Seer more easily. And that gives him some background elements to work with. Maybe he stole his first spellbook. Maybe he was trained as a Wizard after a wandering mage noticed his talents. Maybe something else. But it's a much better hook than "has a 12 in DEX".

[Tanarii]

How I roleplay:

1) Make my decision as the player (e.g. I want to preserve my character, even when she would want to save that innocent child)
2) Refluff decision to make it look like my character did it (e.g. My character freaks out at the last second, failing to protect the child)

Is this bad?

Its not bad. Let me make that clear, because my next statement is going to sound like calling it bad. Everyone defines roleplaying differently But personally, by my definition I made upthread for roleplaying, I'd call that meta-gaming instead of roleplaying. You're making decisions for your character that are explicitly out of character, instead of in character, then changing what happens in-game to justify them.

Like I said, my definition is considerably different even from the original players. By my definition, many things they did would be meta-gaming. That's how you know what you described isn't bad.

It sounds like a highly narrative way to play btw. I'm sure it makes for some great and memorable gameplay. Which is why I'm taking such pains to tell you even though I would consider it it the opposite of RP, that doesn't make it bad (or wrong). It sounds like it'd be really effective in the right kind of game, like a narrative story game.

[Jormengand]

My problem with rolling stats is partly "Roll to shoot yourself in the foot before the game's even started in a way that will affect you forever!" and partly "Well, I guess I'm not going to play the character I actually wanted to play." Saying that rolling "Drives roleplay" is nonsense. It takes away from roleplay by forcing you to make a character that you might easily not be invested in, and that doesn't even perform in combat either. The number of times I've seen people roll stats, find that they're terrible, and leave a game they might have otherwise enjoyed is quite a high one.

[hymer]

I'm willing to admit to outright jealousy. When I roll poorly, and another player rolls well, it annoys me. I've seen it happen once, although the player rather exacerbated it by playing his super-powered character in a selfish and cowardly way, leaving the scrubs to take all the beatings.

[Democratus]

My problem with rolling stats is partly "Roll to shoot yourself in the foot before the game's even started in a way that will affect you forever!" and partly "Well, I guess I'm not going to play the character I actually wanted to play."

1) A character who is "shot in the foot" can be very fun to play.

Overcoming personal deficits is a key element in storytelling (c.f. Raistlin's health, Tony Stark's alcoholism, Professor X's paralysis, etc.).

2) Typically, rolling stats comes before you decide on a character. But I have had a great time playing a fighter with an 8 starting strength or a clumsy rogue or faithless cleric.

3) "Affect you forever"? Are characters immune to death? Are players expected to just roll up one character ever for their entire gaming career?

Different people have fun from different things. Limitations spur creativity exactly because you must find ways to overcome them.

Saying that rolling "Drives roleplay" is nonsense. It takes away from roleplay by forcing you to make a character that you might easily not be invested in, and that doesn't even perform in combat either. The number of times I've seen people roll stats, find that they're terrible, and leave a game they might have otherwise enjoyed is quite a high one.

This is a claim of badwrongfun. Rolling has been driving roleplay since the 1970s.

It's a choice to get invested in a character or not. If you can't invest in a character because it doesn't have perfect stats, that's on you not the system.

[Earthwalker]

1) A character who is "shot in the foot" can be very fun to play.

Overcoming personal deficits is a key element in storytelling (c.f. Raistlin's health, Tony Stark's alcoholism, Professor X's paralysis, etc.).

2) Typically, rolling stats comes before you decide on a character. But I have had a great time playing a fighter with an 8 starting strength or a clumsy rogue or faithless cleric.

3) "Affect you forever"? Are characters immune to death? Are players expected to just roll up one character ever for their entire gaming career?

Different people have fun from different things. Limitations spur creativity exactly because you must find ways to overcome them.


This is a claim of badwrongfun. Rolling has been driving roleplay since the 1970s.

It's a choice to get invested in a character or not. If you can't invest in a character because it doesn't have perfect stats, that's on you not the system.

Again this is the fact that low scores are driving the creativity. The limitations. Its not that the limits were random its the fact you have limits.

It is possible to have limits even with point buy.

Its possible to have limits on character without rolling a single die, so why is rolling the die so important ?

[Cosi]

I'm willing to admit to outright jealousy. When I roll poorly, and another player rolls well, it annoys me. I've seen it happen once, although the player rather exacerbated it by playing his super-powered character in a selfish and cowardly way, leaving the scrubs to take all the beatings.

As I understand it, that's because you're playing it wrong. In older versions of D&D, the idea was that you would roll a bunch of different characters, and the weaker ones would die off until the entire party had godly stats and sweet magic items.

Overcoming personal deficits is a key element in storytelling (c.f. Raistlin's health, Tony Stark's alcoholism, Professor X's paralysis, etc.).

But that's not what having low stats means. The Wizard with 8 INT is not going to overcome his personal flaws to reach his true potential. He is going to fail, because he does not have any potential.

It's a choice to get invested in a character or not. If you can't invest in a character because it doesn't have perfect stats, that's on you not the system.

I can't invest in a character because he is not the character I want to play. I don't want to play a Fighter with 18 STR, 18 CON, and 8 INT. I want to play a Wizard with the reverse of those stats. The point of the game is to have fun, and rolling for stats makes you have less fun.

[Lacco]

you're playing it wrong.

Haven't heard that for a while .

Still, the debate is pointless - those who like rolling for stats will roll, those who don't will not.

And yes, I've been in situation where I didn't know what I would like to play and I rolled just to know what it will be.

And yes, I've been in situation where I knew exactly what I wanted to play, discussed it with the GM and found a solution.

What I can't understand is - if I tell specifically that the game is low-magic to no-magic, why at least 4 players ask me if they can play archmages?

EDIT: @2D8HP: the question goto124 asked was about spiritual attributes in RoS and overall advancement. Though the story is fun to read even twice

[grimsly]

I'm struck, as I read this thread, by a seeming disparity in popular (on the internet) opinion. On the one hand, we praise the'improvising GM', who goes into a session with a 3 x 5 card and razor sharp wit, ready to follow the players wherever they lead, while on the other we want players to spend days carefully preparing a detailed background/ perfect stat progression so they can play properly. I guess what I'm saying is, the internet is a silly place.

I don't mind random stats because I'm an improviser anyway, and I prefer to make characters on the fly based on interactions with the group. But I hardly ever play with random stats, because it's not important enough to me to find a full group of people willing to do it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm struck, as I read this thread, by a seeming disparity in popular (on the internet) opinion. On the one hand, we praise the'improvising GM', who goes into a session with a 3 x 5 card and razor sharp wit, ready to follow the players wherever they lead, while on the other we want players to spend days carefully preparing a detailed background/ perfect stat progression so they can play properly. I guess what I'm saying is, the internet is a silly place.

That "perfect progression" thing is part of what drove me away from the general D&D system (and frankly, community) over the years. "Optimal multi-classing" and "which Feats to take in which order so that they chain together into an unstoppable combination" and "you're doing it wrong" just got to the point where I couldn't take it.

As for setting and NPCs and history and politics and technology and all of it... I'm from the school of "build the damn world", and find it transparently obvious when a GM is making crap up on the fly and winging it. It almost always leads to a piecemeal world, a crazy-quilt of mismatched bits that sounded cool at the time but don't make sense, like pieces from 13 different puzzles all jumbled together.

[Lacco]

I'm struck, as I read this thread, by a seeming disparity in popular (on the internet) opinion. On the one hand, we praise the'improvising GM', who goes into a session with a 3 x 5 card and razor sharp wit, ready to follow the players wherever they lead, while on the other we want players to spend days carefully preparing a detailed background/ perfect stat progression so they can play properly. I guess what I'm saying is, the internet is a silly place.

I don't mind random stats because I'm an improviser anyway, and I prefer to make characters on the fly based on interactions with the group. But I hardly ever play with random stats, because it's not important enough to me to find a full group of people willing to do it.

Good observation. And also - that's second thing that I was surprised about when I approached this forum for first time as GM - there were people who came into the game with complete 4-6 pages of background, when I didn't even state what world we are playing in .

Yes, internet is strange place.

Oh, let's get few people together for a pick-up game of random-roll-stats hexcrawling!

[goto124]

On the one hand, we praise the'improvising GM', who goes into a session with a 3 x 5 card and razor sharp wit, ready to follow the players wherever they lead, while on the other we want players to spend days carefully preparing a detailed background/ perfect stat progression so they can play properly. I guess what I'm saying is, the internet is a silly place.

Do we expect players to have detailed backgrounds and perfect stat progression? Can't speak for detailed backgrounds, but I figured perfect stat progression is 1) not expected of the players, but something the players themselves want, 2) not that hard with the internet

[2D8HP]

Because the people who enjoy rolling stats to base a character on, actually do enjoy rolling stats to base a character on, of course.

How many characters am I supposed to kill with this system?

IIRC-
To illustrate how this played out, the scene:
A dank almost crypt like basement/garage during the waning years of the Carter Administration, two pre-teens and some teenagers surround a ping pong table, that has books, papers, dice, pizza and sodas on it
Teen DM (my best friends older brother): You turn the corner, and 20' away you see the door shown on the map.
Teen player (who thinks he's all that because he's been playing longer than me with the LBB's, but does he have the new PHB and DMG? No! So who's really the "Advanced" one huh!): With the lantern still tied to the ten foot pole, I slowly proceed forward observing if they are any drafts from unexpected places. You (looks at me) check the floor with the other pole.
Me (pre-teen): Oh man it's late, are we even getting into the treasure room today!
Teen player: You've got to check for traps!
Me: I run up and force the door open!
DM: Blarg the fighter falls through the floor onto the spikes below.
*rolls dice*
Your character is dead.
Teen player: Dude you got smoked!
Me: Look at my next character. I rolled a 15 for Strength.
DM: Really?
Me: Yeah, Derek totally witnessed me rolling it up!
DM: Did he?
Derek (my best friend, another pre-teen who invited me to the game): Are you gonna eat that slice of pizza?
Me: No.
Derek: Yeah I totally saw it.
*munch*
Me: See!
DM: *groan*

Old school quote
There are Old Characters and there are Bold characters, but there are very few Old and Bold characters.

If the player had fun throwing away a PC's life, then it wasn't done cheaply.

In memory of my best friend, Derek Lindstrom Whaley, who in 6th grade saw me reading the blue book and invited me to play D&D at his house - R.I.P.

[Tanarii]

On rolling stats ... when I play point buy or a standard array, I roll my class, and often race, instead. In d&d 5e, my background too. Then I make something of it. If I really need some random attributes so I don't get a cookie cutter of that class, I'll dice among my secondary or tertiary scores for whihc get dumped.

So I might end up with a (random example diced right now): Tiefling Outlander Cleric. IMO that's weird enough I don't need to dice for where to put which ability after Wis.

I actually like that better than the classic roll in order stat method for seeing what class you will be. The only thing it lacks is the occasional really low score. But remember, even Raistlin had a Con 10. (Ref: DL1 Dragons of Despair)

[Jay R]

All the people who are saying that random rolls mean you can't have the exact character you want to design are correct.

All the people saying that rolling stats creates sub-optimal characters with unwanted weaknesses are correct.

All the people who say that die rolling sometimes gives you a character weaker than others in the party are correct.

All the people saying that it's often a bigger challenge are correct.

Yes, it's harder. Yes, characters are more likely to die, unless played very, very well.

You are all correct. And these are all the reasons that I enjoy it.

If you don't enjoy playing weaknesses you didn't choose, sometimes having a weaker character, and facing more difficult challenges, I urge you to play point-buy. That's fun too, and I don't speak against it.

But I like the other kind of fun as well. And that's fine too.

[Takewo]

I am not sure that to achieve this you need to add on the book keeping that a lot of RPGs use. Needing to know how many arrows you have, how much food etc…
The One Ring manages to abstract this kind of thing to one track on journeys and ties everything in with the mechanics as you and your party try to avoid falling into weariness.

Could elaborate a bit more on how it works? It sounds interesting.

[Democratus]

As I understand it, that's because you're playing it wrong. In older versions of D&D, the idea was that you would roll a bunch of different characters, and the weaker ones would die off until the entire party had godly stats and sweet magic items.

Playing it wrong? Wow. A shame Gygax isn't around so you can tell him how wrong he got D&D.

Your understanding of old school D&D is incomplete. It was certainly high mortality at times. But it wasn't a "good stats bubble to the top" situation. It was "characters with smart players and luck bubble to the top".

Sure, it could be a bit helpful to have a +1 damage from a 16 Strength; but that seldom determined your fate. Instead you had to play smart. Did you use a 10' pole to probe the dark hallway? Did you find a back entrance to the lair so you could bypass the guards? Did you leave the dungeon before your resources got too low? Are your hirelings well fed and happy? Did you do enough research on your quest while visiting the Great Library?

By the time your stats came into play most of the work was already done - or you were probably going to die regardless.

But that's not what having low stats means. The Wizard with 8 INT is not going to overcome his personal flaws to reach his true potential. He is going to fail, because he does not have any potential.

This is incorrect. I've played an INT 8 wizard and had a blast. Even retired with a tower and a pile of treasure.

I can't invest in a character because he is not the character I want to play. I don't want to play a Fighter with 18 STR, 18 CON, and 8 INT. I want to play a Wizard with the reverse of those stats. The point of the game is to have fun, and rolling for stats makes you have less fun.

Rolling for stats does not make me have less fun. I'm a different person from you and I enjoy different things.

[Earthwalker]

Haven't heard that for a while .
Still, the debate is pointless - those who like rolling for stats will roll, those who don't will not.
[snip]

The debate on if people do enjoy random rolls is as you say pointless. That’s not the debate I am having (or at least trying to). The debate I am having is trying to find an answer to.
What are the design goals of putting random stat generation into a game.
The OP mentioned games system need to do these things well, one of them was random rolls. What is the goal for random rolls so we can see if the system matches this goal well.

All the people who are saying that random rolls mean you can't have the exact character you want to design are correct.
All the people saying that rolling stats creates sub-optimal characters with unwanted weaknesses are correct.
All the people who say that die rolling sometimes gives you a character weaker than others in the party are correct.
All the people saying that it's often a bigger challenge are correct.
Yes, it's harder. Yes, characters are more likely to die, unless played very, very well.
You are all correct. And these are all the reasons that I enjoy it.
If you don't enjoy playing weaknesses you didn't choose, sometimes having a weaker character, and facing more difficult challenges, I urge you to play point-buy. That's fun too, and I don't speak against it.
But I like the other kind of fun as well. And that's fine too.

If the goal is to make your character weaker doesn’t random rolling fail that goal. You might roll really good stats and as such be strong than the rest of the group.
You could do the same by having two lists of point buy 20 points and 10 points choose which you want to use.

[hymer]

What are the design goals of putting random stat generation into a game.

Since many people enjoy rolling for stats, the design goal may be as simple as to give these people what they want in their RPG system. But there could be other reasons as well, I expect.

[Cosi]

Two musings on this subject:

First, it's interesting to me that (IIRC) a lot of the people arguing in favor of random stats as a way to constrain creativity have also argued that 3e is a bad game because you get punished for not playing a caster/casters are broken/whatever. Is that also a restriction, and thus also good?

Second, if you want to play a character with suboptimal stats, you can do that in point buy. Any set of stats you roll can also be created by point buy (with appropriate starting stats and point values), and any set of stats you bought could have also been created by rolling. If you really want your 8 INT Wizard or your 18 DEX Cleric, you can do that in point buy to (essentially) the same degree as you can with rolled stats. So what exactly is the advantage here?

Your understanding of old school D&D is incomplete. It was certainly high mortality at times. But it wasn't a "good stats bubble to the top" situation. It was "characters with smart players and luck bubble to the top".

So would you describe getting a favorable outcome from the die rolls determining your stats as:

a) Luck
b) Not Luck

I await your answer eagerly.

This is incorrect. I've played an INT 8 wizard and had a blast. Even retired with a tower and a pile of treasure.

Rolling for stats does not make me have less fun. I'm a different person from you and I enjoy different things.

This is basically just abandoning the argument. Yes, you have personal experiences. I also have personal experiences. But the plural of anecdote isn't data, and those personal experiences mean precisely nothing in terms of what is or is not good for the game. The point of the game is to have fun. People (in general) have fun by playing characters they want. Rolling for stats (in general) makes it less likely a given player will be able to play the character he wants. As a result, rolling for stats makes the game (in general) less fun.

[Earthwalker]

Since many people enjoy rolling for stats, the design goal may be as simple as to give these people what they want in their RPG system. But there could be other reasons as well, I expect.

You don't see the value of the question. Why do you enjoy rolling ? Is there a better way to get that enjoyment ?

Take of example the idea that rolling is good as it gets me thinking what my character will be and gives me ideas of what I want to play from what stats I get. That's good if people have problems trying to work out what they want to play. The random rolls provide ideas.

A counter argument is why does that random factor have to be stats. Why not other ideas like backgrounds, races, unique abilities. Stuff that you can sell books of :)

[Eisirt]

I have a bunch of lists with option that I can roll on...

When I create a character I can roll for stats, class, hair colour, favorite food, etc...

While playing I can roll for every action I might take.... and it is great, I never have to make a plan or even think about what I am going to do next.

I wouldn't want it any other way, because that is what roleplaying is all about... rolling those dice.

or

Am I confused and was that rollplaying??

[hymer]

@Earthwalker: I better let the people who enjoy rolling answer that.