I've always preferred the "many pools" approach, especially in
combination with a skill-based system which doesn't have classes (or
uses classes only as templates). It seems more realistic and less
easily abused. If you eliminate classes, then I don't think "many
pools" is necessarily more restrictive than "one pool."
My own thinking is that almost everything is a skill. Very few things
can't be improved with practice. I would say that initial stats should
be generated randomly, but improving stats would be a skill like any
other skill. (Stats, like skills, can be improved by using them -- and
especially by using them while deliberately trying to improve them.
Thus I have a separate skill for improving each stat. Of course skills
and stats also decrease if not used.) Most "feats" can be improved with
practice and thus are really skills.
If you take the approach that almost everything is a skill and that
there are an infinite number of skills (though some would be considered
subskills of others), then the "many pools" approach is really not very
limiting. A player is less likely to be unhappy with his character's
initial stats if he knows that he can improve his stats, either
immediately or at some point in the future, as he chooses. Background
options or advantages could not be considered skills, but most of them
can be acquired through gameplay. Thus, if a player really wants
political contacts but can't afford to start with them, he can make it
his goal to acquire them.
There would only be a few things which could not be acquired through
play. In most systems, the ability to use spells (or psionics or
superpowers) is probably one of these. There might be a few others
(mostly physical characteristics), but a player should be able to afford
the ones that he really wants (unless he's really greedy). It's
unlikely that more than one or two such traits would be needed to make a
character unique. The really good roleplayers will probably prefer to
work with their character's personality rather than physical traits anyway.
Edward
I'm currently fiddling around with character generation in Yags (again), and I thought I'd seek some ideas from the list. Since I'm currently in two minds about which way to go, I'm going to discuss both and see whether anyone else can come up with more pros and cons for each.
As I see it, there are two ways to do character generation. The first is where you have a single pool of points from which to build a character, the second is where you have multiple point pools. Before anyone complains that there's more ways of doing it, I'm actually being very inclusive in these definitions, which you'll see below:
One Pool to Rule Them All
The best example of the first is probably GURPS. You get 100 points to spend, which can be used to buy attributes, skills, advantages, background, social status and that sort of thing. Everything is on the same scale, so 10 points of skills is considered equivalent to an advantage worth 10 points (which may be magical aptitude, or might be wealth).
The advantage of such a method is that it is highly flexible for a player. They can take a character who isn't very good physically, but has large numbers of contacts and wealth to call upon. They can create balanced characters or highly specialised characters. It's all up to them.
There are a couple of downsides. Firstly, the game designer has to balance everything, and this can be very difficult to do. Is level 20 in the Fencing skill equivalent to being up to turn invisible at will? If they both cost the same, then they should be. Balancing this can be a nightmare however, so from a design point of view, it's difficult.
It can also be difficult from a player pov as well. The flexibility can be a curse if a player doesn't know exactly what they are doing. You can often end up with broken or overpowered characters, either by mistake or design.
Is the increased flexibility worth the extra hassle? In one sense it is simple in that there's only one pool for the player to worry about - they just add up everything at the end.
Many Pools
The other way is to have several pools to build characters from. So, you might get 10 points to spend on attribute, 20 to spend on skills and 5 to spend on attributes. 1 point of attribute might be 'worth' 3 or 4 skill points - there doesn't need to be a balance since one can't be spent on the other.
Ars Magica is an example of this. Attributes are rolled, you then get skill points from a template you choose, then you get 10 points to buy virtues (advantages) with. In this case, the mechanics change between the pools - one is random, one you choose a single option, and the final ones you buy several options, up to a point limit.
d20 is similar - roll or point buy attributes, then get points to spend on skills (according to character class) and a number of Feats to choose. Most games are I think of the 'Many Pools' variety - character design is split into several sections which have little impact on each other (or if they do, it's indirect - choosing a character class in d20 governs how many skill points you have, but the class doesn't have a point cost associated with it).
How many skills is a Feat worth? It doesn't matter, since neither affect each other. This makes it simpler from a game design perspective - there's less option combinations you have to worry about players min-maxing.
It can be more complex from a player's view however, and it is definitely more restricting. If you don't want any feats, but want a lot of Lore skills, then tough, you can't do it unless there's a class tailored just for you. You also have to keep track of more things - the mechanics for generating attributes is different from that used in buying skills which is different from that used in buying advantages/virtues/feats. You also have to keep looking up how many of each you're allowed to buy (I have seen players get confused with this before, especially when each pool is a similar but slightly different number, such as 20 on one thing, 24 on another, 21 on a third).
However, it may be seen as simpler for first time players. The character generation rules can be split according to what the player is generating, and since each section is independent, the player only has to worry about one thing at a time. It only becomes restrictive once you've done a few characters and realise what you actually want is something that the game designers haven't thought of.
Summary
So... what do people prefer, and does anyone have thoughts on other advantages of either system? Are there other ways of doing it? I can't think of one - even the 'bidding wars' of diceless Amber are a One Pool system since the cost of everything just goes into a single number.
Are many pools really that restrictive, or do they add flavour to the system? Is the flexibility of systems like GURPS really worth the design time complexity?
Thoughts?