I personally believe that if point buy were implemented instead of the current system, it would promote balanced gameplay! Not only that, it would create an environment where no one needs to feel bad for getting poor stats or even middling ones (or feeling as if you have an unfair advantage with superior stats).
If hitpoints, stamina, and stun points were also dependent on a system not nearly entirely random, do you believe that would be fairer than what it is currently? Should races each have a standard baseline that can be modified to suit your character concept? These are what I feel to be a worthwhile discussion.
In anycase, another reason to implement a change such as this would be the fact that it allows people to concentrate more on their roleplay rather than their arbitrary stat advantages. Having seen this brought up in the past, I'd really like to see a strong consideration of this idea.
I would like an option. Point buy /or/ Random. Hp, Stun, etc to remain entirely based on roll+stat, but the stats to be either Point Buy (if you absolutely positively /need/ at least passable stats for a character concept to work), or Random (if it's a throwaway and you're willing to risk bein surprised). Theres characters I've wanted to make who need at least, let's say, 'Good' wisdom for them to make sense, but then I rolled Poor. Point buy would mitigate those cases.
However, I don't think Point Buy should be the only option. Not by a long shot. There's stories out there and experiences that only possibly could ever have happened by someone managing to get good connections AND roll a fuckton of strength or endurance, etc. For the layperson who doesn't want to risk their baby 20-day-played hunter dying to something they've never seen before etc, Arm is already quite a samey experience as we all try to reach the point where the fun undiscovered stuff won't kill us instantly/survive log enough to see it - Point Buy Only would be horrible for the layperson, as it would reduce instances of surprise and fun unexpected rolls (& roles), even if just a bit - we need all the variety we can get.
I'd definitely be pleased with that too! :)
My personal vendetta against randomized stats are: 1) I'm no gambler and don't much care for surprises good or otherwise. And 2) I'm OCD about not having a base to work with, I'll take a flat 100 hp as a human guaranteed over 123 hp randomly as one.
Though these aren't exactly valid arguments ;D
I've always thought it'd be nice if you could steal a stat point from another stat and add it to one of your choosing post roll.
So like when you do say, feel you need the most possible AGI or STR or whatever, so you prioritize it, and come out with like Very Good. Which is okay but it's hardly remarkable. You could cannibalize another stat up to a certain limit. Maybe like allowing 2 stats points to shift and capping it so you can't boost a stat beyond Exceptional (since Absolutely Incredible seems like one of those things that maybe should stay in the lottery winnings category)
So then you end up with the ability to combine the random chance of the "super good roll" gambit, with a modest degree of manual allocation to allow for some tweaking after the fact if you're still not happy, and don't mind further sacrificing another stat.
Not a bad idea either! Preferably any system that allows to tweak some things or allow total allocation if possible. Considering classes and subclasses seem to have an effect on stats (purely observation no confirmation) it seems like there's kind of a system in place yet I feel it's not enough when it comes to that. I don't care for the lottery feel all too much still so I prefer Matisse's option more but again, that's a more appropriate setup than completely random (priorities aside).
I would not like this at all. I don't want every character to have the same stats after players figure out the 'best' point allocation. I really like the variety we have right now, when it comes to stats. You don't get to assume that your two-day fighter can kill everyone that comes right out of chargen, because if you're unlucky? This fresh out-of-chargen PC rolled monster stats. I don't want an even playing field where time spent training is all that matters.
High agi and str also make it harder to raise your skills, because both result in fewer chances for skill gains. Directly for agi, because you miss less, and indirectly for str, because fights don't last as long. So I don't think bad stats are as crippling as people think, over some time played.
Alternative:
"Flat base" option instead of point buy - every stat as 'above average', guaranteed, before age stat modification. That way those who NEED a guaranteed passability have it, but they're not going to be a meta build, they're just gonna have base survivability in order to GET that playtime.
Clarification: 'flat base' IN ADDITION TO randomised roll option.
No thank you. I don't like to min max or play the stats that I pick for myself. I like randomness.
I've heard this argument a lot. And to that point, why bother playing a mundane character ever again? It's quite clear that an elementalist subclass scoffs in the face of all other subclasses when it's so easy to play a rogue mage with mundane abilities that never gets sniffed out -- I know this because I've played around many, many who do just that. People are going to play their concepts and not what is the best of the best if they care at all for the RPI game it is.
Anyone worth their salt can tell the difference between superior, middling, and lowly stat ranged characters based off experience alone. It's underwhelming and fundamentally flawed because when it doesn't underwhelm you it does the opposite: overhypes you. It creates this advantage solely on randomized numbers that makes your character objectively better than others, and no. There is no benefit to having either of those stats lower, considering the game has been somewhat altered combat wise to guarantee you miss once and awhile to receive fails so your character will eventually grow past that plateau.
Is there a lack of an incentive to train with better stats? Not at all, and not all characters are combat driven neither. You're saying that based off a system entirely random except for prioritization and class/subclass selection makes a character unique or doesn't present a problem? Because it's your RP and coded abilities that should determine who you are as a character and not the randomly selected numbers. Stats should not deviate you as a character, they are only part of the mold you cast in chargen, they're what supports your character's framework and what occurs after chargen is what is "random". Stats should not make or break a concept you're striving for, only your decisions and how the world reacts to them ought to.
So I ask you why then are certain stats dominant over others or higher ones better all around? Min-maxxing behaviour if the stats are balanced would never become an issue otherwise there is an even greater underlying issue in the mechanics that govern the point of these stats.
Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on January 26, 2020, 08:35:38 AM
Alternative:
"Flat base" option instead of point buy - every stat as 'above average', guaranteed, before age stat modification. That way those who NEED a guaranteed passability have it, but they're not going to be a meta build, they're just gonna have base survivability in order to GET that playtime.
Clarification: 'flat base' IN ADDITION TO randomised roll option.
I use point buy loosely! That is another excellent idea for a balanced system that would allow people to not worry about stats so much.
If the lower end of stats had their benefits too, that'd still give that randomness you two crave (Nao and Barsook) and innately be much more fair.
Keep in mind health, stamina, and stun points too! Why can't there be a benefit to being on the lower ends of those? Maybe with lower health you would recover more quickly than those with higher health, and with stamina too because I've noticed the threshold of these regenning don't change much at all when you've got say a maximum of eighty health over one-hundred and ten. Of course I wish these were more based off your race and amount of endurance rather than yet another random calculation (that hinges on endurance only so much).
IMO point buy has destroyed and homogenized D&D. I'd rather not see the same thing done to Arm. I would like to see the influences on stats that many of us know about formally documented.
In addition I'd like to see the stats made a bit more fairer. I've gone from poor, poor, poor, poor to above average, excellent, average, good. And vice versa. You can just straight up have a better or worse character based on pure chance. I'd like it if 120 points were invested in the stats (or whatever the average is), but how they are invested is still randomised (with influences like age and class then tacked on afterwards).
I'm not a fan of pure point buy just because it makes it so easy to min/max (as I've also found in my D&D games).
I wouldn't mind a hybrid system, where you're given X stats, and then Y number of "bumps" that would allow you to bump the status you select to an addition level of points after your first roll, reroll, and reroll undo. That would keep some of the randomness element, but allow people to modify a stat upward that they think is unplayable and give players a little more control. The bump points could just be deducted from lowering the current stat-point allocation.
Quote from: valeria on January 26, 2020, 11:45:55 AM
I'm not a fan of pure point buy just because it makes it so easy to min/max (as I've also found in my D&D games).
Quote from: John on January 26, 2020, 10:42:06 AM
IMO point buy has destroyed and homogenized D&D. I'd rather not see the same thing done to Arm.
Completely agreeing with the above. I have played point buy / skill buy muds and get bored with them for these exact reasons. "Oh hi there, I see you are also an adventurer competent in 1on1 combat with exactly one ranged skill, minimal sneaking needed to kill mobs, and minimal skinning. And what are the one to three other skills you got for flavor, too?" If you end up with homogeneous concepts you also get homogeneous roleplay and suddenly you do not have the interesting scenarios that can come up when concepts are more out of the player's fine tuned control. Suddenly everyone has the strength required to wear the same armor, suddenly you don't have out of the norm surprising endurance to lead to an upset in the Arena foot race, etc. The only time I voice opinions on stuff like this is when it pertains to roleplay. Our current system favors roleplay more than powergaming which I like. Any modification would need to favor roleplay. Like Valeria said, maybe not a full point buy, but random stats with some elective bumps. But full point buy ironically leads to less variety and less variety means less interesting roleplay.
I'm also against a point buy method. Or against most things that would aim to push Armageddon more towards having 'cookie cutter' builds to get things done. (Yes, the warrior tank mages aren't my thing either.)
Between reroll/undo, and priority allocation, there's a very decent chance to get stats that are great for your class and concept. Sometimes, your character's 'genetics' just don't work out in their favor, or an old wound leaves them not as strong/agile as they could've been. Or that knock on the head as a kid left them a little less wise, etc. Sometimes that flaw could make for some lovely roleplay. Trying to find a way around that disadvantage in life, or even ultimately failing to do so, and paying the price. Make friends, shy away from the challenges that would be too much due to your poor stat, risk shame and humiliation by seeking an advantage from the gemmed/rogues. It's not all about bone swords and Amos' boots. :)
Also, from experience, if you feel a stat makes your character unplayable, contact staff. They're not unreasonable by any means.
Just my 2 'sids!
I'd be in favor of getting the option.
I think people are overestimating the amount of min-maxing that would be done because of it. People that really want to dominate play will just keep rolling randomly and hoping for higher than average stats rolls, which should happen about 50% of the time for random rolls. A lot of people just don't like the randomness of it, or being unpleasantly surprised by stats rolls that don't match a concept and there's not much reason to force them too if the point buy will tend to stick characters in the middle-power range anyways (meaning min maxers will shy away). And sure, you can usually get the concept you want with the existing de-randomizers in the game. But you're still going to be stuck playing characters that are unpalatable to you a certain percentage of the time. That percentage drops to zero if you allow point buy. Why would you want it any higher than that?
What about something like best of 10?
Instead of reroll/reroll undo, you get your roll in chargen. If you don't like it, click the button and get a new roll. You can do this UP TO 10 times total. You can choose whichever of those 10 rolls you like best. Once you choose, you're done. No reroll or reroll undo. If you love your first roll, you can pick that one and not bother rolling another 9.
You could also prioritize. You'd do that first - you want wisdom given priority? Great. Each roll will be weighted with a +2 in wisdom. It'll mean a -2 in something else, or a -1 in two something elses, but them's the roll of the dice.
Lastly - I would like to see the final NUMERIC valued stats be displayed for characters before they leave chargen. By that I mean HPs, Stun, Stamina, Mana.
Your 5th roll might be better in strength, and that makes you happy, but if your total HPs is only 89 because of the combination of other things, it'll suck.
So you really need to see ALL your stats before you pick one. I'd like to see that happen in chargen before you commit to a stat roll.
I feel like the game has allowed too many exceptional characters, and they have ruined the expectations of some of the players.
Since it's possible to have characters with multiple exceptional stats, people who have 'average' across the board seem "shit"
I think we should not have characters with more than one exceptional, or more than one poor.
Quote from: valeria on January 26, 2020, 11:45:55 AM
I'm not a fan of pure point buy just because it makes it so easy to min/max (as I've also found in my D&D games).
I wouldn't mind a hybrid system, where you're given X stats, and then Y number of "bumps" that would allow you to bump the status you select to an addition level of points after your first roll, reroll, and reroll undo. That would keep some of the randomness element, but allow people to modify a stat upward that they think is unplayable and give players a little more control. The bump points could just be deducted from lowering the current stat-point allocation.
I'd much rather that than the current! And again to the posts above me, I use "point buy" loosely. My main gripe is that this randomised system fails to address what can be yet another thing staff doesn't have to concern themselves with. If stat allocation were actually balanced out instead of being wishy-washy in its balancing, I feel there'd be less people complaining, no more having to ask staff for bumps, or what have you etc.
For all the time I've played I have seen nothing but criticism of random statting, though there are those who are either tired of bringing it up or see no point in trying to. You really feel that stats, these numbers that artifically make up what you are should be random? It's a game of fiction and of creation, if you don't want to have a character wane from preexisting conditions then you shouldn't have to. And I stress again if point buy (a term I use lightly) would homogenize gameplay, wouldn't that just point to deeper flaws with the system?
Maybe it's something I just can't stand I guess. I cannot get over a game design that perpetuates better stats and if these stats somehow make gameplay generic, why are there favored or more optimal class/subclass combos at all? This is why I brought up mage subclasses! Back then when full guild mages were a thing, there was this balance to them since they were limited to their magey weaknesses. I think it's safe to assume that if you've picked a mage, you plan on using it's magick to whatever extent you're able to. Nowadays you've got these PCs running around with cheat codes in their backpocket because they can easily blend in as these quasi mages who never have to cast a spell if they don't want to. But the whole point of classes/subclasses is to use those skills you've chosen! Sometimes it's just a matter of when. And to stress that point, you're expected to use your psionic abilities as a psionicists or your magick as a sorcerer
because that's why they're there: to be utilized.
This is why stats should not make up what your character is genetically but rather what you seek to make them. Epecially since the magick change doesn't reflect that at all, let alone sorcs where you've learned sorcery as a character hence why it's a role at all. You pick these classes/subclasses, your race, and your background because
you're the one creating the concept. Does a writer make a fictional character who has features beyond the control of what they write? I don't think so.
Sorry about my rant! Read over Quell's, Lizzie's, and Mansa's posts -- totally agree with them in one aspect or another. I really just do not feel the current way is more favored than possibly a new one that incorporates far less chance.
I like the system as it is. I like that not all people are "born" equal, and that some are more naturally gifted than others. This mirrors real life, and gives people the opportunity to play a broad spectrum of characters from amazing to amazingly inept. With a point buy system, we'd end up with "best of" builds wherein people have rather cookie cutter stats depending on what classes they're playing.
I don't think the number of "exceptionals" needs to be reduced. I personally have not had a character with lots of exceptional stats, ever. That said, people might see others say that they have on the forums and have attribute envy, thinking if they don't get really high stats, they aren't as good. I think it's important for people to remember that for every person that gets multiple high stats on a character like that, there were likely 100 other characters that had much closer to average stats.
Not everyone gets to play a super-statted character. Just like not everyone gets to play an elementalist, or a sorcerer, or a psionicist. Asymetrical characters have been a part of the Armageddon culture for as long as it has been an RPI. It is part of Arm's identity.
I like random stats myself. Most of the group I run for is point buy, and everything needs to be fair. But there can be a lot of fun in roleplaying the unfair. Making that thief with poor agility, a dwarven warrior with very poor strength (have done before, it was amusing to have elves that could carry more then me. And I had fun with the character) You can make such characters with point buy, but people rarely do.
There was also a time when you couldn't prioritize your stats, or undo a reroll (and you had to wish up for a reroll in the first place) So they have taken steps to give you slightly less random.
I might be ok with the option to point buy stats if the choice to go random was clearly superior. For instance, with point buy, if you could only have enough points to guarantee above average stats across the board. And stats higher than "above average" would have a really steep increase in price, so if someone took a single stat much higher than that, they'd really pay for it in their other stats.
This would allow someone to choose point buy for a character concept that absolutely had to have above average or so in everything, but would still make the random choice the go to for a lot of people because it COULD be way better, and is rarely worse than above average across the board.
Quote from: Heade on January 26, 2020, 09:50:55 PM
I might be ok with the option to point buy stats if the choice to go random was clearly superior. For instance, with point buy, if you could only have enough points to guarantee above average stats across the board. And stats higher than "above average" would have a really steep increase in price, so if someone took a single stat much higher than that, they'd really pay for it in their other stats.
This would allow someone to choose point buy for a character concept that absolutely had to have above average or so in everything, but would still make the random choice the go to for a lot of people because it COULD be way better, and is rarely worse than above average across the board.
Agreed!
Quote from: Heade on January 26, 2020, 05:15:55 PM
I like the system as it is. I like that not all people are "born" equal, and that some are more naturally gifted than others. This mirrors real life, and gives people the opportunity to play a broad spectrum of characters from amazing to amazingly inept. With a point buy system, we'd end up with "best of" builds wherein people have rather cookie cutter stats depending on what classes they're playing.
I don't think the number of "exceptionals" needs to be reduced. I personally have not had a character with lots of exceptional stats, ever. That said, people might see others say that they have on the forums and have attribute envy, thinking if they don't get really high stats, they aren't as good. I think it's important for people to remember that for every person that gets multiple high stats on a character like that, there were likely 100 other characters that had much closer to average stats.
Not everyone gets to play a super-statted character. Just like not everyone gets to play an elementalist, or a sorcerer, or a psionicist. Asymetrical characters have been a part of the Armageddon culture for as long as it has been an RPI. It is part of Arm's identity.
See but the thing is is that people do this anyway. Certain classes get boosts and negatives (or no negatives) than others, so why are base stats random in this case? Those with flaws will have them based off their background, perfect specimens aren't even particularly favored if there isn't a character behind them. Randomness does not reduce cookie cutter style play, all it does is favor certain playstyles -- particularly ones that are safer than others. A dwarf with that low of strength could have the focus of becoming stronger, and since you've made the character BEFORE STATS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, it's quite clear that stats
aren't intended to make up your character's distinct genetics. At most you could make your physical description vague and add to that with tdesc but I rarely ever see that amongst PCs save hair and injuries etc.
For those of you who remember 1st and 2nd edition dnd, shifting to point buy in that system didnt work. Like Arm, there were real or perceived thresholds of stat viability that forced min maxing. A 16 str was +1 to damage. A 17 str was +1 to hit and +1 to damage. An 18 strength could have an additional role for a range of +1/+3 to +3/+6. A 19 str was +3 to hit +7 to damage. If you could talk your Dm into a +1 to str race, there was absolutely no reason to ever choose a lower point but if you cared about melee combat.
I believe Arm would suffer the same problem on a point buy system. The whole stat system would have to be reworked.
Some of you seem to be suffering from a misperception or misinformation.
Roll (based on race)
Age adjustments
Class/subclass adjustments
The lowest possible Roll is is the lowest tier of below average. If you are seeing poor or lower, it is not because of the Roll, but because of the adjustments that follow it.
Quote from: Halcyon on January 26, 2020, 11:31:39 PM
For those of you who remember 1st and 2nd edition dnd, shifting to point buy in that system didnt work. Like Arm, there were real or perceived thresholds of stat viability that forced min maxing. A 16 str was +1 to damage. A 17 str was +1 to hit and +1 to damage. An 18 strength could have an additional role for a range of +1/+3 to +3/+6. A 19 str was +3 to hit +7 to damage. If you could talk your Dm into a +1 to str race, there was absolutely no reason to ever choose a lower point but if you cared about melee combat.
I believe Arm would suffer the same problem on a point buy system. The whole stat system would have to be reworked.
https://youtu.be/2zVRY56TQC4
Quote from: Brokkr on January 27, 2020, 12:21:12 AM
Some of you seem to be suffering from a misperception or misinformation.
Roll (based on race)
Age adjustments
Class/subclass adjustments
The lowest possible Roll is is the lowest tier of below average. If you are seeing poor or lower, it is not because of the Roll, but because of the adjustments that follow it.
Always good to know!
Quote from: Brokkr on January 27, 2020, 12:21:12 AM
Some of you seem to be suffering from a misperception or misinformation.
Roll (based on race)
Age adjustments
Class/subclass adjustments
The lowest possible Roll is is the lowest tier of below average. If you are seeing poor or lower, it is not because of the Roll, but because of the adjustments that follow it.
while I appreciate the attempt to correct misconceptions, I dont think poor vs below average is really germane to anything anyone said.
Why would we have balanced stats? Arm isn't a game with balanced classes/subclasses by intentional design. Is gud as is ayy.
Quote from: Inks on January 27, 2020, 04:19:34 AM
Why would we have balanced stats? Arm isn't a game with balanced classes/subclasses by intentional design. Is gud as is ayy.
+1 lol
I like things the way they are too. Very rarely do I roll up a PC that doesn't have decent stats. I know for sure I've never seen all poor, or all below average for that matter. And as much as I die, I've been through a lot of em over the years.
Yes, if we want to take away the "won stat lottery, can kill the world" and "lost stat lottery, suicide/reroll" mindsets.
No, if we want to keep it.
I really, do not think, in the current era of gamers, that having the option is ever going to be a negative. Balance it around never being able to buy a stat past excellent, but able to hit exceptional (or poor instead of below average as the roll floor), for people who preference dice rolling. Or allocate number of points to spend semi-randomly, and let people decide how to distribute them, from a base of average across the board.
I can totally see why people suicide characters, with four line minimal effort descriptions, until they get God stats, especially STR, because the system is as such, that having anything less than that, basically makes you meat-to-eat for the people who do, no matter how much time/effort you invest, unless you're packing magickal compensation.
It is, imo, less an issue of coded balance, and more an issue of smoothing out some of the insane power spike STR or certain races offers that entices people to obsess over it, and making people feel good about investing in their character, by not making them feel like they've already lost, as soon as they see mediocre stats.
Quote from: Vex on January 27, 2020, 03:00:27 PM
Yes, if we want to take away the "won stat lottery, can kill the world" and "lost stat lottery, suicide/reroll" mindsets.
Anyone who suicides over stats is missing the point of an RPI. Not all human beings are born with a physiology to become Olympic Weightlifters. If you are suiciding any character who doesn't have Absolutely Incredible strength that is more of a reflection on the player than on the game itself.
If you want to change those mindsets, remind people that He-Man isn't the only viable concept. The beauty of an RP focused game is all concepts are viable.
People who are stat obsessed brush me off as some kind of role play elitist for having this opinion but it isn't elitism to be open to roleplaying concepts besides He-Man.
Variety is the spice of life and good roleplay. I like that some of my characters have been average people, some heroic, and all have had interesting fates that were not defined by stats. Letting stats define the fate of your character to the extent that you suicide [against the theme of survival itself] is unequivocally bad roleplay. Few things are unequivocally bad roleplay but that is.
Let's not pretend that suiciding over stats is in any way justified by good reasons, like good roleplay. It's not.
Quote from: John on January 27, 2020, 02:49:57 AM
Quote from: Brokkr on January 27, 2020, 12:21:12 AM
Some of you seem to be suffering from a misperception or misinformation.
Roll (based on race)
Age adjustments
Class/subclass adjustments
The lowest possible Roll is is the lowest tier of below average. If you are seeing poor or lower, it is not because of the Roll, but because of the adjustments that follow it.
while I appreciate the attempt to correct misconceptions, I dont think poor vs below average is really germane to anything anyone said.
Hmm, you are right! I misread something that was said, about having all stats "
above average" as "
below average". I guess I should have posted something about understanding what average means.
Quote from: triste on January 27, 2020, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Vex on January 27, 2020, 03:00:27 PM
Yes, if we want to take away the "won stat lottery, can kill the world" and "lost stat lottery, suicide/reroll" mindsets.
Anyone who suicides over stats is missing the point of an RPI. Not all human beings are born with a physiology to become Olympic Weightlifters. If you are suiciding any character who doesn't have Absolutely Incredible strength that is more of a reflection on the player than on the game itself.
If you want to change those mindsets, remind people that He-Man isn't the only viable concept. The beauty of an RP focused game is all concepts are viable.
People who are stat obsessed brush me off as some kind of role play elitist for having this opinion but it isn't elitism to be open to roleplaying concepts besides He-Man.
Variety is the spice of life and good roleplay. I like that some of my characters have been average people, some heroic, and all have had interesting fates that were not defined by stats. Letting stats define the fate of your character to the extent that you suicide [against the theme of survival itself] is unequivocally bad roleplay. Few things are unequivocally bad roleplay but that is.
Let's not pretend that suiciding over stats is in any way justified by good reasons, like good roleplay. It's not.
Zalanthas is a work of fiction and the characters we play are too. Our only sense of control over our characters is their origin, who they, what they are, and the things they're capable of. Otherwise, why not just let staff make the characters and we'll choose to play them?
And I'm rather tired of this "let's shame those who enjoy the game aspect of the game". Armageddon didn't start off as an RPI and while I do indeed understand why people feel the need for workable stat rolls, why not just replace this temptation altogether? I'm not suggesting point buy necessarily, there are other systems people have suggested that would do the current game's system better.
I am not shaming anyone (as predicted I am getting the "You are an elitist" retort). I am saying [1] variety is good, I personally do not see the appeal of homogeneity or a game where everyone is equally megabuff nor does it seem in setting as this is a mud about people, not Super Heroes [2] suiciding over stats is in direct violation of the docs around suicide/survival.
I am willing to compromise with a randomized system with some point allocation as mentioned by valeria but if everyone gets to allocate the same points suddenly you are going to see homogeneous concepts and suddenly people will start whining about that.
I like that, like old school DnD, we currently have a great degree of range. It leads to better roleplay.
If everyone is exceptional, no one is exceptional. Variety is better than sameness. People who suicide for stats are often times violating docs in an unjustified way. It also is an unfair exploit over people who are fine with average rolls. So if I am "shaming" anyone I didn't intend to, just saying following docs and focusing on roleplay is nobler than ignoring docs to powergame.
My argument doesn't shame or preclude anyone from doing anything. You can play he-man if you get the stat roll for it, awesome!! But if you roll a warrior with average strength instead of superhero strength, maybe it's time to roleplay more of a Robin Hood type who survives with cunning and wits. Don't just kill the concept off if you can. Self worth isn't tied to stats! That low stat roll character you have might end up being your most epic and accomplished character and that sort of variety is great.
Against point buy.
Game already homogenized enough with the new classes. Since you cannot be exceptional by class anymore, least you have the chance by stats.
Okay, changing the thread name.
Quote from: X-D on January 27, 2020, 07:08:36 PM
Against point buy.
Game already homogenized enough with the new classes. Since you cannot be exceptional by class anymore, least you have the chance by stats.
Point buy or an
alternative would allow for more specialisation, not less. The changes for the current classes did make specialisation (the master of a few or one) less of a thing, I will agree to a degree, mostly because of the points/ceilings for the skills.
The real problem is that strength is OP as a stat. Don't get me wrong, I fucking love high strength combat PCs.
But it's still OP.
Narrow the range of strength to more closely reflect Darksun tabletop and slightly reduce its importance in combat and it won't be quite the end-all, be-all stat it currently is for combat-oriented classes.
Quote from: Delirium on January 27, 2020, 07:44:42 PM
The real problem is that strength is OP as a stat. Don't get me wrong, I fucking love high strength combat PCs.
But it's still OP.
Narrow the range of strength to more closely reflect Darksun tabletop and slightly reduce its importance in combat and it won't be quite the end-all, be-all stat it currently is for combat-oriented classes.
Strength is so very important! From the amount of armor you can wear to how much you can carry, what constitutes catching your fall etc. I don't mind stats being awesome like that not one bit however....
Quote from: triste on January 27, 2020, 06:48:55 PM
My argument doesn't shame or preclude anyone from doing anything. You can play he-man if you get the stat roll for it, awesome!! But if you roll a warrior with average strength instead of superhero strength, maybe it's time to roleplay more of a Robin Hood type who survives with cunning and wits. Don't just kill the concept off if you can. Self worth isn't tied to stats! That low stat roll character you have might end up being your most epic and accomplished character and that sort of variety is great.
... stats should not make or break a character. He-Man isn't comparable to Robin Hood, they use almost entirely different skillsets. Robin Hood is a ranger whereas He-Man is a warrior! Stats are too important to a character's success in the survival of the game world, it's not even arguable. Social roles may not have to worry about this, they're not the ones contracted to slay the megafauna or powerful criminals of the wastes. He-Man stands out, he's no rogue who can nick a coinpurse from you, he's agile but in a different way. Robin Hood will use his dexterous abilities to takedown an individual, and his Merry Men aid him in guerrilla warefare as is their strategy. These are tactics that cannot be incorporated with the stat system in general if you think about it unlike D&D 5e.
And another thing, there's nothing stopping these Supermen adopting these tactics of their statistical lessers. Stats aren't something you can ridicule or enslave a person for in the game world like someone with magick unless you've got low stats of course. A high statted character will receive praise, for example: this gladiator defeats the other in a bout due to abritirary and coded statistical advantage, not because they RPed the event beautifully.
Quote from: X-D on January 27, 2020, 07:08:36 PM
Against point buy.
Game already homogenized enough with the new classes. Since you cannot be exceptional by class anymore, least you have the chance by stats.
The more homogenized the rest of the player base the more you'll stand out by choosing to randomly roll while everyone else does point buy.
Derp, screwed up posting from a phone
Quote from: triste on January 27, 2020, 08:27:39 PM
Quote from: Quell on January 27, 2020, 08:20:35 PM
Quote from: X-D on January 27, 2020, 07:08:36 PM
Against point buy.
Game already homogenized enough with the new classes. Since you cannot be exceptional by class anymore, least you have the chance by stats.
So you are admitting point buy leads to more similar concepts than dissimilar ones [as has been well observed by other posters]. Yup, not for it.
The more homogenized the rest of the player base the more you'll stand out by choosing to randomly roll while everyone else does point buy.
Were you going to write something additionally? Yeah, people who aren't one of four typical min/maxxed builds will stand out more, and overall you have less variety, by quoting without additional content are you implying it is a good thing? A lot of players voicing their opinions like variety and range more than cookie cutter minmaxxed builds.
Also kudos Delirium for also noting the elephant in the room of stats themselves being unbalanced and that being more of the issue
Quote from: Strongheart on January 27, 2020, 08:14:18 PM
Quote from: Delirium on January 27, 2020, 07:44:42 PM
The real problem is that strength is OP as a stat. Don't get me wrong, I fucking love high strength combat PCs.
But it's still OP.
Narrow the range of strength to more closely reflect Darksun tabletop and slightly reduce its importance in combat and it won't be quite the end-all, be-all stat it currently is for combat-oriented classes.
Strength is so very important! From the amount of armor you can wear to how much you can carry, what constitutes catching your fall etc. I don't mind stats being awesome like that not one bit however....
Quote from: triste on January 27, 2020, 06:48:55 PM
My argument doesn't shame or preclude anyone from doing anything. You can play he-man if you get the stat roll for it, awesome!! But if you roll a warrior with average strength instead of superhero strength, maybe it's time to roleplay more of a Robin Hood type who survives with cunning and wits. Don't just kill the concept off if you can. Self worth isn't tied to stats! That low stat roll character you have might end up being your most epic and accomplished character and that sort of variety is great.
... stats should not make or break a character. He-Man isn't comparable to Robin Hood, they use almost entirely different skillsets. Robin Hood is a ranger whereas He-Man is a warrior! Stats are too important to a character's success in the survival of the game world, it's not even arguable. Social roles may not have to worry about this, they're not the ones contracted to slay the megafauna or powerful criminals of the wastes. He-Man stands out, he's no rogue who can nick a coinpurse from you, he's agile but in a different way. Robin Hood will use his dexterous abilities to takedown an individual, and his Merry Men aid him in guerrilla warefare as is their strategy. These are tactics that cannot be incorporated with the stat system in general if you think about it unlike D&D 5e.
Setting aside the point of Robin Hood being more of a ranger, you are actually backing up my point. With point buy, you might end up with 10 he-mans, five Robin Hoods, and one more human, less minmaxxed hero like Jessica Jones. Without point buy what type of stats you get are more random. So as a result you have more flawed heroes like Daredevil, Joker, JJ. Personally I find that more interesting and I am glad for anything that leads to less minmaxxed homogeneity. But I will drop it here, recognizing my own preference for flawed and nuanced characters than meta/minmaxxed characters.
Edit/Addition: Jessica Jones represents exactly the bad stat roll people despise. Mediocre strength [definitely
below average compared to heroes like Hulk], terrible agi given now clumsy she is, average wisdom given the mistakes she makes, but great endurance with the multiple handles of whisky she drinks. The archetypical, "bad" high endurance stat roll. The kind of character a powergamer might suicide. But actually, she is one of the more iconic heroes of this last decade and totally a concept worth playing. All concepts are worthy and judging from ratings and the box office anti heroes and flawed heroes are more interesting and worth watching.
For two decades, it's been a stinky, ornery elephant in the room that statrolls vary so much. This is a game where code matters, otherwise we'd be playing a MUSH. Why, then, is it possible (frankly common) for two characters of the same race, class and age to have stat rolls that vary by a total of 50% or more? Why do we have to accept that one character gets exceptional, extremely good, extremely good, very good while the next gets good, above average, average, poor? I don't see what purpose it serves, but there have traditionally been a number of arguments against curtailing the randomness of stats:
1) It's realistic
2) It adds "fun" variation between characters
3) Not everyone is meant to be great
4) ArMaGeDdOn Is NoT mEaNt To Be BaLaNcEd
As far as #1 goes, while there certainly is a lot of variation between individuals in real life, we're playing a game here. Also, people usually aren't born with exceptional strength or poor endurance. You could have genetics that favor certain 'stats' but almost all of it comes down to the life you live, barring extreme anomalies like Andre the Giant. If you work out a lot, you'll be strong and tough. If you grow up in an intellectually stimulating environment and educate yourself, you'll be smart. You could be born with an irreparably low IQ or a fabulous physique, but by and large, people aren't just destined for some unfixable stat roll IRL. In the vast majority of cases, you are what you eat.
As for #2, just go to hell. This is the kind of virtue-signalling garbage spewed by people who want to look like superior roleplayers. In many cases, they're the same people who quickly abandon badly rolled characters and cling on for dear life when they roll great stats. There is nothing inherently fun about playing a character saddled with useless stats, and it's profoundly uncool to make enemies or otherwise compete with someone who rolled all godlike stats. We might as well have a 10% chance for any given character to start out with master in a random skill. It serves no purpose in a game that has a heavy emphasis on PvP.
Next up is #3. Sure, not everyone is meant to be the exception. We can't all be Alexander the Great, otherwise it wouldn't mean anything. But why does this have to be determined by a diceroll? Shouldn't your level of greatness be determined by your actions in-game and by the character creation options available through karma, special applications and things like that? More importantly, a shitty statroll can absolutely prevent your character from achieving coded greatness. I would like it to be a game where the potential of my characters did not depend so heavily on mindless dice. If I can't be great, I want it to be because my character's life and actions didn't warrant greatness, not because I rolled above average strength on my fighter.
And then we arrive at #4. How can you be this dumb, Imaginary Person Who Said That? We're sitting here playing a game with permadeath in a brutally punishing world, with wildly volatile combat code, and with a story that has become so low-key that killing dudes with bone swords is the highest achievement that most players can think of. How dare you sully my post with such a weak argument! No but seriously, can we please get rid of the notion that in a game with a rigid and carefully designed class system, where the outcomes of fights routinely come down to single-digit variations in skills and stats, balance is somehow not a thing? Hear me out here. I'll have to go into multiple paragraphs with this.
It takes a long-ass time to build up a combat character. We all know this. It's RL months of your time that go into training up these skills. It's RL years that go into earning the karma for some of the more interesting options. Yet somehow, for no readily apparent reason, much of that can be rendered invalid by something as random and uninteresting as statrolls. You can spend two months sparring diligently in the clan of your choice, but some random three-day idiot with AI strength will one-hit you with a maul to the head. You can play the world's most accomplished climber, but if you have 94 health, you'll die from a four-room fall. You can aspire to be the greatest thief in Allanak, but if you rolled good agility, there's going to be about thirty other miscreants in the city who are just better at it than you. And why? Why should this come down to a toss of the dice?
We aren't playing tabletop here. You aren't my buddy, pal. When you roll insane stats and I roll shit stats, we're not going to have a chuckle about it over a beer. My playing a bumbling, incompetent idiot is not some comedic element that we bond over. Odds are that you'll be the guy who gets promoted before me because you're way better at your job due to those stats. Or I'll be the guy who murders you because my stats were better. We're not supposed to exchange this information on Discord, so it's just going to be a souring, demotivating experience for one of us. It doesn't add anything to the game. It doesn't make anything more fun for the one whose stats come out to an average of, well, average. It might be fun for the guy with three exceptionals, but it shouldn't be. That shouldn't be a thing.
Equalize stats. Make it so that when you roll up a character, you have a relatively static total pool of baseline points. If you roll awesome strength, you don't also get awesome agility and endurance. If you get alright strength, you should pretty good rolls in the others. Let's be real, the code is wildly unbalanced in some aspects and will make or break characters based on statrolls. Take two guys with the same level of slashing skill and everything else; one can deal literally twice as much damage over the course of a fight as the other if he had exceptional strength and the other had good. When the latter character is not given something with which to compensate for that disadvantage, it feels terrible.
And while we're at it, do something about how much strength matters in combat. Seriously. We all know by now. Strength has had its day. I mean, come on.
Quote from: Brokkr on January 27, 2020, 06:11:30 PM
Quote from: John on January 27, 2020, 02:49:57 AM
Quote from: Brokkr on January 27, 2020, 12:21:12 AM
Some of you seem to be suffering from a misperception or misinformation.
Roll (based on race)
Age adjustments
Class/subclass adjustments
The lowest possible Roll is is the lowest tier of below average. If you are seeing poor or lower, it is not because of the Roll, but because of the adjustments that follow it.
while I appreciate the attempt to correct misconceptions, I dont think poor vs below average is really germane to anything anyone said.
Hmm, you are right! I misread something that was said, about having all stats "above average" as "below average". I guess I should have posted something about understanding what average means.
I dont really think any comments about average would have really added to the conversation.
You voice my thoughts MUCH better than I do, Greve O_O clearly you're a mindworm!!
Quote from: Greve on January 27, 2020, 08:53:27 PM
As for #2, just go to hell. This is the kind of virtue-signalling garbage spewed by people who want to look like superior roleplayers. In many cases, they're the same people who quickly abandon badly rolled characters and cling on for dear life when they roll great stats.
Not true at all. I have a stat roll comparable to other stat rolls that, upon showing people, they laughed at how bad it is. On deceased characters I've gotten feedback of "wow, I didn't even know HP can get that low." But I played these characters. I don't suicide over a bad stat roll. Actually, my "bad stat" characters have ended up PKing more and leading more than a lot of characters with a "good" stat roll. Because characters are meant to be fully fleshed out humans/whatevers.
Please refrain from vulgarity and patently wrong assumptions. I am not going to let you completely mischaracterize critics like this, it's a crass ad hominem attack, try again. Patently wrong name calling? Please try harder.
Certain posters on this thread, who shall currently remain nameless, should very much consider a kinder tone in their posts.
I do not like policing the GDB. It makes me somewhat cross.
You won't like me when I'm cross.
Please stay civil.
Anyway, insults aside, I am for whatever most players want, and what would make most players happy. We have a lot of GDB debates like this without any resolution, because there isn't a reliable way to measure player feedback and act on it.
I think some randomization with additional point buy could be really nice, similar to what Valeria proposed. Or, making the impact of different stat levels less extreme (arguments have been made that random stat rolls made more sense in early editions of DnD because the variance in stats had less impact). And we almost all agree Strength has too much impact on the viability of combat characters.
I think enough players are unhappy that we might want to see something change, but I appreciate all the players who have warned against full point buy, as there are enough case studies from DnD, etc to see how it impacts a game. But some compromise might be in order and lend to partial point buy, a decrease in variance for stat rolls, or some adjustment to individual stats like strength.
I mostly agree with what Greve said (minus the ad hominem stuff)
Aside from that, I'll take a plate of "stats matter too much to playability" with a side of "strength is op" and a light defeatist sprinkling of "I think actually fixing stats is such a massive job that staff wouldn't do it, even if the playerbase was in agreement".
Quote from: KittenLicks on January 27, 2020, 11:10:25 PM
I mostly agree with what Greve said.
Aside from that, I'll take a plate of "stats matter too much to playability" with a side of "strength is op" and a light defeatist sprinkling of "I think actually fixing stats is such a massive job that staff wouldn't do it, even if the playerbase was in agreement".
Amen.
As long as I have at least one extremely good stat...I feel happy. I feel a bit sad if I get one poor stat, but that is always my dump stat, so I am good with that. I've never felt a lack of success with poor stats. But I am one of those weird elitists that Greve was complaining about in #2. I have never suicided/stored because of my stats.
I'm happy with the current set-up. I like the randomness - rerolling gives me enough 'choice' to feel like I've had input.
What I -would- be far more interested in is having the ability to switch 1 point per IG year. To take into account our characters lives affecting them. So, your runty low strength high agility char that joined the Byn for a year? Perhaps their strength went up by a point, but they lost 1 point in wisdom from all the mind-numbing latrine duty. Cap it to avoid problems, but at least offer slow change as an 'option' - same amount of points you started with, but reallocated. BUT...stats only matter at the beginning and end-game, so, it wouldn't really effect anyone in real terms - I just like the ability to represent lifestyle choices :)
I wouldn't mind a point system.
I also wouldn't mind having 5 rerolls.
The grind to get anywhere codedly sucked before. Sucks worse now. Shitty stats make that even worse.
Can't suicide a sucky stat character though, that's BAD RP _and_ it goes on your "permanent" record.
So where's the balance?
Here's a thought... separate PLAYING the game from ROLEPLAYING the character. The game should be fun. Having no control over your stats isn't fun.
You can roleplay a badass all you want but if your stats don't jam with it it's gonna show.
Points or extra rerolls seems to be the easiest fix.
Well stated!
In the event of point buy stats, would I be able to spend all my points in a single stat? I know that for some races and stat priorities I've found extremely strong. I've played an AI endurance half-giant. I ask because I don't know if an all agility elf would ever have to worry about wildlife hitting them, or an all strength dwarf build reeling megafauna or something.
Quote from: lostinspace on January 28, 2020, 01:28:59 PM
In the event of point buy stats, would I be able to spend all my points in a single stat? I know that for some races and stat priorities I've found extremely strong. I've played an AI endurance half-giant. I ask because I don't know if an all agility elf would ever have to worry about wildlife hitting them, or an all strength dwarf build reeling megafauna or something.
Most point buy systems I've seen have diminishing returns as you pile more and more points into a single stat, I imagine to prevent this sort of scenario. Though truthfully, if they already allow a character to have maximum agility or strength from a roll, it shouldn't break the game anymore than it already is if you get to purchase it.
Here is the problem with point buy. In order to make it "fair", It is always set up so if you want one or more really high stats you have to sacrifice other stats. Normally they work (in arm terms) You start with the race min and you have x number of points to spend. Now if you spread the points evenly you normally end up with above ave across the board. If you want an AI then normally that means you have to have one or more stats at race minimum and maybe one at around average. This results in everybody essentially having the same stats. Which many do already because of stat ordering. Now me, I don't stat order, I hate the idea of saying Hey, str is more important then wis or agi is less important then con first off. I also hate every single PC of mine being the same stat wise. Along with every other PC.
In my 50 or so PCs, I have gotten g/g/g/g, vg/vg/vg/vg E/E/EG/E, AI/E/VG/AI, And also things like, BA/AI/VG/E, AA/VG/VG/AI, BA/E/AA/EG, BA/VG/G/G. All of those long lived PCs, all of them fun. Most of those I would not have gotten with stat ordering and Almost none of them with point buy.
As to having more rerolls...shrug, Sure, But take away reroll undo if you use more then one reroll. Otherwise you get everybody still having the same stats, If you ordered stats and got to pick say the best of five, the odds say so. Now, if you know that going past the first reroll means you HAVE to take one of the next 3...Heh.
I'm not a big fan of the idea, but I realize I'm not every player, and was giving this a little thought earlier. What if there was a starting shop vendor to take care of this?
>score
You are blah blah blah; character that chose a class with a buff to
strength. Everything else is below average, you n00b. You're also of
middle age, so there's no other stat modifiers.
Your strength is average, your agility is below average, your
endurance is below average, your wisdom is below average.
>Point #: You enter said starting shop.
All The Things In Life That Shaped You |S SW N E NE|
This room has a description. It's pretty descriptive. If you read this
description, you'll know all about what this room looks like. There's
some stuff here. It's very stuff-like. There are no telephones though.
The buff, smart, durable, flexible trainer is here, ready to pomp yoo opp.
>inv
10 stat chits.
Some other stuff.
>list
The buff, smart, durable, flexible trainer has the following:
1. an above average strength vial for 2 chits.
2. a good strength vial for 3 chits.
3. a very good strength vial for 4 chits.
4. an exceptional strength vial for 5 chits.
5. an absolutely incredible strength vial for 6 chits.
6. an average agility vial for 1 chit.
7. an above average agility vial for 2 chits.
8. you get the point!
9. a classic stat roll w/ reroll/undo option for 10 chits.
10. a one time stat refund vial for 0 chits.
> buy #3
You give the buff, smart, durable, flexible trainer 4 chits for a very
good strength vial.
>use strength
You drink down the contents of a very good strength vial.
You feel buff!
>score
Your strength is very good, your agility is below average, your
endurance is below average, your wisdom is below average.
>inv
6 stat chits.
Some other stuff.
Obviously, prices would change depending on the stats. Having bought the very good strength vial, the next level would only cost a single chit. A refund vial would be a good rescue for people that mess up and need to redo said stats, because they bought the wisdom instead of the strength, and don't want wisdom.
Buying the classic stat roll would then roll your stats at it currently does, using the priority you set during creation, and would allow your single reroll/undo as it currently does. Buying the refund chit would have no effect on this method. If someone leaves the starting shops without buying their points, they'll be automagickally given the classic random roll, with their reroll/undo option intact.
The classic roll should always have a chance to be better than those that use the point buy, as a reward for the chance taken, while the point buy will let people more keen on getting the prime stat they want for their class/description.
The numbers I used aren't concrete, of course, or even balanced. I'm not that smart of a designer! XD But I figure this might be a good example to go in line with the starting shops as they currently are.
I'm not sure the game benefits from an actual points-buy system. At the end of the day, it isn't Baldur's Gate. Tailor-made stats go against the nature of an RPI. But so does the extreme randomness of the current system, especially in a game that bills itself as being all about murder, corruption and betrayal, where these days you can barely sneeze in someone's general direction without incentivizing them to kill you. There is no noteworthy genre of gaming that did not realize this about twenty years ago, so a change is warranted.
Just make a static amount of points that is allotted to every character, and roll them with a degree of randomness. Let's say everyone gets 60 points, plus/minus race adjustments. You might get EX/EG/BA/BA or you might get VG/G/G/G. That feels fair enough. What does not feel fair is when one dude gets EX/EX/EG/VG and another gets G/AA/BA/P. Sometimes you'll get a character who's really strong or agile or whatever, but nothing special in other respects; and sometimes you'll get a character who's alright across the board. That seems good enough to me.
The documentation tells us that this is a world where only the well-adapted survive. If you're born weak, dumb and slow, you don't make it to the age of PChood. It's entirely reasonable to say that those of the Zalanthans who are represented as PCs are the ones who are not suffering from some massive stat deficiency. You're ever so welcome to play your PC as a simpleton or hopeless cripple if that's your character concept, but it should not be something that the code imposes on you. It should be a choice.
We haven't got one dungeon master for every four players whose job it is to sit there and make everyone feel relevant regardless of their stats. A raw diceroll stat system works when you do, not when you don't. We have to make our own way in the world, and it feels so discouraging when the first thing you're met with upon the commencement of your character is a shrugworthy statroll, and it frankly feels unfair when you're greeted with a "you're guaranteed to destroy the world" roll. This should just not be a factor. It's 2020. Arm is still a game.
Quote from: Greve on January 27, 2020, 08:53:27 PM
For two decades, it's been a stinky, ornery elephant in the room that statrolls vary so much. This is a game where code matters, otherwise we'd be playing a MUSH. Why, then, is it possible (frankly common) for two characters of the same race, class and age to have stat rolls that vary by a total of 50% or more? Why do we have to accept that one character gets exceptional, extremely good, extremely good, very good while the next gets good, above average, average, poor? I don't see what purpose it serves, but there have traditionally been a number of arguments against curtailing the randomness of stats:
1) It's realistic
2) It adds "fun" variation between characters
3) Not everyone is meant to be great
4) ArMaGeDdOn Is NoT mEaNt To Be BaLaNcEd
As far as #1 goes, while there certainly is a lot of variation between individuals in real life, we're playing a game here. Also, people usually aren't born with exceptional strength or poor endurance. You could have genetics that favor certain 'stats' but almost all of it comes down to the life you live, barring extreme anomalies like Andre the Giant. If you work out a lot, you'll be strong and tough. If you grow up in an intellectually stimulating environment and educate yourself, you'll be smart. You could be born with an irreparably low IQ or a fabulous physique, but by and large, people aren't just destined for some unfixable stat roll IRL. In the vast majority of cases, you are what you eat.
As for #2, just go to hell. This is the kind of virtue-signalling garbage spewed by people who want to look like superior roleplayers. In many cases, they're the same people who quickly abandon badly rolled characters and cling on for dear life when they roll great stats. There is nothing inherently fun about playing a character saddled with useless stats, and it's profoundly uncool to make enemies or otherwise compete with someone who rolled all godlike stats. We might as well have a 10% chance for any given character to start out with master in a random skill. It serves no purpose in a game that has a heavy emphasis on PvP.
Next up is #3. Sure, not everyone is meant to be the exception. We can't all be Alexander the Great, otherwise it wouldn't mean anything. But why does this have to be determined by a diceroll? Shouldn't your level of greatness be determined by your actions in-game and by the character creation options available through karma, special applications and things like that? More importantly, a shitty statroll can absolutely prevent your character from achieving coded greatness. I would like it to be a game where the potential of my characters did not depend so heavily on mindless dice. If I can't be great, I want it to be because my character's life and actions didn't warrant greatness, not because I rolled above average strength on my fighter.
And then we arrive at #4. How can you be this dumb, Imaginary Person Who Said That? We're sitting here playing a game with permadeath in a brutally punishing world, with wildly volatile combat code, and with a story that has become so low-key that killing dudes with bone swords is the highest achievement that most players can think of. How dare you sully my post with such a weak argument! No but seriously, can we please get rid of the notion that in a game with a rigid and carefully designed class system, where the outcomes of fights routinely come down to single-digit variations in skills and stats, balance is somehow not a thing? Hear me out here. I'll have to go into multiple paragraphs with this.
It takes a long-ass time to build up a combat character. We all know this. It's RL months of your time that go into training up these skills. It's RL years that go into earning the karma for some of the more interesting options. Yet somehow, for no readily apparent reason, much of that can be rendered invalid by something as random and uninteresting as statrolls. You can spend two months sparring diligently in the clan of your choice, but some random three-day idiot with AI strength will one-hit you with a maul to the head. You can play the world's most accomplished climber, but if you have 94 health, you'll die from a four-room fall. You can aspire to be the greatest thief in Allanak, but if you rolled good agility, there's going to be about thirty other miscreants in the city who are just better at it than you. And why? Why should this come down to a toss of the dice?
We aren't playing tabletop here. You aren't my buddy, pal. When you roll insane stats and I roll shit stats, we're not going to have a chuckle about it over a beer. My playing a bumbling, incompetent idiot is not some comedic element that we bond over. Odds are that you'll be the guy who gets promoted before me because you're way better at your job due to those stats. Or I'll be the guy who murders you because my stats were better. We're not supposed to exchange this information on Discord, so it's just going to be a souring, demotivating experience for one of us. It doesn't add anything to the game. It doesn't make anything more fun for the one whose stats come out to an average of, well, average. It might be fun for the guy with three exceptionals, but it shouldn't be. That shouldn't be a thing.
Equalize stats. Make it so that when you roll up a character, you have a relatively static total pool of baseline points. If you roll awesome strength, you don't also get awesome agility and endurance. If you get alright strength, you should pretty good rolls in the others. Let's be real, the code is wildly unbalanced in some aspects and will make or break characters based on statrolls. Take two guys with the same level of slashing skill and everything else; one can deal literally twice as much damage over the course of a fight as the other if he had exceptional strength and the other had good. When the latter character is not given something with which to compensate for that disadvantage, it feels terrible.
And while we're at it, do something about how much strength matters in combat. Seriously. We all know by now. Strength has had its day. I mean, come on.
I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, here.
First, you don't know who has and has not suicided characters. So saying that the people who like randomness are the same people who suicide characters is a disingenuous statement at the very least.
I like the random element, and have never suicided a character. Further, the ability to be an Arnold Schwarzenegger type guy quite simply isn't in everyone's genetics, and I'm sorry, but if you're born with a low IQ, there isn't really a "fix" for that. In this way, the random element of character generation reflects the reality of life. People are not born with equal potential. That said, people with "average" stats can still become competent characters. And they add to the game world. They're a part of the living, breathing story that we all work together to create. And you already hit on the point of all this. Without average joes, being Alexander the Great means nothing. I don't mind playing a few average Joe's in order to have the opportunity for my Alexander the Great to mean something and be sort of a big deal.
I've stuck with Arm for so long BECAUSE of the asymetrical character power levels, and the interesting RP that can result from that. I've played the mundane characters with mediocre stats and no magick who try to take on the supermen of the game(templars/mages/etc), and have most often met with failure in the end. But, newsflash, we ALL meet with failure in the end, one way or another, unless we store. The game isn't about the destination. It's not about victory. It's about the journey. And flawed characters often have the most interesting journeys.
My favorite D&D character I've ever played was a rogue that my party nicknamed the trapfinder, because he'd always critical fail his find traps rolls and set the trap off. He normally survived the trap with 1hp left. Eventually, he died to, you guessed it, a trap. He was terrible at that whole trap finding business, but it was an incredibly fun journey playing the character, in spite of his failures.
If arm switched to a pure point buy system in the name of balance, I'd probably lose interest in the game. Average joes, unlucky Lue's, and Amazing Moe's should all exist to create the ideal RPing environment. And with time, persistence, and patience, most players should be able to play all of these, and have a good time with each of them.
Quote from: Greve on January 28, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
these days you can barely sneeze in someone's general direction without incentivizing them to kill you. There is no noteworthy genre of gaming that did not realize this about twenty years ago, so a change is warranted.
Finally, I do agree that a change is warranted, but I don't think changing the stat system is the solution to this. There are many other reasons that this is the case right now that I have touched on in other threads. Other options, aside from murder, have been taken away over the years. If we reintroduce more alternatives to PK, I think people will use them to create more RP and less immediate character death, and we may even draw back some players who have left the game because they didn't like the changes.
TL;DR - I like the stat roll system how it is.
QuoteFirst, you don't know who has and has not suicided characters. So saying that the people who like randomness are the same people who suicide characters is a disingenuous statement at the very least.
It's certainly an observation I've made over the years. People who want to and know how to get good statrolls have a vested interest in protecting that advantage. You can argue until you're blue in the face that this is not the case, but I've known quite a few players who would post here that the stat system is fine while letting several consecutive characters wade into the silt sea until they got a satisfactory roll. That's what you get in an environment where you benefit from sounding like you think all is well while knowing that it isn't.
QuoteI like the random element, and have never suicided a character. Further, the ability to be an Arnold Schwarzenegger type guy quite simply isn't in everyone's genetics, and I'm sorry, but if you're born with a low IQ, there isn't really a "fix" for that. In this way, the random element of character generation reflects the reality of life. People are not born with equal potential. That said, people with "average" stats can still become competent characters. And they add to the game world. They're a part of the living, breathing story that we all work together to create. And you already hit on the point of all this. Without average joes, being Alexander the Great means nothing. I don't mind playing a few average Joe's in order to have the opportunity for my Alexander the Great to mean something and be sort of a big deal.
Stop it with that nonsense. We don't saddle people's characters with the realization at the age of 30 that they suddenly have breast cancer or asthmatic bronchiitis. Huge coded disadvantages should not be something that's sprung on players in defiance of their character concepts. You have all the right in the world to play an average Joe if that's what you want, but people should not be forced to play an average Joe because their statroll told them it was their turn to do so. When another Alexander the Great emerges from the general populace, it should be becase his actions warranted greatness, not because he was luckier with the dice. And Amos the Perpetually Average should not arise from similar circumstances.
QuoteI've stuck with Arm for so long BECAUSE of the asymetrical character power levels, and the interesting RP that can result from that. I've played the mundane characters with mediocre stats and no magick who try to take on the supermen of the game(templars/mages/etc), and have most often met with failure in the end. But, newsflash, we ALL meet with failure in the end, one way or another, unless we store. The game isn't about the destination. It's not about victory. It's about the journey. And flawed characters often have the most interesting journeys.
This is the kind of virtue-signaling nonsense that I tried to warn against yesterday. You're trying to tell people of an online and deeply impersonal game that they have a duty to spend some portion of their time pursuing some pointless, hopeless endeavor that they're meant to fail because of a diceroll. Why? What purpose does this serve? There are enough advantages stacked in the favor of certain character types that a blind statroll should not play a part in that. If someone wants to play a certain role, and spends both their own time and the time of reviewing and supporting staff in the pursuit of that endeavor, they should not be barred from doing so because their 3d4 came out 3.
QuoteMy favorite D&D character I've ever played was a rogue that my party nicknamed the trapfinder, because he'd always critical fail his find traps rolls and set the trap off. He normally survived the trap with 1hp left. Eventually, he died to, you guessed it, a trap. He was terrible at that whole trap finding business, but it was an incredibly fun journey playing the character, in spite of his failures.
Good for you. I'm so very glad that was an enjoyable time for you. Can you point out any reliable in-game Armageddon scenarios where such an experience could be had under the same circumstances? Where being terrible at something that was supposed to be your character concept led to an objectively enjoyable experience? I wager you can't. I fully expect you to now come up with some conconcted story to the contrary, but yet again I call BS.
QuoteIf arm switched to a pure point buy system in the name of balance, I'd probably lose interest in the game. Average joes, unlucky Lue's, and Amazing Moe's should all exist to create the ideal RPing environment. And with time, persistence, and patience, most players should be able to play all of these, and have a good time with each of them.
This I agree with. A point buy system is not something I want (as by my most recent post), but what I want to get rid of is the current situation where one dude's stats are just so much better that the other's that the latter has nothing to feel pleased about. Get rid of that shit.
QuoteFinally, I do agree that a change is warranted, but I don't think changing the stat system is the solution to this. There are many other reasons that this is the case right now that I have touched on in other threads. Other options, aside from murder, have been taken away over the years. If we reintroduce more alternatives to PK, I think people will use them to create more RP and less immediate character death, and we may even draw back some players who have left the game because they didn't like the changes.
Sure, but until that day arrives, I think the game would be a lot better off if each character's lot in life was not so heavily dependent on wildly random dicerolls that determine whether they're okay or fantastic. And I think you're arguing against this because you feel it makes you look like a good boy who thinks everything is fine as it is.
Quote from: Greve on January 28, 2020, 07:38:49 PM
QuoteFirst, you don't know who has and has not suicided characters. So saying that the people who like randomness are the same people who suicide characters is a disingenuous statement at the very least.
It's certainly an observation I've made over the years.
Your observation isn't accurate given all the people here to say that this is not the case. You can ask the Imms to look at my entire 60+ character history over the past 5-7 years and the evidence will show that you were flat out wrong to make a disparaging and inaccurate statement like this.
Quote from: Greve on January 28, 2020, 07:38:49 PM
QuoteI've stuck with Arm for so long BECAUSE of the asymetrical character power levels, and the interesting RP that can result from that. I've played the mundane characters with mediocre stats and no magick who try to take on the supermen of the game(templars/mages/etc), and have most often met with failure in the end. But, newsflash, we ALL meet with failure in the end, one way or another, unless we store. The game isn't about the destination. It's not about victory. It's about the journey. And flawed characters often have the most interesting journeys.
This is the kind of virtue-signaling nonsense that I tried to warn against yesterday. You're trying to tell people of an online and deeply impersonal game that they have a duty to spend some portion of their time pursuing some pointless, hopeless endeavor that they're meant to fail because of a diceroll. Why? What purpose does this serve?
Virtue signalling? How about you take it up with literature--nevermind, scratch that, I know you will just say "but this is a game"-- how about you take it up with any non-Resident Evil survival horror game ever made. Weak characters aren't "pointless" or "hopeless." In fact, games with weak characters would be 10000 times more boring if their protagonists were cookie cutter commandos. I like interesting stories, and variety, not boring stories told the same way every time with the same Rambo-Snake-Pliskin protag. "What purpose does this serve?" That's the purpose it serves: good story telling and variety in the stories told.
Quote from: Greve on January 28, 2020, 07:38:49 PM
QuoteMy favorite D&D character I've ever played was a rogue that my party nicknamed the trapfinder, because he'd always critical fail his find traps rolls and set the trap off. He normally survived the trap with 1hp left. Eventually, he died to, you guessed it, a trap. He was terrible at that whole trap finding business, but it was an incredibly fun journey playing the character, in spite of his failures.
Good for you. I'm so very glad that was an enjoyable time for you. Can you point out any reliable in-game Armageddon scenarios where such an experience could be had under the same circumstances? Where being terrible at something that was supposed to be your character concept led to an objectively enjoyable experience? I wager you can't.
Yes, I had a character so pathetically weak she could hardly lift things. I knew I was going to get a crap stat roll with this character given her age, and gave her a description to match, she had rickets, respiratory issues, etc. When she sparred, her dagger bounced off people and she could barely land a hit. People wrote her off as weak and useless. She ended up being one of the most prolific burglars in Tuluk, people hired her, and up until her dying day no one suspected her of anything. Again, there are strategies to "success" for a character that do not involve "max statz." You can even use a bad stat roll to your advantage.
Quote from: Greve on January 28, 2020, 07:38:49 PM
QuoteFinally, I do agree that a change is warranted, but I don't think changing the stat system is the solution to this. There are many other reasons that this is the case right now that I have touched on in other threads. Other options, aside from murder, have been taken away over the years. If we reintroduce more alternatives to PK, I think people will use them to create more RP and less immediate character death, and we may even draw back some players who have left the game because they didn't like the changes.
Sure, but until that day arrives, I think the game would be a lot better off if each character's lot in life was not so heavily dependent on wildly random dicerolls that determine whether they're okay or fantastic. And I think you're arguing against this because you feel it makes you look like a good boy who thinks everything is fine as it is.
You've got to stop this "if you like the status quo you're a bootlicker" narrative, though credit to you you used the term "I think" this time rather than outright blasting people with your false notion. I mentioned literature earlier, but went with a game example to avoid the whole "but this is a gaaaaame" retort... but I genuinely think a variety in concepts leads to good story telling. That's my motivation. Even some of the first protagonists devised by human kind, such as Gilgamesh, were flawed. If every protagonist in a book ever were some massively muscled, agile, sturdy, and witty alpha-chad I think it would indicate a species that could learn nothing about strengths, weaknesses, teamwork. We would be the two-dimensional cavemen in those stories. If all protagonists were the same, we wouldn't have literature or the nearly infinite number of narratives we have now. I like mixed narratives, not only because they capture different aspects of reality but also because they are more interesting.
Believe it or not, just because you want to play a character with "great stats" does not mean everyone wants what you want. And by the way, point buy doesn't result in everyone having great stats, it results in everyone having the same stats.
Quote from: X-D on January 28, 2020, 05:43:05 PM
Here is the problem with point buy... [detailed explanation of how points end up being distributed]... This results in everybody essentially having the same stats.
John, Valeria, and others also elucidated this point, and several case studies describing this can be found for DnD and other games.
If we do point buy, you would have to make the leeway / number of points very limited to avoid homogenous min-maxxed builds.
Quote from: Greve on January 28, 2020, 07:38:49 PM
QuoteFirst, you don't know who has and has not suicided characters. So saying that the people who like randomness are the same people who suicide characters is a disingenuous statement at the very least.
It's certainly an observation I've made over the years.
That's an anecdotal observation, and far from conclusive. You don't have access to enough data to know statistically.
Quote
Stop it with that nonsense. When another Alexander the Great emerges from the general populace, it should be becase his actions warranted greatness, not because he was luckier with the dice.
But the real Alexander the Great got lucky with exactly said dice roll. Otherwise, the world would be filled with them. Some people are born with the potential for greatness. Other's aren't. We can be sad about it, but it is what it is. And I like that Arm reflects that reality. Please don't refer to my opinion as nonsense. It's an opinion. We can disagree without being dismissive of the other person's thoughts on the matter.
Quote
This is the kind of virtue-signaling nonsense that I tried to warn against yesterday. You're trying to tell people of an online and deeply impersonal game that they have a duty to spend some portion of their time pursuing some pointless, hopeless endeavor that they're meant to fail because of a diceroll.
There is no "fail". We're roleplaying characters, and I find it insulting that you think the fact that I enjoy RPing is virtue signaling. I've played many underwhelming characters that had big goals and failed, but I still enjoyed playing them. I enjoyed the nuance of relationships and ambitions, both fulfilled and unfulfilled. I enjoyed playing the characters. And sure, some were "better" than others, stat-wise. But in the 20 years of playing this game, I've only had to ask for a stat adjustment once, and that was on a crafter who didn't have enough agility to hold 5 items to craft together, back before they allowed you to craft from items on the ground in the room with you.
Incidentally, that crafter was one of my two favorite characters I've ever had in this game. So, I guess the fact that my favorite character was a crafter with no extended subguild and no magic might give you some insight into what sort of things I enjoy as a player. I like RPing, so social characters are worthy, even if their stats are so bad you have to request an adjustment to them to be able to perform their basic skills.
Quote
Good for you. I'm so very glad that was an enjoyable time for you. Can you point out any reliable in-game Armageddon scenarios where such an experience could be had under the same circumstances? Where being terrible at something that was supposed to be your character concept led to an objectively enjoyable experience? I wager you can't. I fully expect you to now come up with some conconcted story to the contrary, but yet again I call BS.
I guess I already gave an example of this. No need for hostility. It's ok for different people to enjoy different things and play for different reasons.
QuoteQuoteFinally, I do agree that a change is warranted, but I don't think changing the stat system is the solution to this. There are many other reasons that this is the case right now that I have touched on in other threads. Other options, aside from murder, have been taken away over the years. If we reintroduce more alternatives to PK, I think people will use them to create more RP and less immediate character death, and we may even draw back some players who have left the game because they didn't like the changes.
Sure, but until that day arrives, I think the game would be a lot better off if each character's lot in life was not so heavily dependent on wildly random dicerolls that determine whether they're okay or fantastic. And I think you're arguing against this because you feel it makes you look like a good boy who thinks everything is fine as it is.
Trust me when I say that I have virtually no interest in looking like the "good boy". Staff can attest to the fact that I am very outspoken and don't hesitate to disagree with them. I'm actually quite well-known for being confrontational with staff on issues where we don't agree. I don't bite my tongue just because I have an unpopular idea. I think all ideas should be debated on their merit alone, regardless of perceived popularity. I have no sacred cows.
The fact is, I really do like the system the way it is, and the majority of people who responded in this thread have said the same thing. You can't really believe that over half the responders in this thread secretly want the system changed, but are trying to brown-nose to staff, and so they voice an opinion in opposition to their own self-interest. That's absurd.
Quote from: Greve on January 28, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
I'm not sure the game benefits from an actual points-buy system. At the end of the day, it isn't Baldur's Gate. Tailor-made stats go against the nature of an RPI. But so does the extreme randomness of the current system, especially in a game that bills itself as being all about murder, corruption and betrayal, where these days you can barely sneeze in someone's general direction without incentivizing them to kill you. There is no noteworthy genre of gaming that did not realize this about twenty years ago, so a change is warranted.
Just make a static amount of points that is allotted to every character, and roll them with a degree of randomness. Let's say everyone gets 60 points, plus/minus race adjustments. You might get EX/EG/BA/BA or you might get VG/G/G/G. That feels fair enough. What does not feel fair is when one dude gets EX/EX/EG/VG and another gets G/AA/BA/P. Sometimes you'll get a character who's really strong or agile or whatever, but nothing special in other respects; and sometimes you'll get a character who's alright across the board. That seems good enough to me.
The documentation tells us that this is a world where only the well-adapted survive. If you're born weak, dumb and slow, you don't make it to the age of PChood. It's entirely reasonable to say that those of the Zalanthans who are represented as PCs are the ones who are not suffering from some massive stat deficiency. You're ever so welcome to play your PC as a simpleton or hopeless cripple if that's your character concept, but it should not be something that the code imposes on you. It should be a choice.
We haven't got one dungeon master for every four players whose job it is to sit there and make everyone feel relevant regardless of their stats. A raw diceroll stat system works when you do, not when you don't. We have to make our own way in the world, and it feels so discouraging when the first thing you're met with upon the commencement of your character is a shrugworthy statroll, and it frankly feels unfair when you're greeted with a "you're guaranteed to destroy the world" roll. This should just not be a factor. It's 2020. Arm is still a game.
100% my thoughts in this as well, Greves! I regret ever naming this point buy versus random when all I am saying is that the game shouldn't be so random with stats. This suggestion is my favorite thus far not gonna lie :)
Also, I feel like you two either missed or chose to ignore Greve's other post, Heade and triste. I'm not going to kid around, I've felt that the outright refusal of a new system to promote some semblance of fairness while retaining where points go with total points entact rather than the current system is disheartening when there could be such a great compromise!
And I disagree, there's been a chunk of the playerbase that desires a different/reworked system based off what I've heard over the years. Albeit they're afraid or feel it is pointless to speak up or haven't checked in on the GDB yet :(
If you consider what has been posted here, there's actually nearly an even split between changing the system or retaining it! A change does seem to be more in favor though.
Hey, Greve, I really agree with most of your actual points, but I do wish you'd stop implying people that disagree with you regularly suicide characters. You're not going to convince anyone like that, you know?
We're all friends here (when we're not cutting each other up with bone swords).
Quote from: KittenLicks on January 29, 2020, 03:45:31 AM
Hey, Greve, I really agree with most of your actual points, but I do wish you'd stop implying people that disagree with you regularly suicide characters. You're not going to convince anyone like that, you know?
We're all friends here (when we're not cutting each other up with bone swords).
I second that! :D
If there was a way to actually raise one's stats in-game, extremely slowly, it would be pretty cool.
Wearing heavy armor, or using large weapons could naturally raise someone's strength slightly, given it's done for a very long time.
Lots of running, or playing many games that require good hand-eye coordination (darts, ball-tossing, ect) could raise someone's agi.
Wisdom already naturally raises the older you get, but could also be gained through more intellectual pursuits (speaking in languages you didn't start with, working with skills you've already mastered as meditative reflection, using the way extremely often)
Endurance is raised slowly by getting wounded and recovering, and also maybe given a bonus by taking more permanent scars.
Conversely, make ways to also slowly lose stats.
Being completely unencumbered for long periods of time, or not engaging in any practice, sparring, or the like can very slowly lower your strength.
Being 'completely full' too much, or sleeping/resting for extremely long periods of time can lower your agility as you grow fatter.
Getting reeled, drunk, knocked out, or high too often can lower your wisdom.
Staying indoors for long periods of time or remaining completely unscathed for long periods can lower your endurance.
--
I feel it would encourage people that want to improve to:
Play darts and actually begin a training regiment if they wish to be faster.
Encourage weight-training for people that want to become stronger, and reward those that regularly train and wear outside of their comfort.
Allow people that often are trapped in hours-long way conversations to actually receive some small benefit and not feel as if they are wasting their time, as well as allow those who actively become more worldly to be more receptive to ideas.
To allow people to get hurt, take risks, and roleplay being a badass who does in fact get tougher and more grizzled the more fucked up they get.
I feel it would discourage:
Behavior where people particularly min-max their weight levels to be low that they have absolutely the highest defense possible.
Ignoring chores, patrols, and marches for military-based clans, or running drills.
Powergaming being immune to the effects of abuse of drugs, or repeated head trauma.
People only logging on to sit in apartments, never leaving.
This is just my two cents, it's not perfect, but it's an idea.
I for one would welcome a way to organically increase/decrease stats through role play oriented IC behaviors, over extended periods.
Quote from: only_plays_tribals on January 29, 2020, 08:37:00 AM
I for one would welcome a way to organically increase/decrease stats through role play oriented IC behaviors, over extended periods.
+ AdamBlue's post spelling out possibilites.
Also in favor, because is drives roleplay and doesn't introduce the issue of homogenized min maxxed builds right out the gates. Also helps address other twinkish and annoying behaviors that break roleplay. Implementation code wise would be potentially be a pain in the ass but since we are pie in the sky dreaming this is the best idea so far because it drives roleplay, which should always be the top consideration in this game.
I know most of you probably already know this, but I'm going to mention it anyway because I haven't seen it in the thread yet. You do have the option of asking staff for a stat increase for role play. Just keep some logs of doing it and submit a request. I have never done it myself, because as I've stated earlier, I rarely, if ever, have a roll so bad that I can't deal with it, especially since the reroll option was implemented. I'm willing to bet that if your stats suck so bad as some have said they've rolled up, staff would likely grant the request.
Also, since there seems to be some perception that most people want a change in the way stats are distributed, I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote again for keeping things the way they are. There are plenty of players that don't post on the GDB, so reading through a thread is no way to draw conclusions about what folks want.
Quote from: JohnMichaelHenry on January 29, 2020, 09:10:26 AM
I know most of you probably already know this, but I'm going to mention it anyway because I haven't seen it in the thread yet. You do have the option of asking staff for a stat increase for role play. Just keep some logs of doing it and submit a request. I have never done it myself, because as I've stated earlier, I rarely, if ever, have a roll so bad that I can't deal with it, especially since the reroll option was implemented. I'm willing to bet that if your stats suck so bad as some have said they've rolled up, staff would likely grant the request.
Also, since there seems to be some perception that most people want a change in the way stats are distributed, I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote again for keeping things the way they are. There are plenty of players that don't post on the GDB, so reading through a thread is no way to draw conclusions about what folks want.
Last I understood it, stat increases were no longer entertained unless there was a literally unplayable scenario (agility so low you cannot have items in your inventory).
Quote from: JohnMichaelHenry on January 29, 2020, 09:10:26 AM
Also, since there seems to be some perception that most people want a change in the way stats are distributed, I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote again for keeping things the way they are. There are plenty of players that don't post on the GDB, so reading through a thread is no way to draw conclusions about what folks want.
+1 +1 +1 +1
The prior statement by OP that "more seem in favor of point buy" involved a lot of... selective counting. And good point that the GDB isn't a solid measure. I mentioned this early on. GDB polls were removed because people use alt accounts but it would be great if there was an in game way to vote on propositions since one game account per person is strictly enforced with IP lookups etc.
Regardless, I hope imms are paying heed and considering options they can implement. Despite being told by selective readers that I am not in favor of compromise, I have mentioned a few times I am. But I am absolutely opposed to anything that completely flattens variation, leads to minmaxxing and hurts roleplay. Mechanics like lifting weights to get stronger could be fantastic if feasible.
False. OP (me) never once said that point buy would be the wider of accepted alternatives, I said that an alternative seems to be widely more popular than keeping the same random system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/90ssqr/reminder_that_min_maxing_and_good_roleplay_are/
I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.
Quote from: Strongheart on January 29, 2020, 09:57:01 AM
I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.
Yeah, sure. I am a weirdo who likes realism and literature and am fine with things being unfair in terms of the total spread of points because it adds diversity and realism. But most modern gamers rage when they feel something is "unfair" so if artificially equalizing things will appease all sides of our playerbase sure. It by definition limits variability and diversity but I can back this up if some people really can't stomach bad stats and playing something other than an alpha chad beefcake. I would invite them to try different concepts; I wish people could see that this game isn't about "winning" with the "best stats" and at no point has it ever been. But I do concede this matters a lot to some people and I want them to be happy and not break rules by suiciding characters. Full point buy, as stated by four or more posters besides myself, will lead to the least variation out of all of these options and more skewed gameplay in a game that is already inherently unbalanced. But compromises like this, sure, maybe.
Quote from: triste on January 29, 2020, 10:25:10 AM
Quote from: Strongheart on January 29, 2020, 09:57:01 AM
I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.
Yeah, sure. I am a weirdo who likes realism and literature and am fine with things being unfair in terms of the total spread of points because it adds diversity and realism. But most modern gamers rage when they feel something is "unfair" so if artificially equalizing things will appease all sides of our playerbase sure. It by definition limits variability and diversity but I can back this up if some people really can't stomach bad stats and playing something other than an alpha chad beefcake. I would invite them to try different concepts; I wish people could see that this game isn't about "winning" with the "best stats" and at no point has it ever been. But I do concede this matters a lot to some people and I want them to be happy and not break rules by suiciding characters. Full point buy, as stated by four or more posters besides myself, will lead to the least variation out of all of these options and more skewed gameplay in a game that is already inherently unbalanced. But compromises like this, sure, maybe.
I suppose I'll just be seen as sensitive, but you sound really elitist in this post.
Quote from: Alesan on January 29, 2020, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: triste on January 29, 2020, 10:25:10 AM
Quote from: Strongheart on January 29, 2020, 09:57:01 AM
I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.
Yeah, sure. I am a weirdo who likes realism and literature and am fine with things being unfair in terms of the total spread of points because it adds diversity and realism. But most modern gamers rage when they feel something is "unfair" so if artificially equalizing things will appease all sides of our playerbase sure. It by definition limits variability and diversity but I can back this up if some people really can't stomach bad stats and playing something other than an alpha chad beefcake. I would invite them to try different concepts; I wish people could see that this game isn't about "winning" with the "best stats" and at no point has it ever been. But I do concede this matters a lot to some people and I want them to be happy and not break rules by suiciding characters. Full point buy, as stated by four or more posters besides myself, will lead to the least variation out of all of these options and more skewed gameplay in a game that is already inherently unbalanced. But compromises like this, sure, maybe.
I suppose I'll just be seen as sensitive, but you sound really elitist in this post.
From one of my first responses in this thread. "People who are stat obsessed brush me off as some kind of role play elitist for having this opinion but it isn't elitism to be open to roleplaying concepts besides He-Man." I am advocating for diverse concepts and players being more open minded which is the opposite of elitism. I am now saying if you desperately don't want to play weak characters so badly that
you want to limit the range of concepts for everyone else that I will even concede and say you can have what you want!! I am not sure what is more un-elitist than that. Again, drop the ad hominem attacks accusing people of hypocrisy, virtue signalling, and elitism, it adds literally nothing to the discussion.
I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.
Unfairness between characters may be a design decision you disagree with, but it does not seem to be incongruous with other design decisions that encourage unfairness in the game, such as Templars, magick, racism, etc.
Quote from: Brokkr on January 29, 2020, 11:30:14 AM
I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.
Unfairness between characters may be a design decision you disagree with, but it does not seem to be incongruous with other design decisions that encourage unfairness in the game, such as Templars, magick, racism, etc.
I agree with this. Arm isn't supposed to be balanced between characters. It's supposed to be unfair between characters. That's part of the roleplaying experience. But since players all have the same chance at rolling good stats, it IS fair to players. That's an important distinction.
Quote from: Strongheart on January 29, 2020, 09:57:01 AM
Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.
I don't really think this is a compromise. It forces all characters to have the same number of "points" in stats. The only difference is that the players don't get to decide exactly how the points are spent. But with stat prioritization, they would get a pretty significant amount of control, and this would still make all characters roughly the same. It's that sameness that I have a problem with. I like that each character is unique, and may have very high potential, very low potential, or somewhere in between.
As I've said before, I think the system is fine as it is.
That said, some people may not know how the mechanics of the game work regarding stats. They may not know how age, class, and so on affect their stats, and that might be a part of the problem they have. If there was a bit more transparency on how stat modifiers worked, they might have fewer problems with the existing system. If they always wonder why they get lower than expected strength with a particular class, it might be worth them knowing that their chosen age/class combination is getting 2 penalties to strength, if that is the case.
At the risk of allowing more people to game the system to min-max character stats, I think the tradeoff of more transparency might be worth it to satisfy people who consistently have problems with stats. I would contend that the people who are most likely to game the system to min-max stats probably already have most of the knowledge to do so.
Quote from: Brokkr on January 29, 2020, 11:30:14 AM
I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.
Unfairness between characters may be a design decision you disagree with, but it does not seem to be incongruous with other design decisions that encourage unfairness in the game, such as Templars, magick, racism, etc.
Templars, magick, and racism can be manipulated by the players. A templar PC will only put a gem on your neck for being a magicker, if the templar's player has decided that his character will do that. A magicker won't ever cast a single spell, ever, until the player chooses to cast it. No PCs are ever racist until their players intentionally roleplay that way.
However, a person with AI strength will always have AI strength and will always demonstrate that whenever he is confronted with the need to use any strength at all. He has no choice. He is AI, period. Same with poor agility. A person with codedly poor agility might never be capable of carrying more than 3 items in his inventory, no matter how heavy or light (I don't know the exact numbers, it's hypothetical). A person with AI agility - if you spam-"give" him stuff, will display that AI agility by codedly receiving the vast numerical awesomeness that AI agility can allow, whether the player wants them to or not.
Fairness aside. Here are the observations of my own personal feelings when I play the game.
When I roll up a character and it happens to have rolled unsatisfactory stats. Immediately, I feel dissapointed. This does not make me suicide the character, but I will confess, it 'is' affecting me nonetheless.
For example. If the character is exposed to lots of combat and I do not believe he will be good at it, nor will he have a high chance of survival. I will not get attached as much. I will be less inclined to spend a lot of time on that character. If the game is slow and I have a choice to log off, or go work on some coded development, I will choose to log off. I will do things riskier as I will not be too dissapointed if the character dies.
If that character still survives for a few weeks. Then my dissapointment over the character survival potential is going to lessen until finally dissapearing completely. I 'will' be invested in the character's story by then. He will be involved in plots, schemes, relationships, and so on. The stats will not really matter and I will enjoy the game.
But I might not arrive to that point. And if I dont, it will actually be better for me. Because, once I am invested, I will take it 'harder' if that character finally dies to something completely uninteresting, purely due to a badly rolled stat. That death will impact me harder. It will cause me to want to play less. It will prolong the period where I do not make a new character. I will feel bitter that a dice roll have affected the story of my character and I 'allowed' it to get this far.
Is it possible that despite the stat rolls, that character will become very capable and accomplished, etc, etc. Absolutely. Done it numerous times.
Is that chance worth the disappointment and chagrin that I would feel if that character "doesnt" do it? I'm not so sure.
Would that disappointment be even greater if I let that character develop himself, become interesting, get embroiled in plots, do all sorts of shit for half a year and then die to a 1 week old dwarf who rolled high on strength? Yes. That's a 2-4 months long break for me.
So it's not about fairness. Or balance. It's about enjoyment of the game. The loss of enjoyment with how stats work right now (between randomness, to stat scaling, to strength being a weird overpowering stat), is far greater then the gain of enjoyment from high rolled stats.
I love the fact that Armageddon is a game where you can die suddenly. Where your actions have consequences that can make, or break your character. But when you lose a character and end your story abruptly, not because you dared to walk into a dangerous terrain and got ate. Not due to starvation, or thirst. Not to grittiness of the world, not due to your actions, or actions of another player. But because ultimately, you rolled shitty? I will not enjoy it. I simply wont. It will not entice me to roll another character after that one dies, if I invested enough into it in time and emotion.
The solutions can be many and none of them are perfect. So I cant really offer a suggestion that solves everyone's problems. I can offer a suggestion that I 'think' would be cool, until proven otherwise by gameplay. That's the best I can offer. A dream that I think would work out best.
In my opinion. What should happen is that everyone will start their character at average of their race, + age modifiers. During chargen, they will have a choice to make one of their stats Exceptional at the cost of one stat becoming Poor.
Then during gameplay. A variation of "change objective" can focus a character to gradually improve one, or other of their stats. It would be expected for the person to roleplay it out, but not enforced by staff too stringently. After certain amount of time, the stat improves. And if a certain milestone is reached, a player is sent an echo requesting to have a bio written about it. With detailed help files explaining what's expected. And what is expected should scale with the stat. So, an increase of good to very good can be explained by a simple brief note of how the person joined Byn and they've been really making him work it. A bump from extremely good to exceptional would cause a change in a person's mental state and how they view themselves in the world and a bio writ should describe this.
Any stat that's at exceptional and is not being focused at the time, will deteriorate to extremely good when another stat gets boosted.
Any stat that's at Extremely good and is not being focused at the time, will deteriorate to very good, over the span of 2 boost periods of another stat. On and on until it's average.
A stat that's set to poor due to a choice on chargen, should take 2x time to be increased until it reaches average. After which it's like any other stat.
Then it's a matter of figuring out how long it should take for the stats to improve. It shouldnt be hours played. But I'm guessing somehow years alive related.
Will it eventually create cookie cutter characters? In a sense. It will. But the time requirement will be such that you will sort of expect that amount of physical stat from these well known, well established, well developed, old characters.
And, if we are playing the game correctly. Everyone dies! So that dude who spent 20 IG years getting his strength, endurance, and wisdom to extremely good. Minus the penalties incurred by old age will still die to 2 delves getting 2 arrows off each before the dude has a chance to react.
I would recommend the 'quality' of bios to be majorly ignored and never punished for by staff. They can be impressed and reward accordingly by those who use that aspect of the game to make some awesome roleplay and bring content into the game. But if a player prefers this to be a minor part of their character's lives. Let them. Less stress. Less worry. Less work.
Yes. It will create a sort of a cookie cutter development plan. Start at 16. Prioritize wisdom. Put agility to poor and rely on youth to offset the penalty. Then learn learn learn, skillz skillz skillz, until age of 25. Where you're relatively developed skill wise and then your stats variate depending on your profession and preference.
But, guys ... that's kind of like how it happens IRL. We learn when we're young. Then we become thick skulled, so learning gets harder. But our lives make our bodies adapt to do whatever we end up doing better!
At the same time. The choice of putting one of the stats to exceptional, as well as a well chosen guild and age, will be able to create a relatively passable character stat wise, for people who have no plans to make a long ass learning story and just want someone relatively ready to face the world.
Obviously, the idea needs a lot of balancing and thought. But the premise of it is simple. Everyone stats average at chargen with an ability to bonus and penalize 'one' stat each. This will define their character. And then let the rest develop, or deteriorate during gameplay. It allows for some monstrous combinations if the person lives long enough, but living long enough tends to do that already!
With regards to stat improvement throughout the game:
Armageddon does not need and would not benefit from more ways for older characters to be mechanically superior to newer characters. There are enough of these already in the game. If you want Arm to grow you should instead focus on making the initial 1-50 hours of a character's life more interesting. Giving extra ways for older characters to eclipse newer characters is going to be counterproductive to this.
Focusing on making the game fun for these first few days of playtime is going to contribute tremendously towards the dynamic atmosphere of the game, both bringing in new players and encouraging players to take more risks with their characters. Doing this, however, will require old and established characters to occasionally be willing to take a back seat both in the social aspects of the game and in the mechanical aspects as well (particularly since the two intermingle). Not all the time, mind you, older characters add tremendously to the game. But you can't design a system that always favors older, and by extension more risk-averse characters. Some parts of the system? Sure. But not all the time.
I do not seek a change to the current system.
I respect that other players feel differently about stats than I do and it affects their enjoyment differently. I do not expect my way to be the only way to enjoy the game and am open to sharing of alternate ideas.
Some of the things that have been discussed and my position:
1. Point buy. I've thought about this and discussed it when stats come up in other threads. I don't think it works for Armageddon. I don't want it.
2. Average. I think average should be the average. If there is a change, I think it should be to reduce the expectation of exceptional.
3. Age. I believe the consistent noticing of a lower quality roll has more to do with the age the character is at than the roll.
4. Supporting the current system. I support our current system, I've posted on the GDB in support of it, but the reason I don't keep repeating it is because any statement in support of the status quo has always turned into a flame war and personal attacks. I would love to see that stop. Sometimes I agree with the way things are, sometimes I disagree, I will express my opinion and why with the sole desire to pursue more enjoyment for myself and others.
5. Suicide. This is against the rules to RP because it is a serious issue that affects numerous people in RL in various ways. I would prefer not to even see it discussed.
6. Poor. I have played multiple poor strength warriors. I've played a poor strength elf. Incidentally these were some of my very favorite characters. A big part of their story was needing other people and the roleplay that evolved out of that. They were not able to kill well (or carry anything, elf), but they had a meaningful place in the story. It is fine if some people cannot enjoy this playstyle, but some people genuinely do. People are different and that is okay.
7. Swap stats. The ability to swap stats further rewards those characters who roll better, giving them a greater pool to play with and reallocate for further advantage. It's okay for the rare case of a truly unplayable stat (ranger can't use a bow, crafter can't hold items, warrior can't wield a weapon), but for personal optimization... I will never support.
If there were any changes I would be open to they would be:
1. Making average more frequent, exceptional more rare.
2. Less reliance on the roll for stats and more reliance on age and class.
3. The roll, age, and class modifiers providing a hidden cap to stats that increase over use. (I do not support degradation of stats beyond aging effects. Degrade through non-use aggravates me.) In this type of system every character starts play at below average and has to use skills based on that stat to get to their max. It supports longer lived characters and hides what your final stat roll actually was.
4. Replace the tiered stat values with three: Above average, average, below average.
I have DMd tabletop games since first edition D&D. I have played with pure rolled stats, dice pools, point buy, and countless variations. I prefer point buy for the games I run. I have spent a lot of time considering the implications of stats on fairness. Armageddon is similar to tabletop... but it isn't tabletop. It also is not a modern MMO. Asymmetric statting is in my mind essential to overcome certain other aspects of the game. Uniformity (in systems like point buy) would lock in certain other aspects of the game. Right now, that magicker might have low stats, the soldier might gave good stats, or vice versa... if they will always have equal stats and both choose to optimize them, that dynamic will become less fair. Controlled asymmetry is a fundamental necessity. Changing any system has consequence beyond the one thing being changed.
Quote from: Narf on January 29, 2020, 01:40:29 PM
But you can't design a system that always favors older, and by extension more risk-averse characters.
You know, I don't think we can equate older characters with necessarily being risk averse. That might be true with some players, but certainly not all. I've only recently been allowed to talk about this, but just over 1 year ago, I had a relatively long-lived character that had a problem with a particular Templar. Early on in his life, this problem was established, and the idea was put into his head that he should kill said Templar. So, he set about his business planning to do just that. He amassed some semblance of power as he attained the highest held player position in his clan, and became a pretty competent warrior and assassin. But, in doing so, in carefully planning and honing his skills towards this singular goal, another thing happened. He became a long-lived character.
So, when he finally went to execute his plan and died, some players in the game thought I suicided him, because they thought it was preposterous that such a long-lived character would take such a risk as to attack a Templar in their city, and they didn't know the background behind it, or that he'd been planning to do it for a long time. I was sent OOC messages balking about me "suiciding" a successful, established character. But, it wasn't suicide. It was a completely IC thing for him to do, and I let him do it, knowing the odds were stacked against him. I wasn't tired of the character. I had a lot of things I'd still have liked to do with the character if he succeeded. But I also was not risk averse.
As far as I'm concerned, if I'm not playing my character true to their nature, there is nothing to risk. My attachment to a character comes from their stories and relationships, not from their stats. Roleplaying the character and seeing how it all turns out IS the fun for me. There is very little fun involved in not doing anything risky ever. And for those who play long-lived characters and never actually take any risks? Live a little. It's fun. And new characters are fun. They come with new relationships and people you meet along the way.
Some of the most solid relationships you will form are with people that you "grow up" with, people who are improving as you improve. Once you reach the peak of your advancement, making new bonds and forming new relationships is harder, because you're less dependent on other people. As you become more self-sufficient, you have less reason to engage in cooperative activities with other characters that help to build trust. And, interestingly, trust is sort of a necessary element to betrayal. I find that old, long-lived characters often find themselves quite isolated as those they "grew up" with die off, and the relationships they later have start out as mentor-student, rather than as friends and peers. It's a completely different relationship dynamic that doesn't foster the same type of trust as when you're more or less equals.
So, I know losing long-lived characters still hurts. But, knowing the information above, and the fact that I am a fairly social player that plays for RP more than anything else, I find it far easier to loosen my grip on a character and let them do what makes sense for the character, rather than finding ways to ensure my character lives forever.
Some people have tried to tell me that doing things like never going into any apartment ever is entirely IC and in keeping with happenings in the game. Even an apartment independently occupide by their lover and the parent of their child. This level of paranoia and risk aversion is, in my opinion, absolutely terrible roleplay. Don't agree? Try this on for size, then.
In real life, STDs can be deadly. There is a percentage of the population that dies every year from STDs. However, if you're celibate, your chance of getting an STD in real life is basically zero. Yet, almost no one is voluntarily celibate. Why? It could save your life. Because people take risks every day in real life. Therefore, anyone RPing a believable character will also take risks appropriate to that character.
When I run into people who play like that, completely risk-averse to the point of breaking my immersion in the game world, I'll just do everything possible to avoid RPing with those people. And if they utilize their position of longevity to continuously force their way into my story with their immersion-breaking behavior and speech, then maybe my character will just develop some reason to plot their demise. So please, if we've sired children together, come in and hang out with me in my apartment, where our children live, or I might suddenly decide I can't trust you because you can't trust me, and won't visit your virtual children, and that I should kill you. :P
Sorry for the rant. I just can't stand it when I see people doing that. It makes RPing with them feel gamey and awkward instead of organic and natural.
QuoteThe real problem is that strength is OP as a stat. Don't get me wrong, I fucking love high strength combat PCs.
But it's still OP.
Narrow the range of strength to more closely reflect Darksun tabletop and slightly reduce its importance in combat and it won't be quite the end-all, be-all stat it currently is for combat-oriented classes.
Basically this. The difference between good and exceptional strength is double your damage. And much more carry weight.
The difference between good and exceptional endurance might be 10 hp. The difference between good and exceptional wisdom and agility is only noticeable in fringe cases or on elves.
I wouldn't even say that strength is just for combat characters. But essential for any character that wants to do anything alone. Anyone who wants to explore. Or wants to greb in strange locations. Or wants to be outdoors alone at all really.
You might think that your high-wisdom-agility-endurance character would do great at surviving the wilds. Until your realize your gonna spend most of your survival time fighting that goddamn scrab as you keep bouncing off their skin.
And yes. I've done exactly that. A 25 day character with boosted combat skills; exceptional wisdom, good agility and poor strength could have spent literally the whole ic day bouncing their blows of those two spiders that attacked her.
That's very true I feel, tapas. That is one of the largest reasons people with the karma seem to lean toward playing mages I think. Nothing wrong with playing them one bit but if we're talking homogenization, that's what players especially indies tend to play so that they can try an compensate for that stat deficit. That or something like a half-giant due to their strengths!
What would people think about keeping the system as it is, but adding a stat boost as a karma option? Maybe make it cost 1 karma to boost 1 stat at character creation. Maybe it could be implemented into the roll/reroll system so that people can choose to spend karma on it or not after they see their stats. And make it an exclusive option to non-magick subguilds.
It could promote fewer gickers and more mundanes in the game, and help some people who are highly concerned with stats without flooding the gameworld with superd00ds, since karma is time-gated.
Quote from: Heade on January 29, 2020, 11:41:07 PM
What would people think about keeping the system as it is, but adding a stat boost as a karma option? Maybe make it cost 1 karma to boost 1 stat at character creation. Maybe it could be implemented into the roll/reroll system so that people can choose to spend karma on it or not after they see their stats. And make it an exclusive option to non-magick subguilds.
It could promote fewer gickers and more mundanes in the game, and help some people who are highly concerned with stats without flooding the gameworld with superd00ds, since karma is time-gated.
I love this idea.
I'm just not sure how well that'd go, Heade :( but I appreciate you looking for a compromise and I like the idea, it's not half bad if it's only offered to non-magickers. Definitely feels that mundanes seem to be the minority which wasn't the case when there were full gickers! But the trade off is being a lot less class sniffable versus what it used to be.
I'd like it. Gives folks that prefer to play mundanes something to spend their karma on. Might wanna cap it if you get lucky with your stat roll though.
It should be unavailable for karma-required races and psions too. HGs, Delves, and muls don't need even better stats.
Quote from: Heade on January 29, 2020, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: Narf on January 29, 2020, 01:40:29 PM
But you can't design a system that always favors older, and by extension more risk-averse characters.
You know, I don't think we can equate older characters with necessarily being risk averse. That might be true with some players, but certainly not all. (Story edited out for brevity)
Your individual circumstance is largely irrelevant when making game design decisions. Design decisions should be made to account for the majority of circumstances whenever possible.
Take the following assumptions:
1) Each risk taken has a chance of ending the character.
2) Characters that take many risks have many chances to die. Charactes that take few risks have few chances to die.
3) Many chances to die will on average end a character faster than few chances.
4) Therefore,
on average the population of longer lived characters will be made up of a higher percentage of risk averse characters compared to the population of short lived characters.
5) Because all of these are based on chance, there will always be some representatives at the end of either curve that will fall outside the norm. These occurrences will be infrequent comparative to the norm, but frequent enough to give people the incorrect impression that they're representative of larger populations.
Good game design shouldn't entirely ignore experiences high or low on the bell curve, but attention should always be weighted towards the center.
But I've gotten a bit off track. Really my point is that we need to have more available avenues of enjoyment for characters during their early lives and adding a bunch of mechanical benefits to characters that live a long time isn't very conducive to that. If you did add more benefits to longer lived characters you would want to balance them out, either with more restrictions (bleh) or by giving newer characters some benefits to compensate (that they would lose after a while? I don't know).
The solution is to just narrow the stat band so that exceptional values don't pop off the way that strength currently does.
This can be done with either configuring the number roller to give more reasonable rolls or by making sure outcome values scale linearly instead of exponentially.
Point buy systems are inherently geared toward games where stats increase. They don't really increase here, so there's no benefit in choosing weaknesses that your character can overcome through RP and time and experience.
The only benefit to point buy here would be min-maxing, as far as I can see.
If you have a stat so bad you can't play your character, you can request for staff to change it, but I've never once had this happen in... Fifty characters? My best combat character had an excellent as his best stat, and somehow stayed alive and made a name for himself. The other issue, that if you have a description that says you're muscled out like a hulk and you roll average strength, you get to come up with a quirk or you can request a description change. I don't think a change to the random rolls is necessary or would be helpful to anyone in the long run. In the latter case, writing a description after you know your stats would be the logical change, but then it would require waiting even longer and more staff approval to get into the game.
However, I have to agree that strength seems to overwhelmingly be the only stat that matters when it comes to combat. If I want to do a high agility character that fences around and kills someone with a bunch of small, fancy flicks of his wrist, that -sounds good- but in reality means I'm going to keep bouncing off someone's heavy armor and then die when they do hit me and their strike goes through whatever leather I can carry. (Edited here) Yes there are other ways to combat but when 1v1 combat tends to rely (there are exceptions sure whatever) solely on one stat, it might be worth looking at that again.
What about instead of narrowing the stat band, we allow player to reroll average, which just sets their stats to average across the board? Don't want to risk bad stats? Reroll average. Want to take the gamble? Reroll and reroll undo.
I am actually getting tired of explaining this point, done it so many times over the years.
There is nothing wrong with strength in stat balance, It is not OP, it is exactly as it should be. The weight of that stat in certain types of combat in game is about as close to Real life (along with the rest of the stats) As I have seen in any game.
As to low str PCs with weapon skill buffs at 25 days played spending half a game day fighting a scrab or a spider...Maybe you should consider the likelihood that you are doing something wrong. My PC is a very low str not heavy combat, 14 days played and without buffed weapon skills, kills scrab in 3-5 rounds...oh sometimes it is a tough scrab and lasts as long as 8, far from a great length of time, and spiders in 5-8, no magickal enhancement or spice. Hell, highest stat is only very good and that is not str or end....Not a high str race either.
And I have no issue with not being able to take on that bruiser in plate armor in melee...I will simply use one of the many other methods available.
And with stat ordering, and even staff saying "Pay attention to age/race/class." And the docs even telling you the right ages...If you end up with a low str PC...you are likely the one to blame.
Nah. Strength is busted good. Anyone that says otherwise is gaslighting you.
Hey, I don't think X-D is gaslighting anyone, and that's pretty rude to say, honestly.
X-D, I'm fully prepared to believe that you know some 'right' way to train up (or fight with?) a low strength character, and I think that if you wrote a guide to explain how to do that, that'd be a huge help to the community and everyone that struggles with low stats. I imagine it's probably IG information though, so I expect you can't.
The problem is that the default without doing things this 'right' way is a character that is rather useless at combat. Anecdotally, I've had a low strength character that took 10+ rounds to kill rats, so I can fully imagine someone spending a whole day trying to kill a scrab.
Quote from: X-D on January 30, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
And with stat ordering, and even staff saying "Pay attention to age/race/class." And the docs even telling you the right ages...If you end up with a low str PC...you are likely the one to blame.
You're pretty correct with this though. The issue is that strength is just so much better than the other three options for combat, that anyone that is going to be in combat is just forced to prioritize it first to be effective. And I think that's kind of the core of the problem.
I was about to say the same, KittenLicks! Those who are more familiar with the mechanics that have been mostly obscured throughout the years will have a better handle on things. It may be a tad too revealing if he starts sharing the secrets of this stuff just as you said :-X
Guys, two handed at master provides a frankly stupid boost to damage. Even elves can tear a scrab apart with high enough skill in it. Low strength is not a death sentence.
Quote from: Hauwke on January 31, 2020, 05:22:14 AM
Guys, two handed at master provides a frankly stupid boost to damage. Even elves can tear a scrab apart with high enough skill in it. Low strength is not a death sentence.
That's useful to know! :D
Here is another key,
Help melee: Injury can be in terms of health points, stun points, or both. It is possible for your character to be relatively intact, but knocked out.
Along with
Encumbrance
(Items)
There is a limit to what anyone can carry, and the more heavily loaded one is, the harder it will be to move around and fight. Some basic rules are:
Not sure what you mean by key, X-D. Nothing there seems to be info that isn't already known to newbs!
Reminds me that I think it's important to realize that strength ALSO allows you to wear the most protective of armors that the defense of high agility characters such as elves do not make up for toward that front.
One thing to remember about the strength versus agility is that strength is mostly just good in combat. It gives bonuses to player convenience in that you have to make fewer choices about what to carry around (high strength can just throw everything in their pack and not worry about it), but because of agility's usefulness outside of combat in comparison to strength it needs to be at least somewhat less useful in combat.
Agility and wisdom both give skill bonuses to some very useful skills, including skills that provide other means of PK.
For all the nonexistent people who asked me, endurance is the weak stat under the current system.
Quote from: Strongheart on January 31, 2020, 09:47:04 AM
Reminds me that I think it's important to realize that strength ALSO allows you to wear the most protective of armors that the defense of high agility characters such as elves do not make up for toward that front.
That depends on the conflict style.
PVP: Probably true
PVE: Nope. Armor does not compensate for being able to dodge a mekillot.
If you're straight up meleeing some horror shell armored high str PC on a high agility elf I'd suggest you rethink your strategy. It's a very very winnable fight from the elf's perspective if you remember you're not a bruiser.
In any case, I rather like the random stat system. We have stat ordering and reroll undo which is absolutely plenty if you pay close enough attention to your age/race/guild when making the concept.
Not personally a fan of the way stats are attributed, and would support literally any other system other than the current one. Useless opinion out.
QuoteNot sure what you mean by key, X-D. Nothing there seems to be info that isn't already known to newbs!
Your right, it is info that should be known to all...But that does not mean it is utilized.
But alright, I will spell it out.
If your PC is to weak to do HP damage through armor...
Just use clubs like everyone does already.
Maybe I'm just that new, but I would honestly never have guessed that having low strength means that you have to etwo a club and hit things until they're knocked out, or that hitting armored things still drained stun. I would have guessed the opposite in both cases.
Quote from: Brokkr on January 29, 2020, 11:30:14 AM
I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.
Let's make an analogy of it.
Bob, Steve and Karen are having a car race. They're racing for money, so they care about the outcome. It's not just some casual fun-ride between buddies, there's something at stake.
But the three cars available to them are a F1 Ferrari racecar, a decent BMW and a thirty year old Ford with a flat tire. To determine who gets which car, they each roll a die and the highest roller gets the Ferrari while the lowest roller gets the Ford. By your logic, the race is now fair because they each had the same odds of getting the Ferrari. According to your argument, the value of the race as a competition is not lessened by the fact that Steve is driving a Ferrari and Karen is driving a wrecked Ford.
While Armageddon is not quite the same as a competitive sporting event, the game still has many elements that make the existence of features that match the above analogy deeply problematic. Nothing compensates for a bad statroll. There are no caveats to a fantastic statroll. You simply get an objectively better or worse character. There are roles where this doesn't matter very much, but there are most certainly also roles where it matters a whole lot.
It doesn't matter one bit that every character has the same fundamental chance to get x and y stats. That's absolutely irrelevant as soon as the dice are rolled. What matters is the fact that the outcome has such an extreme degree of variance. Stats have far too big an influence on a character's coded abilities for such a level of variance to be healthy. That stuff was alright back in the early days of AD&D when we sat around a table with four longtime friends who could laugh about it, and a dungeon master who would be mindful of the fact that Steve got hilariously unlucky with the dice. Maybe the DM would throw Steve a bone and let him find that special magic item that made it not feel like crap to play such a character, or he would have all the orcs charge at Bob who rolled amazing stats, just to keep things interesting. We haven't got that on Armageddon. When you roll great stats it's just pure luxury at no cost, and when you roll crap stats it's just a universal disadvantage that you can do nothing about. That really, really sucks. It's violently anti-fun, and literally all other forms of gaming have long since realized this.
QuoteUnfairness between characters may be a design decision you disagree with, but it does not seem to be incongruous with other design decisions that encourage unfairness in the game, such as Templars, magick, racism, etc.
Templars, magick and racism are inherent features of the setting. Everyone knows exactly where they stand with these things, they're integral to the game and everything revolves around it. This is not the kind of unfairness that anyone here is talking about. It's not even in the same ballpark. As it stands, the stat system is more comparable to giving characters 1d10000 starting coin instead of 900+2d100 or whatever it is. It's like having a special and objectively superior version of the existing classes, like Super-Raider that gets 10 points more in each skill cap than a normal Raider, that you have a 10% chance upon creation to get. Or a shittier version that has 10 less in each skill. That's what the stat system is. That cannot be compared to the "templars can be mean to you and elves are persecuted" type of unfairness that defines Armageddon as a game and makes it resemble an actual world. I frankly find it disingenuous to make such a comparison.
What is lost by changing this? What valuable part of the Armageddon experience would be gone? There's more than enough room for variation between characters even with a stat system that keeps them to a roughly equal pool of total points. You'll still have dudes who are really strong and dudes who aren't, and you'll still have the chance for your roll to come out the way you hoped or the opportunity to make the best of a roll that didn't. You just won't have dudes who are great at everything, or dudes whose roll is so bad that there's nothing to be enthusiastic about. I cannot for the life of me see what possible benefit there is to the current system, unless you misuse it in bad faith.
I'd like to add that it is probably a bad idea to have a system that encourages people to break the rules by quietly suiciding bad-statted chars. I'm sure staff doesn't want to have to be constantly trying to figure out whether Amos fell off a cliff because his player wasn't paying attention or if it was a suicide because Amos had average strength. I'm sure the players don't want to worry about being suspected of suiciding when they accidentally enter n instead of e one day on a low-statted character. Especially, you don't want to roll high stats and wonder if people are squinting at you, wondering if you have been suiciding to get them.
It just fosters needless suspicion everywhere.
I truly think a flat "above average to all" option should be implemented for people who don't want the randomisation - not an exceptional character but passable for if you need a concept to work.
Additionally, for roles you're applying for (NOT for standard players), a means of viewing your stats beforehand so you can prepare and/or make story adjustments, or sdesc changes etc. Poor dex? Maybe they have a hook hand, etc etc etc.
I do like the idea of a karma cost boost to a stat in case you really NEED say, higher endurance on your desert elf, but I'm also terrified of stat boost dwarves and HGs only ever throwing it into Strength.
Regardless, this is an imperfect system, but we must be careful of any sweeping changes or it'll only get worse and more unfair - and I think staff accepts and understands that already or they'd have done something.
Quote from: Greve on February 01, 2020, 06:54:59 AM
Quote from: Brokkr on January 29, 2020, 11:30:14 AM
I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.
By your logic, the race is now fair because they each had the same odds of getting the Ferrari. According to your argument, the value of the race as a competition is not lessened by the fact that Steve is driving a Ferrari and Karen is driving a wrecked Ford.
While Armageddon is not quite the same as a competitive sporting event, the game still has many elements that make the existence of features that match the above analogy deeply problematic.
The game isn't a competition, and having characters that are not even roughly equal in "power level" is not problematic when you view it as a roleplay sandbox(think, interactive movie) rather than a competitive game.
In movies, there are characters that are, by and large, better than other characters at doing what they do. Think Jason Bourne, Rambo, Zorro, or Batman. Now, all of these characters are pretty over-the-top insanely good at what they do, but they aren't the only characters in the story, and the fact that they are crazy good at combat doesn't devalue their supporting characters. The stories would be incomplete and less satisfying without the supporting cast. Batman needs his Alfred and love interests like Vicky Vale or Lois Lane. Jason Bourne is the star of the show, but there is interesting character development with his handler Nicky.
And those are just the characters SUPPORTING the stars of the show. On the other side of the table, there are adversaries who make life difficult for them. The Jokers, the Director X, Sherriff Teasles, and Don Rafael Monterro's are all necessary to the telling of an interesting tale. And each of these has countless minions that die along the way to their eventual defeat. But they all have 2 things in common: 1-Someone has to play them. And 2 - They lose.
But our game, as with all stories, needs far more supporting characters than stars. A story needs 1, maybe 2 stars. The rest are supporting cast and enemies of the stars that ultimately fail. None of us get to know ahead of time if we're going to be playing a star, an extra, a supporting castmember, or whatever until we're in game, for the most part. And even good stats aren't the end all of it. It takes an alligning of the cosmos to end up playing one of the stars of the show. So, we should be content to play a nemesis or supporting member of the story, knowing that ultimately, our character is likely to lose, and die.
If everyone has the exact same coded potential to be Batman, there will be no Batman.
The system is fine as it is. It's not meant to facilitate competitive gaming. It's meant to facilitate roleplay and stories. And it does that just fine.
And that was the day all warriors wore plate, all stealthies were unfindable, all theft attempts succeeded, all mages cast at maximum power many times, etc etc etc.
In other words, that was the day -sensible- variety vanished, and the world became bland.
Well Kittenlicks, I would not say to etwo the club unless your agi is low as well.
I do not know why it is that many people seem to essentially think the different weapon types are more flavor then anything. The different weapon types really do have things going for and against them. Like many think piercing is weak....which I suppose is understandable as they almost always use them with the wrong...let us say, type PC...wonder how I had a PC win the Luirs pit fights with a spear?
;)
Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on February 01, 2020, 10:49:25 AM
I truly think a flat "above average to all" option should be implemented for people who don't want the randomisation - not an exceptional character but passable for if you need a concept to work.
Additionally, for roles you're applying for (NOT for standard players), a means of viewing your stats beforehand so you can prepare and/or make story adjustments, or sdesc changes etc. Poor dex? Maybe they have a hook hand, etc etc etc.
I do like the idea of a karma cost boost to a stat in case you really NEED say, higher endurance on your desert elf, but I'm also terrified of stat boost dwarves and HGs only ever throwing it into Strength.
Regardless, this is an imperfect system, but we must be careful of any sweeping changes or it'll only get worse and more unfair - and I think staff accepts and understands that already or they'd have done something.
I think most of the people who suicide over stat rolls would also call a roll that's all 'above average' unplayable and suicide such a PC.
Quote from: Brokkr on February 02, 2020, 05:40:09 PM
Quote from: Greve on February 01, 2020, 06:54:59 AM
Nothing compensates for a bad statroll.
Spice.
Hardly, and the negatives to spice are too great to compensate for those bonuses anyhow, and NOTHING is stopping a superior statted character to perform even better via that.
He said compensates. Not makes you equal.
And maybe you just don't know how spice actually works.
Spice isn't too difficult to understand but alright.
Quote from: Strongheart on February 02, 2020, 09:31:22 PM
the negatives to spice are too great to compensate for those bonuses
If you understand spice then this statement makes no sense.
And if you take those hits progressively, you'll end up gimping your character ;) pretty sure most everyone knows that.
Coming in as one of those eidolons who were proponents of stat change: its a good idea. Discussions like this are great for the health of the game and its great to see them and the staff who sit on that side of responsibility observing them.
Straight off: spice is not a compensation for poor stats because its "equally available in regards to what your stats are" to everyone that'd want to use it as a stat mod. Note the "" because I recognize the Highlord's law, northern scum. Additionally the system is opaque about what happens when you get high on goofballs and the stats don't change their displayed category. In other words, systems have outliers. Granted. But outliers are what they are.
Annnnnd here comes the caveat: it can't be done in a vacuum.
Stats on Arm are part of a multitude of systems (all systems?) and thus changes done to them need to be observed on a holistic scale. Different types of players will have different desires for the importance and scale of attributes. And wouldn't you know, this thread displays that scope pretty darn well.
As it is, the system does not tie in these preferences to other aspects of character generation. If you want to make the choice that is best for the game(you can't please everyone, but you can do a good job) you have to open up your thinking and dialogue to include at the least: the whole of character generation, growth, and other character attributes that could or would interact as checks and balances.
Quote from: Strongheart on February 03, 2020, 01:18:52 AM
And if you take those hits progressively, you'll end up gimping your character ;) pretty sure most everyone knows that.
I think I've heard this before, but is that actually true? Or is what people are experiencing a natural decrease in stats due to age, i.e. living long enough to get old?
Quote from: Kryos on February 03, 2020, 04:06:52 AM
If you want to make the choice that is best for the game(you can't please everyone, but you can do a good job) you have to open up your thinking and dialogue to include at the least: the whole of character generation, growth, and other character attributes that could or would interact as checks and balances.
And all of this needs to bear in mind that Arm is one of the most successful non-profit MUDs of all time, existing far past most MUDs expiration dates while using the existing system to create a haven for roleplayers. With that in mind, I think it would be short-sighted to cater to what some players state that they want now, when the system that is in place has helped create what has now existed for what, 25 years now?
You don't change your great grandma's chilli recipe that people have loved for generation's just because your son's basketball coach and his wife don't like paprika. Oh, you don't like paprika? That's ok, you don't have to eat any. There is other stuff to eat.
Much the same, if people don't like asymetrical starts regarding stats in character generation, that's ok. There are plenty of games out there that don't have those, and instead use static starts with even points for stat distribution. But I don't think you significantly alter something that has been part of the game for so long, and that so many people DO like, risking losing those players.
Some changes are clear improvements to the game. This isn't. This is a debate about the original design decision regarding stats between characters. Some people want all characters to be roughly equal in regard to points in stats. Others like a much wider variety between characters. But that wider variety and element of randomization has existed for the life of the game, and has contributed to Arm's success.
In that way, Arm has a recipe that has a proven track record of working for over two decades. I don't think it needs altered significantly.
Spice doesn't actually perma gimp you character.
But there are a number of other problems that make it cumbersome to use.
Quote from: Heade on February 03, 2020, 06:55:52 PM
Quote from: Kryos on February 03, 2020, 04:06:52 AM
If you want to make the choice that is best for the game(you can't please everyone, but you can do a good job) you have to open up your thinking and dialogue to include at the least: the whole of character generation, growth, and other character attributes that could or would interact as checks and balances.
And all of this needs to bear in mind that Arm is one of the most successful non-profit MUDs of all time, existing far past most MUDs expiration dates while using the existing system to create a haven for roleplayers. With that in mind, I think it would be short-sighted to cater to what some players state that they want now, when the system that is in place has helped create what has now existed for what, 25 years now?
You don't change your great grandma's chilli recipe that people have loved for generation's just because your son's basketball coach and his wife don't like paprika. Oh, you don't like paprika? That's ok, you don't have to eat any. There is other stuff to eat.
Much the same, if people don't like asymetrical starts regarding stats in character generation, that's ok. There are plenty of games out there that don't have those, and instead use static starts with even points for stat distribution. But I don't think you significantly alter something that has been part of the game for so long, and that so many people DO like, risking losing those players.
Some changes are clear improvements to the game. This isn't. This is a debate about the original design decision regarding stats between characters. Some people want all characters to be roughly equal in regard to points in stats. Others like a much wider variety between characters. But that wider variety and element of randomization has existed for the life of the game, and has contributed to Arm's success.
In that way, Arm has a recipe that has a proven track record of working for over two decades. I don't think it needs altered significantly.
Arm has not always been this way. The stat system has been modified at least four times; racial stats were changed, the reroll option was added, the reroll undo option was added, and stat ordering was added. Most of these changes were meant to decrease randomness (not the racial modifications, but all the rest of the ones I mentioned).
The grandma's recipe metaphore doesn't hold water with regards to this, nor does the claim that a 25 year old system was what lead to Arm's success. The current system is not particularly close to that old.
It also bears mentioning that complaining about the stat system is something that's been going on for tens of years as well. You can find forum posts complaining about it as far back as 2003, and I think that's just because that's when this board started.
If we're doing analogies, its more like your son thinks the chilli is too spicy but your daughter likes it exactly how it is. There's nothing to break the deadlock (or possibly the chef just likes the chilli spicy) so you keep making it the same way, because finding a new chilli recipe is a lot of work. Your son keeps eating the chilli because, while he does think it should be less spicy, it's still pretty good chilli.
Not liking one aspect of the game doesn't mean you have to find another game. I'm sure there are parts of the game you don't like as well. (:
Love your guy's posts even if I don't always agree with them, seeing this sort of discussion is indeed a healthy thing!
Quote from: Narf on February 03, 2020, 07:14:03 PM
Arm has not always been this way. The stat system has been modified at least four times; racial stats were changed, the reroll option was added, the reroll undo option was added, and stat ordering was added. Most of these changes were meant to decrease randomness (not the racial modifications, but all the rest of the ones I mentioned).
The grandma's recipe metaphore doesn't hold water with regards to this, nor does the claim that a 25 year old system was what lead to Arm's success. The current system is not particularly close to that old.
Those are minor tweaks to the existing system. Changing to a point buy system or other system that gives every character equal "stat points" is throwing out the entire system and starting with something completely different.
Quote from: Heade on February 04, 2020, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: Narf on February 03, 2020, 07:14:03 PM
Those are minor tweaks to the existing system. Changing to a point buy system or other system that gives every character equal "stat points" is throwing out the entire system and starting with something completely different.
Stat ordering is a major change.
Reroll by itself would be a minor change from a statistical perspective, but coupled with reroll undo it will on average have a sizable effect on your stats.
The racial modifications were pretty tremendous, but that didn't effect the overall feel of the system much.
Combined they significantly reduce the randomness of the stat system, progressing towards a point buyesque system... But with the caveat that you can still do things the old way. You don't have to order your stats or reroll them.
Personally, my preference would be to move towards a fixed system (not necessarily point buy) with the option to do things the old way, and make sure neither is numerically superior to the other on average.
Yeah, we just disagree. I don't think stat ordering is a major change. The stats are still rolled randomly, you just get to decide where your best rolls go.
As for preference on system, it sounds like you're in favor of a system where there is relative equality between all characters, at least regarding stats. I don't support this at all. Equality between players is fine. We have that now. Equality between characters harms variety in the game world, which in turn negatively affects RP for all the reasons I mentioned previously. If everyone has the same stats as Batman, there would be no Batman. Variety creates far more potential for legendary heroes and villains.
Besides, everybody knows that Alfred was the real hero. Batman was just a rich narcissistic type that ran around trying to be in perfect shape (I bet he obsesses about his strength score) and playing with other crazy people in costumes.
In a more serious tone, I love sparring against people that are much stronger then me, it gives them a false sense of confidence if I ever did have to plan their death, and I'll be getting the better end of the sparring for much longer then it usually takes for the learning to slow down. And if they do kill me before I can find a creative way to bring them down, then so much the better. Kudos to them. Roleplay is the core of the game, but even if you play a combat motivated character, you can find more options, even in just the code, then just hitting each other till you are dead. (which is what strength is good for) Even more then that if you roleplay and involve others.
Quote from: Heade on February 05, 2020, 12:02:51 AM
Yeah, we just disagree. I don't think stat ordering is a major change. The stats are still rolled randomly, you just get to decide where your best rolls go.
Your original statement was that the system has not changed in 25 years, and that this system was thusly responsible for Armageddon's success. The system has changed several times in 25 years, therefore the claim is false.
That said, I'm not suggesting forced equality. If you want an unequal character, one would still be available (either worse or better). If you want a character that's relatively on par with most other characters, that would be available too. My suggestion is to provide an extra option to players that want it without taking away anything from players that prefer things the way they are. Just as has been done 3 times before with the stat system.
Quote from: Narf on February 05, 2020, 02:09:15 AM
Quote from: Heade on February 05, 2020, 12:02:51 AM
Yeah, we just disagree. I don't think stat ordering is a major change. The stats are still rolled randomly, you just get to decide where your best rolls go.
Your original statement was that the system has not changed in 25 years, and that this system was thusly responsible for Armageddon's success. The system has changed several times in 25 years, therefore the claim is false.
No, my original statement was that Arm has a recipe with a 25 year track record that works, and that I didn't think it needed to change
significantly. Significantly is the key word, there. Yes, it's been tweaked in the past. I'm not opposed to tweaks to the system, as we have had in the past. But others have suggested things like switching to a point buy system where all characters generated get the same amount of "build points". That is a complete reversal of the current design decision regarding stats in the game, and an idea that I am opposed to.
Quote from: Narf on February 05, 2020, 02:09:15 AMThat said, I'm not suggesting forced equality. If you want an unequal character, one would still be available (either worse or better). If you want a character that's relatively on par with most other characters, that would be available too. My suggestion is to provide an extra option to players that want it without taking away anything from players that prefer things the way they are. Just as has been done 3 times before with the stat system.
You can't have an option for people to be "equal" to other characters and an option to be "unequal". They are diametrically opposed to one another. Let's say you implemented that option. If 99 people selected "Unequal", and 1 guy selected "Equal", the one guy won't be equal to most other characters, and so the entire premise becomes suspect. If you're just looking to create an option for relatively average characters, I suggested that earlier, saying that, before character generation, maybe people could just choose to have "above average" across the board for their stats. That would give people the option you seem to be suggesting without shaking up the system too much or making the option too attractive to min-maxers.
The stats wouldn't be amazing, but they'd be passable in every stat, and would be guaranteed not to have any "poor" stats or anything.
The problem is, for all the moaning and groaning about "poor" and "below average" stats, the people worried so much about stats probably would not be happy with above average in everything. I imagine it'd be one of those systems that gets implemented as an accommodation and compromise, then rarely gets used. Because, really, people aren't asking for above average in everything. They want direct control over their starting stats. They want a guarantee that they're playing a character with the highest possible X score for their race and class, if that's how they chose to spend their points. They want to know no one else is able to get higher than that either. They want to be able to carefully plan and math everything out. But I don't want that. I don't think that what they want would be in the best interest of the RPI that has been created here.
Under a fixed stat system a player that chose the fixed stat would be have stats on par with an average rolled character. For a lot of people, that's all they want.
In that way a player that chose the fixed stat system would be "equal" to the population of characters, if not any individual character.
Though they would on average be at a disadvantage in comparison to players that use reroll/reroll undo to get higher stats. It's hard to compensate for that though because I know not everyone uses rerolling to get higher stats.
I think, based on experience and what Brokkr said that rolled stats ranged between "Below Average" and "Exceptional" before any modifications with 5 categories between them, for a total of 7 categories. Assuming a normal distribution, category 3.5 will be average, so two stats below that and two stats above that should produce a character on par with an average rolled character. If you're worried about min-maxing you can stick relatively close to the central category. So maybe just give people the option of taking "Average, Above Average, Good, Very Good" (Category 2, 3, 4, 5) for a character, assign how they like.
But this is the most important thing: Never ever ever ever link stats to karma. I cannot think of a worse change you could implement.
(Edited to add, I recognize 4 is the midpoint, but the stats exist on a continuum with multiple values per category and I'm not sure at one point that continuum starts or stops so I decided to be conservative)
Quote from: Narf on February 07, 2020, 04:17:20 PM
But this is the most important thing: Never ever ever ever link stats to karma. I cannot think of a worse change you could implement.
The suggestion regarding karma was to allow stat boosts for karma, limited to non-magick characters. For those of us who aren't that interested in playing magickers but have built up karma, such an option would be good. I don't see how that would be a bad change. It's just another option to spend karma on. I'd love to see more karma options to dilute the amount of mages and other rarities we see in game.
Quote from: mansa on January 26, 2020, 03:25:04 PM
I feel like the game has allowed too many exceptional characters, and they have ruined the expectations of some of the players.
Since it's possible to have characters with multiple exceptional stats, people who have 'average' across the board seem "shit"
I think we should not have characters with more than one exceptional, or more than one poor.
My thoughts are similar to this, though not quite exact. I think the issue is that players who are determined to only play PCs with good stats will just store/suicide characters with average stats, so often times you end up in situations where many of the prominent fighter-type characters in the game all have ridiculous stats. Having great stats from the get-go also gives a character a slight edge toward living longer in the earlier stages of the game.
It DOES lead to characters whose stats say "average" being considered useless and shitty. Every time I roll a character whose highest stat is a "good" my brain does not process it as "good" at all. 'Good' is about the minimum level required to be effective at a lot of things unless you can manage to stay alive long enough to acquire quite a high skill level--which can be tough if you can't play a ton and also have low wisdom.
Playing a character with "average" agility, for example, is excruciating in the early stages if you're playing a character that uses certain skills a lot (lockpicking, skinning, climbing, and archery all come to mind). The stat priority system helps this somewhat, but I've still had many characters over the years whose highest skill was a 'good.'
It does feel like the words that represent the stats are close to meaningless. Considering how many accounts likely suicide and store to self-select their stats, I wonder what the "average" strength of a character on Armageddon actually is. I don't think it's a number that would coincide with "average."
Quote from: Fathi on February 10, 2020, 01:14:04 AM
It does feel like the words that represent the stats are close to meaningless. Considering how many accounts likely suicide and store to self-select their stats, I wonder what the "average" strength of a character on Armageddon actually is. I don't think it's a number that would coincide with "average."
Many roll playing games set player characters to above average stats. I'd dare say it's the norm. The average is meant to represent how you compare to the NPCs of the world, and not how you compare to each other. In vampire the masquerade the average stat is explicitly 2, but it is impossible to play a character with that as their average. Dungeon's and Dragons (the game that this was originally based on) offers up a point buy system that would make having average stats entirely impossible without throwing away points.
I suspect that the descriptors are meant to compare characters to the larger world and not other player characters. If you assume a normal distribution of stats, "good" is the midpoint for player characters.