Score

[Rhyden]

Score. It's what we dread. It's what we love. It's how our characters manipulate in our world and how our world manipulates our characters.

Sometimes, our characters will get a really good score, sometimes they won't. Sometimes a score will be very unporportionate to a character's physical and mental attributes, sometimes it's not. Sometimes our score is fair, sometimes it's not. So, is it really worth the wager to get a completely random score then risk everything when that score is unfair for another score that could be all the above results?

Here's my little idea: Perhaps, instead of getting a totally random score, the score of our characters becomes a little less uncontrollable. What if... instead of random scores, a random number of 'points' was given to a character. With this number, as many 'points' as wanted can be contributed to a certain attribute (Strength, Agility, Wisdom, Endurance). Of course, like the original version, if the first roll of 'points' isn't satisfactory, another can be rolled.

Here's an example: Score Points = 25.

Add 7 points Strength.
Add 5 points Agility
Add 7 points Wisdom
Add 6 points Endurance

Points could be something like 1= very poor, 2= poor, 3= below average, 4 = average, 5 = above average, 6 = good, 7 = very good, 8 = extremely good, 9 = exceptional, 10 = absolutely incredible
(I think I have these in order)

Therefore, your final score will still look the same as original score system:

Your strength is very good, your agility is above average, your wisdom is very good, your endurance is good.

Comments, ideas, questions? Shoot away.

[Gaare]

Less PowerPlay more fun.

[Trenidor]

They have this on other muds, and frankly I don't like other muds. (period)

"Hey! I'm an assassin type...I'll boost up my strength to extreemly increadable, then jack off my agility in case I have to fight...maybe I could throw the rest to wisdom."

or

"Hey! I'm a stupid ass noob that likes to spam craft...why not add all my points into wisdom and endurance...screw the strenght and agility, With my brainpower I'll be making enough to buy my own brawn"

and on and on and on.

-N-O-

Stop

-N-O-

this is just one more way people can bend the code to their own unjust whim.

[Dracul]

Totally...bad bad bad.

Curses on you Rhyden. You bad, bad bad person.

[Majikal]

I enjoy the randomness at times, sure, you'll have some really cool char idea and it'll get screwed by landing your awesome magicker with poor wis or something of that nature. But then again, sometimes you might nail an assasin with absolutely incredible agility, *shrugs* adding an element of player control would take away the uniqueness of every char.
Ever warrior out there would have awesome str, every magicker with absolutely incredible wisdom and assasins and pickpockets with amazing agility.. it would pull away from the game I beleive.

[jmordetsky]

I like the randomness...I've always like the idea of your stats being somewhat reflected in your background though.

The idea of having some background questions that affected your stat/skills always appeaked to me.

[Manhattan]

I preview new MUDs almost daily; and when I come across this "point shit" on the chargen, I close my screen. End of story.

[Xamminy]

I think the way stats are deteremined could use a little work, but nothing like you're saying, Rhyden.  You're going way too far into numbers.

[jmordetsky]

I played this one RP mud once, I can't remeber waht it was, the code was shitty but...the chargen was sort of cool.

After you entered your BG description, it asked you questions about your life on their world.

How were you raised?
a. in the streets
b. well to do
c. with a tribe
d. on a farm

and based on these questions would calculate your stats and skills. There weren't any classes. I thought it was cool

[moab]

Not to derail, but I thought maybe there are some additions to the score command we could look at:

adding one's race to the score command would be useful
adding one's class and second-class would be cool

seperating status from background and adding current ldesc to the status page would be cool

Well, anyway, back to the thread. :-D  I think it would be nice to tweak the stats a bit, but I'm also used to the way things are now.  I hate getting a crapping strength when I'm playing a warrior, but I LOVE getting a good stat by surprise.  To allow us to tweak the scores would deny us this pleasent surprise.

And any happiness in a harsh world should be treasured.

[Cavus]

My best char had bad stats, but he was so cool. In this respect, stats are not -very- important for being successfull. But, a warrior with poor str is nothing more than a RP hero. Stats are very very important if you want to be uber warrior, but who wants this? I think most of Arm players want to -enjoy- this game. We are not here for Hack&Slash.

But, there can be a system that has some constraints. For example, a warrior cannot be with poor str, or a magicker wit poor wisdom, or whatever. Let's think about an elf warrior. He has worse str than humans naturally, but if he has also poor str, then this means much worse than poor str human. He cannot do anything because the player had a char concept that includes some fighting thing. This stat won't help the player for his char, and make him to retire that char soon, or that char would die very soon by the help of player. Ok, he could rp some kind of dump warrior, but he was dreaming a badass, or at least average warrior and he wrote his background and objective according to that.

Anyway, I don't want to see any numbers at my stat for str or other things. The way that a char devlop is cool and I am happy with it. But, we can add some constraints to randomize function of stats. My suggestion is:

Warrior: at least average str, at least below average agility, any wisdom, any endurance

Merchant: any str, average agility, average/below average wisdom, any endurance

Assassin: any str, average agility, any wisdom, any endurance

Ranger: similar to warrior, maybe better agility

Note: There can be some coefficients for races, so it can be balanced more.

This list can grow more, but it's getting much into game mechanics. I am happy with current system, but there is always a better than a better. The stats here reflects the way I see a guild. It doesn't mean below that stats cannot be good char. We have skills, remember?

As a last note, yes all chars cannot and shouldn't be very strong (physical or mental, or whatever), but code should allow them a suffecient conditions. CONSTRAINTS.


------------------------------------

For the first post, I don't think total point system is good. That will create similar characters. I'd like to play with poor wisdom to make my char stupid (understands hardly), but this will left 24 points for other stats, and this means uber power for other stats. How can stupid char train himself physically to get Abs. Inc. str? Hey, this also supports my suggestion. If I have abs. inc str, but poor wisdom, it does not make sense. Because in reality, that char has to train himself physically to get this much str. With that wisdom, he shouldn't be that much successfull at improving himself. Or this can be a constraint for agility, too. Because, a person with poor wisdom cannot determine his next action quickly, right?

Oh god, list is growing more. It started to become a mathematics problem, and I hate mathematics    We cannot get perfect system with any way of change. But, constraint thing can make sense.

[Krath]

IMHO, It is fine the way it is. I dont want 10000 uber PCs running around. Armageddon isnt
the perfect world, and it is not suppose to be. You are suppose to be weaker than other warriors,
slower than other thieves, less hardy than other HG's, it is what makes the game realistic, if
you start letting people determine how and where to put points into stats, it takes away the
whole element of realism.

[elvenchipmunk]

I played another MUD one time, I forget what it was, but in the character creation menu, you can chooses which scores you want to be rolled highest. I thought this was pretty cool, and could be a good addition to Arm (I think).

Anways, it was like this: You put the scores you want from best to worst in order when it asks you. Ex: strength, wisdom, agility, endurance. Once this is done, it rolls those the highest in order, but that doesn't necessarily mean it makes your strength amazing, it would just be the best. So the outcome could be something like: Strength-good, wisdom-good, agility above average, endurance- average.

In my opinion, I think this would be useful, but there's probably more cons than pros on this one. Just thought I'd offer this idea.

This would still offer some randomness, but some control as well. Example: You have the tall, muscular man as your sdesc, but his strength turns out to be below average. Is this realistic?

[Steel Leopard]

I voted that it was fine, although I do think that it would be cool if the stats did reflect character history and my character's description to some degree.  Of course, then we'd have a bunch of people running around all 'lean' and heavily muscled.    Of course, larger muscles usually constrain blood flow to the muscles, thus lowering endurance.

[Canadian Beaver]

Not to derail, but I thought maybe there are some additions to the score command we could look at:

adding one's race to the score command would be useful
adding one's class and second-class would be cool

seperating status from background and adding current ldesc to the status page would be cool

Your current ldesc is already shown in score. Most of the time it just says 'Code Generated Long Description' unless you've changed your ldesc.

As for the race and class... if you can't remember that on your own... :shock:

[Spoon]

Though I like the rANdoM system in place at the moment, I think, if it's not already in place, something could be done to make characters more likely to recieve mid-range stats. So, average would be roughly the mean average of the PC population, rather than the range.

Just increase the dice roll from 10 to say, 20......

1= really shit, 2= shit, 3-4= naff, 4-5= below average, 5-7= average, 8-9= above average, 10-11= good, oh crap.... I dropped maths when I was sixteen.

Anyway..... perhaps you get the idea.

[moab]

Your current ldesc is already shown in score. Most of the time it just says 'Code Generated Long Description' unless you've changed your ldesc.

As for the race and class... if you can't remember that on your own... :shock:

Hey, I hate filling my screen with useless score information when I want to see my current long desc.  I mean, really, do I need to know my strength is "average" everytime I want to see if I'm posed correctly?

And 2nd class is more the concern here - currently the only way to tell (I think) is though the main game menu.

Dude, and as for not remembering main class - my 190 day warrior looks like a ranger with the amount of skills I've branched.  I can't actually remember if I'm a ranger or a warrior.  Maybe that's on the main menu as well.  Anyway, I would like to see it in game.  :-D

[facehugger]

Look at it this way... when  you were born, did you get to pick how strong you'd be? How smart you'd be?

A person can choose their profession, their lifestyle, their this, their that... but their body, that's something they're born with.

[elvenchipmunk]

Facehugger,
You're right, you don't get to choose your body when you're born. But, in Arm, it isn't possible to start out as a baby, and then your body develops as you go. You normally start out as a fully-grown whatever, be it human, elf, whatever. So when you make your character, his background and all, you're describing his life, what he's done all his life. Now it isn't very realistic if you've got, say, a 30 year-old lumberjack who's so weak they can't use an axe right?

That's my opinion.

[Rhyden]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on a minute, hold the press, hold the phones, calm down, don't get so excited! This was just one particular way this could happen. I'm not saying that this -exact- way would be better, this is one of many.

Here's a good example to refreshen this thread:

Let's say that I just made a human male. In his ldesc, it is stated that he is quite muscular, looks quite athletic. In his background, it is written that he is very dumb, not even knowing how to count to ten. So, what happens? I'll get a score like this:

Your strength is poor, your agility is average, your wisdom is extremely good, your endurance is good.

:!:

This -is- a problem and immortals probably won't fix it. So what has to happen? My character will be opposite of what he commenced. This won't ever happen, you say? It does, frequently.

I'm just saying that score would be better if it was more customized to our characters traits. You don't like my idea? Make a better one.

[Rhyden]

Oh, another thing. Some of you are extremely negative. This happens a lot on this GDB, I find. Please stop. When somebody has a good idea, it would be better if you didn't beat the shit out of them if you think it's a bad idea. If you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all, thanks.

[Spoon]

Look this one up with search, Rhyden. I'm pretty damn new to this mud and even I've seen this post before.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Rhyden wrote:

If you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all, thanks.

Then we have a thread full of people pretending to like a crappy idea.

[Krath]

Rhyden, You can LOOK Muscular and not be strong trust me. I work out at the Gym consistantly.
I do not look muscular at all, but I am stronger than most people of my build. Then there are other
people, very ripped, and large sized, that can not lift as much as me. Your physical appearance
has very little to do with your physical strength.  That is why it is your Physical Description
you write and not your Physical attributes.

[Agent_137]

if you came up with a simple concept and your first roll and reroll doesn't give you the minimium stat you need to work that concept, email the mud account.

like the 30 year old lumber jack who can't life his axe: email the mud.

oh, also, refrain from putting extremes in your mdesc and especially sdesc. Adjectives that can cause problems are:
Burly
Brawny
Strong-looking, etc.

You can get away with the skinnier adjectives. Skinny but strong people exist. But you'll feel akward if you have a huge burly guy with below average to poor strength. So don't use that adjective.

[Angela Christine]

You can get away with the skinnier adjectives. Skinny but strong people exist. But you'll feel akward if you have a huge burly guy with below average to poor strength. So don't use that adjective.

True, though as Krath mentioned you can look strong without being very strong.  Or you can look strong, but not have usefull strength.  Maybe you got tendonitis or slipped a disk.  


Also, don't forget that you can change your description, though not instantly.  Try playing for a month, if your character is still alive after that month then adjust his description based on his real stats _and_ the experiences he has had durring that month.


There are very few stat combinations that are unplayble.  The mage who is so dumb that he doesn't have enough mana to cast a single spell at wek (and so can never improve).  The archer so weak that he can't use a single bow (though he could probably still use a sling, so this might not qualify as unplayable).  The merchant/crafter/herbalist who is so clumsy that he can't keep 5 items in his inventory at the same time, or so weak that he can't lift 5 items at the same time period (again, this might not be totally unplayable, there are plenty of things in most crafts that you can make with 1-3 items).  If you get a truely unplayble roll of the dice, like a mage with too few mana points to cast a single spell, then the staff might be willing to help you out with a boost to get you to the minimum effective stat -- I seem to remember someone posting that the staff had helped him this way when his halfgiant mage was too dumb to cast spells.




I wouldn't mind a system where there was a random roll, plus you got a few discretionary points to add where ever you wish (possibly without seeing what your randomly rolled stats are first).  That way if you truely, deeply want a strong character you can have him.  Personally, I find that well-rounded characters usually do best.  Strength is useful for warriors, it is also useful for rangers that want a good bow, and for merchants that need to carry a lot of crap around, and for thieves that want to steal all your furnature.  Agility is obviously useful for thieves, but it is also excellent for warriors (the best armor is to not get hit in the first place) merchants who want to manipulate many items at once, and anyone who plans to build a campfire.  Wisdom is great for everybody, because it affects how quickly you learn skills and ultimately skills trump stats.  Endurance is also great for everybody, affecting your ability to stay away after a thump on the head, survive poison, and how quickly you heal after escaping from the bad thing -- it isn't that urgent for a character that sticks strictly to lawful urban areas and has no enemies, but how many characters like that can there be?  There is no stat I'd willingly choose to suck at just to get a good score on another stat.


Angela Christine

[deinol]

I've had a dwarven ranger that had poor strength before. Not even average, poor. He did happen to have decent agility, so in the long run, it worked out pretty well. The course of your character your stats matter less than your skills, it's only at the beginning of his life. If they survive for any length of time, you can still become good at whatever you want to do with that character. I think the character that is so determined to do one thing that they pursue it despite not starting with an advantage is a much more interesting character to play.

Certainly if you built a spellcaster and he's too dumb to cast even the basic spells, the immorts will help you with that. But for any other character, you can practice your skills until you rock the house, with or without that awesome ability score.

[Xamminy]

It is impossible to play a magicker and be unable to cast a spell.  Even a HG caster will be able to cast, albeit he's dumb so won't learn very fast at how to get better.

[Malifaxis]

I won't say it, it's already been said.

Yes, it is horrible.  This idea.

Sayid, "Office Space"

I accidentally clicked 'no' in my hasty opposition to this idea.

There are way too many ways to qualify 'strength' or 'wisdom.'  Fine, maybe your character, in his background, can't count to ten... but he's the world's best Izdari player.  Maybe he's cunning like that guy in Princess Bride... incredible knowledge, no common sense.

We really need less powerplaying.  It's hellaciously fun to play a character who just CANT really be good at what he wants to be good at.  Shitty stats make for the most awesome characters, because you KNOW you can't just blast your way through.  You have to think.  

But then again, I guess that's probably why some people like to powerplay, and always have good stats.

:twisted:

[Kalden]

I have the personal suspicion that the random system is supported mainly because a lot of people have twinkish hopes of rolling a great character.

It doesn't make IC sense. It produces more uber PCs than anything else(the less skilled tend to die out, sometimes on purpose). Some people think stats shouldn't even be RPed because of it.

I think it should be revised, but then again, I kinda like rolling awesome stats. And I can keep dying until I get my awesome stats.  :roll:

[Dracul]

I have the personal suspicion that the random system is supported mainly because a lot of people have twinkish hopes of rolling a great character.

It doesn't make IC sense. It produces more uber PCs than anything else(the less skilled tend to die out, sometimes on purpose). Some people think stats shouldn't even be RPed because of it.

I think it should be revised, but then again, I kinda like rolling awesome stats. And I can keep dying until I get my awesome stats.  :roll:

Uhhh...and rewrite a whole new character/concept and wait for a couple days. -just- for stats?

Fekk no!

[Maybe42or54]

I have the personal suspicion that the random system is supported mainly because a lot of people have twinkish hopes of rolling a great character.

It doesn't make IC sense. It produces more uber PCs than anything else(the less skilled tend to die out, sometimes on purpose). Some people think stats shouldn't even be RPed because of it.

Stats don't matter. Yes, people suicide. If you are trying to say I haven't seen some poor stat'ed pc's long lived. That's a lie.

Stats only matter when you do stupid shit and think you can take on that bad ass creature. If you act IC, you can't die. Unless you are helped out by other PCs. In my own opinion. I have had a couple characters live past 10 days with really bad stats. They would have lived a lot longer if those two templars didn't interfere and give me a red smile. Big bad warrior breaks down and cries to save his life. Boohoo. Act IC.

Keep it where it is. Or all my warrior will have the same stats. My assasins have the same stats. And I'll just move back to a hack and slasher.

[Kalden]

Uhhh...and rewrite a whole new character/concept and wait for a couple days. -just- for stats?

Guess you haven't played as a ranger who can't shoot a normal longbow lately. Or a warrior who gets his ass kicked all the time. Or a magicker who can hardly cast spells. Ect, ect.

Bad stats are always a drag, strength especially.

Keep it where it is. Or all my warrior will have the same stats. My assasins have the same stats. And I'll just move back to a hack and slasher.

Blah. You make no sense. A good RPer tailors his stats to match his character. There's no reason why you couldn't do the same if you were given some control over your character's coded attributes.

It annoys the hell out of me when my scrawny characters get nice strength and my beefy characters get shitty strength. I'm sorry, but stats affect the gameworld. They should accurately reflect your character. They should be RPable.

You shouldn't have to make excuses and screw around with your character concept just to make sense of them, as AC seems to do.

[Maybe42or54]

Let's take Real Life, Since it is what we can all relate to.


In 9th grade, I started playing hockey.
I sucked, because I wasn't fast enough, strong enough, couldn't go the distance.
My coach said I looked fast, that I "looked" strong, but low and behold. I was none of those. Instead of making me try to improve those, he taught me how to play better.
In 12th grade, I still wasn't the fastest, strongest, I worked on my endurance alot. My puck handling skills, my way of "seeing" the game.
I may not have been the best after those three years. I Sure in hell wasn't the worst. I was actually 2nd best rated on my team.

[Rhyden]

Alrighty, I'm getting a little bit of a negative vibe here. Perhaps what I meant to start out saying was a system that is quite the same, but a little less random, but still, not giving any more control to the player. This probably wouldn't be possible so I'll just shut up before Roast Rhyden starts up again.  

[SewerRat_inTheOpen]

Well, I had hopes for my first dwarf to live very long, but something had to chase him and led to his death, even though he can only carry three things all at once. I remembre getting frustrated though.

[HardCarbon]

I generally don't mind the randomness...but sometimes it doesn't make sense with the Class/Subclass combo..

[Anonymous]

My coach said I looked fast, that I "looked" strong, but low and behold. I was none of those. Instead of making me try to improve those, he taught me how to play better.

What's your point? That people can look strong and be weak, or look weak and be strong? I can concede that, in fairly rare cases, but it's irrelevant.

I created my scrawny urchin character. He should not have herculean strengh. I don't care whether the code gave it to him - it doesn't fit with the background I gave him. He didn't grow up playing tug of war, shoving people around, and doing push-ups and pull-ups. He grew up pickpocketing and stalking around.

I also created my brawny mercenary character. He should not be exceptionally wise and dexterous. That isn't part of his background. It isn't part of his character concept. He shouldn't have terrible strength, either. He grew up as a big, burly man. He may have been a bully to the other kids.

My point is that attributes are an important part of any character. They literally define the character. One's abilities and lack thereof shape who you are. I put those sorts of things into my background. I dont like working around that and making excuses for my character's weak coded abilities, which I would like to take as IC, as they have effects on the game.

A master swordsman's abilities are considered IC. Why are skills and not stats considered IC?

I may not have been the best after those three years. I Sure in hell wasn't the worst. I was actually 2nd best rated on my team.

Obviously your ability to learn (wisdom) had a significant impact on your experience in hockey.

[jstorrie]

In the very, very uncommon case that your stats ruin your background (lumberjack can't lift an axe), why not email the mud?

In most cases, it's not impossible to revise your concept to take your stats into account. Your character with subclass hunter can't use a longbow? Okay, but he can use a sling or a light crossbow maybe? Your short-witted warrior has AI wisdom? Well, maybe he has keen senses, a good idea of what's going on around him, and a knack for learning new skills - but always makes stupid decisions.

At the absolute worst, if your stats ruin your idea completely, just revise your background to take them into account.

[Xamminy]

In the very, very uncommon case that your stats ruin your background (lumberjack can't lift an axe), why not email the mud?

This is the only sort of thing I could see being an issue.

Otherwise, deal with it.  Not everyone that shows aptitude at killing people is strong and agile.  Some are slow and weak, but hella smart.  There are many different people that make up the world, and not everyone has a statistical advantage.

[Rhyden]

I know on some other muds they have a pretty cool scoring system. You write down on one line the order of highest scoring attribute to lowest so with arm, it'd be like: "Str, End, Agi, Wis" So my strength would have the highest role down to wisdom having the lowest. It's sort of cool and it's still realistic. It's realistic cause if I'm say a warrior guard, I want my str to be good, but it would also be according to my character. My character probably is a warrior because he was stronger than most and also if he wasn't stronger, there must be something he did to become stronger, allowing him to be in the warrior class. See what I mean? It could work

[Cavus]

We have only one reroll chance. Maybe, this can be increased to two or three? So, players can be more satisfied. What do you think, guys?

One of the other MUDs has unlimited reroll by the way. It is really cool. They have more classes and races, so this can be because of that thogh. It is hard to have meaningfull roll for your char, there.


Why don't we have more races and classes? Can't you create a plot,s o new races may appear? For example, orcs?

Note: I guess it is not suitable to history of Zalanthas, or dark sun books, but I'd like to see more races.

[Maybe42or54]

Nah. I'm good how it is.

[Dracul]

Nah. I'm good how it is.

[Rhyden]

We have only one reroll chance. Maybe, this can be increased to two or three? So, players can be more satisfied. What do you think, guys?

One of the other MUDs has unlimited reroll by the way. It is really cool. They have more classes and races, so this can be because of that thogh. It is hard to have meaningfull roll for your char, there.


Why don't we have more races and classes? Can't you create a plot,s o new races may appear? For example, orcs?

Note: I guess it is not suitable to history of Zalanthas, or dark sun books, but I'd like to see more races.

Nah, I like the races the way they are, but one or two more rerolls couldn't hurt nobody. Although I'm not very good with temptative gambling.  :wink:

[jhunter2l2log]

Maybe42or54 wrote:
Nah. I'm good how it is.

[Maybe42or54]

One of the other MUDs has unlimited reroll by the way. It is really cool. They have more classes and races, so this can be because of that thogh. It is hard to have meaningfull roll for your char, there.

Why don't we have more races and classes? Can't you create a plot,s o new races may appear? For example, orcs?

Note: I guess it is not suitable to history of Zalanthas, or dark sun books, but I'd like to see more races.

I am deeply sorry for not responding to the rest of this.

More races.. Like Fairy, Orc, Dark-elf, minatuar, giant, gnome, land drow?
I'd say something, but in the words of Jerry Springer. All I will say is *bleep*

And We have 9 races already.

[Marauder Moe]

There used to be more playable races (halflings and mantis) but the playerbase isn't big enough to support them.  Things are spread out enough as it is.

[Angela Christine]

Gith are orcs.  Or, at least, gith occupy the same niche as orcs.

More rerolls would be good.  More chances to get what you want, but each roll is still random and within the the proper range for that race/class/size/age combination.

You can also influence your stats by manipulating your choices in character creation.  If you want to be a big burly bruiser, then choose a strong race (not elves), choose to make your height and weight in the upper third for your race, and put yourself in the prime of life (niether a teenager nor an old fogey).  If you want to be wise then choose a wise race (not half-giants) and be in the latter half of the age range for your race.  A tall, heavy, 25 year old human is unlikely to have poor strength -- he might not get fantastic strength but he probably won't be a weakling.


AC

[Rhyden]

More rerolls would be good.  More chances to get what you want, but each roll is still random and within the the proper range for that race/class/size/age combination.

[Dracul]

Not to argue. But I'll log my opinion.

I dont want any more rerolls. I dont want any extra 'decision' allowed for it either.

[Rhyden]

Just another thought and I know most people don't want change but this is simply an idea, agree or disagree, no flamming:

Scratch my first idea. How about you get your normal roll and possible reroll -and- with those four levels, you have the ability to decide which goes where. Now, most here will say this is powegaming and making uber characters. Well, it's not. Here's three examples to lead my point:

1) For a warrior: I for one may make the strength good. Why? Because they're a warrior for jeepers sake, they have to be strong! Fighting is what they do best!

2) For a thief: I'm probably gonna make agility and wisdom higher than str. and end. Why, you may ask? Because they're a thief!!! They need to be quick with their hands and cunning in order to be what they are! Jeeze!

3) For a merchant: My highest will be put to wisdom. Why, you might be pondering...because...he...is...a...merchant. He's gonna be smart. If this merchant wasn't smart in the head, s/he'd find another occupation!

There's more examples, I'm sure. But this wouldn't be twinkish, it wouldn't create uber characters, it would make score more accurate to the character's lifestyle.

There, now,
start the disagreement...

[Marauder Moe]

I disagree with any proposed changes to stat determinations.  My reasons have probably been mentioned already.  Short and sweet, eh?   :wink:

[Anonymous]

You're wasting your breath, Rhyden.. There's a majority of players on the GDB, who, for some reasons, won't accept any changes or ideas about changes, especially when it comes to stats and ordering them properly for your chosen concept.

Just search for "My favorite characters had the poorest stats ever" and you'll see what I mean  :?

Never understood where that "Nothing must change, everything most be as brutal as possible" mentality comes from, but hey, such is life here.

Who here will have the courage to step forth and admit that he/she killed a character on purpose with no remorse because they absolutly didn't like their stats? *g* I bet there's a whole bunch of players who do it all the time.

Stats matter for me, sue me.. Especially when I play a character that relies on it, like a warrior.

[Maybe42or54]

That sound like Sjanimal to you?
No. Any more rerolls and you have that much better chance at rolling the stats you like.
Of course. Hell. What am I talking about? I'm probably the luckiest bastard known to this GDB.
I've only had two pcs with stats worse than very good.

[Rhyden]

Yes, this does sound like sjanimal and 42or54, you obviously haven't had a warrior who's strength was poor and agi below average.

Am I complaining? No. This warrior just had the idea he was a warrior in his head when secretly everybody knew he was a weakling.

I know the scoring system is good the way it is, but I think it could be better, I just can't put my finger on it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Well, to chime in on something, I would not mind being able to have a total number rolled and then alot them among my stats, or even a set of six 'stat messages' (IE: Random numbers rolled which, based on their catagory, give you the messages - poor, below average, very good, etc) being given so that we could allot them among our four stats.

It's not power-gaming, it is creating a character. I get sick of hearing that particular excuse.

We will probably never see something like this, but that's alright. We can still wish for the options, those of us who want to create our characters from the DNA up.

[Rhyden]

Bravo, The7DeadlyVenomz! Somebody sees my point.  

It really isn't powergaming. We decide absolutely -everything- about our characters before playing them out: Race, gender, proffession, past, looks, living locations, everything! Why not have at least the smallest bit of decision over their attributes? It only makes sense.

This would not be powergaming. It would be as close to powergaming as chosing the eye color of your character.

I honestly don't even see how this system would be abused. The ability points would be as random as scores already are. If somebody makes their strength absolutely amazing, fine! The rest of their score will be crap and they'll have to rely on pure brute for everything. Also, if somebody intentionally makes their wisdom amazing because they are a merchant, so be it, look to my last post.

Would the general playerbases' characters benefit if this was in use? Would/could it be abused?

[jhunter]

It is powergaming because there are racial statistical adjustments involved. With any sort of stat ordering or prioritizing whatsoever it allows people to order the stats to minimize intended racial drawbacks.
It's one thing if you happen to get lucky and this happens...another if people are allowed to do this at will.

[Maybe42or54]

My best stat will go to Wisdom.
My second to strength.
My third to Agility.
My fourth to Endruance.

Why?
Because I will be badass.
If I have AI wisdom, that I picked, and poor the rest of them, I'mma be destroying you.
Whereas I should have had the AI on endurance, and be craptacular.

Most people will arrange their stats this way, most of the time, would be my guess.

[SewerRat_inTheOpen]

I guess it's not much fun when your warrior with poor str and agili get beaten up by a merchant or something.

I can't say I ever suicided my pc coz he had lousy stats, most of them die out pretty fast themselves without me helping them do so..

I wouldn't mind certain alterations on the reroll thing [like 1 more?], but if it is realistic and can be more easily accesible through -wish all-, I suppose it doesn't matter that much.

The rolls don't seem to be totally random, and unaffected by race and guild/ subguild and age/height/weight.

I don't find the options here that appealing, but I agree that maybe there should be a slight alteration for realism, though being realistic, there are crappy warriors as well, just that well, it spoils player concepts.

[Cavus]

Hey guys. I thought a slight modification. I want to get your opinions.

Let's keep the current systems, but add a tiny option to it. This code is for new creation of the char. For example:

>score

>............................
 ............................
  your strength is average, your agility is average,
  your wisdom is average, your endurance is average

Now Fancy Pants Joe did not like this and:

>reroll self

> your new stats are
   your strength is poor, your agility is poor,
   your wisdom is poor, your endurance is poor

Now Fancy Pants Joe shocked even more, and changed his mind..

>Do you want to keep your new stats? (Yes/No)

> No

> Your stats are,
   your strength is average, your agility is average,
  your wisdom is average, your endurance is average


In this method people have two options for their stats, and can choose the one they like. It does not give any control on stats, so no powergaming or stats. It simply gives a choice to player turn back to original. I am sure everybody can be happy with this.

I know there should be people with lower stats, but this method only makes them little happier. It does not harm the harshness of Zalanthas world.

What do you think guys? (Ah, and ladies  :wink: )  :?:

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

My best stat will go to Wisdom.
My second to strength.
My third to Agility.
My fourth to Endruance.

....

Most people will arrange their stats this way, most of the time, would be my guess.

Based on your character concept, or based on your knowledge of how to twink the code? You see, that's the thing of it. Assuming that we are all role-players here, then why in the hell would you pull something twinky like that, you who report bugs or don't get that item or armor because it does not fit you character, you who do not spam e;e;e;e;e;ew;n;e;s;?

It's no more twinkable than anything already is on Armageddon, and assuming that you are a RPer rather than a twink, then why should it be abused?

I really think that the brunt of most folks' arguments against this change to the chargen lies in their inability to accept something new. But as for me and my family, we'd like to make our peoples quick as snakes and dumb as Southerners, or strong as Northern Barbarians and slow as Southerners, or.....


I'll also support Cavus' idea, assuming that what I want will never get put in. It would be good to have a least that mediocre amount of choise in the matter.

[Anonymous]

Oh enough already.. I play on two other RPI muds where you can choose which order you want your stats priorities to be placed in, and my current character has great strenght, great dexterity, great constitution and average everything else, and let me tell you that I am -far- from being overpowered.. Honestly, most of my warriors have been characters with either great strenght or great dexterity, and I'm pretty sure that mostly all the other warrior-types of characters put either strenght or dexterity or constitution as one of their first main stats.. And -no- one is overpowered in either game, and the role-play is just as good as any.

Is there anything wrong with that? If you're the uber-role-player who wants everything to be a surprise, or you enjoy playing a warrior with poor strenght, then just roll a dice and place your stats the way the dice tells you to do so, or place strenght near the end, but why must everything be so harsh in this game, when it's already difficult to keep a character for a long period of time? I'm a bit tired of re-creating characters because the game is so harsh, yet the basic of a character doesn't give me any slight advantages unless I'm lucky.

Not everyone enjoys playing a hunter who's blows "bounces off pretty much anything he tries to hunt" or who can't use anything but the smallest of bows.

And if you apply for a magicker, then I assume it is because you enjoy the magick aspect of the game, and to tell someone that he should rp his character even if he can't learn any new spells, it's just ridiculous in my opinion.. This is a game, so you have to add some fun aspect to it, not everyone enjoys playing a noble character or a merchant type that sits in the tavern to gossip all day long..

So stats ARE important.. Unfortunatly, each time someone mentions stats being important for them is labelled a twink, and this is why I choose to post anonymously, and no, I am not sjanimal, or whatever his name is

So stats are important for me, they might not be important for you, but why must you be totally against giving us non-uber-bar-rpers a little break from time to time? We probably are a good percentage of your playerbase.

[Linedel]

I guess it's not much fun when your warrior with poor str and agili get beaten up by a merchant or something.

It's quite fun for the merchant.  (Or other non melee classes I'm sure...

[Cavus]

Recovering from "reroll" is the most innocent suggestion here. And, I really want our players to declare their votes about this idea. I think there should be no big opposition from staffs and players.

[Marauder Moe]

I vote against it.

Sometimes I think stats should be random AND hidden.

[Marauder Moe]

Alright, I'm bored right now so I'll go ahead and throw in my full two 'sids.

Just as in real life, not everyone can be the best at what they do.  Characters who have exceptional stats that match up well with their guilds are rare and special.  

As it is right now, lets say that (hypothetical satistics) only one in ten thieves have very good agility or better.  Now, many of those thieves have some other stat thats really good.  Some learn really fast and some are able to survive quite a beating, but they're pretty average (or poor) thieves.  This seems realistic to me.  If stat ordering (or some other form of control) were implemented, the figures would probably reverse.  Nine out of ten thieves would have really good agility.  The remaining thief with not so great agility is going to be the player who wants to portray an average or crappy thief.

The PC population would be full of super-heroes.  Granted, already there is a tendancy towards exceptionalism in the players vs. virtual people, but stat ordering would make it even worse.  You would nearly eliminate both the exceptional, super-statted, naturally-talented PC as well as the tragic, poorly-statted, bad-at-what-he-does PC.  I think both of those roles are important to the game and should be maintained.

That's why I'm against changes to stat determination.

[Cavus]

Hmm. Even if I am with the idea of being able to take back the reroll, I have some defendings points for stat ordering.

I don't believe that stat ordering would create super heros/thieves. Because what proposed is just giving some priority. In that system there could be a char like this if str has the highest priority:
Strenght-->good
Agility-->below average
Wisdom-->below average
Endurance-->poor

Is this warrior uber powered? No, but it gives the player what he wants because str is the highest of all stats.

Now, my thoghts. This stat ordering is not a "must" I think. I only need some flexibility, so I will be with my idea of "recovering reroll". It is enough modification in my opinion.

[Marauder Moe]

You have to admit, though, that the percentage of thieves with good agility would increase.  The super-thieves would become that much less special and the average/crappy thieves that much less common.  Same with adding more rerolls or letting you take back a reroll, though those would have lesser effects.

Players shouldn't always get what they want.

[Anonymous]

I already told you that with stat ordering there is no such thing as a PC "super-hero" on the other two RPI muds that I play, where you prioritize your stats.

There wouldn't be 9 out of 10 "super" thieves if most thieves would put agility as their first stat, the smartest thieves would still be the "super" thieves of the game, except you wouldn't be stuck with a thief with poor agility as a player who really had good hopes for his character and took the time to write a nice background.

How many new players do you think are tired of re-creating a character for the fifth time in their first week because the game is so harsh, stat ordering is just a little boost to help us out in the end.

I've played those two RPI muds that I've mentioned for over five years now and I've never seen anyone get far in the game just because he had "great" strenght or great intelligence. It's just a small thing to help out, so that your stats matches your background somehow.

There's a cap anyway, no one ends up with great in every stats, someone with great strenght and great con will probably end up with average in everything else, and if he is very lucky, he might have super strenght, and everything else will be either good or average.

So anyway.. Even if most thieves end up with placing agility in their first priority, you still end up with thieves ranging from amazing agility all the way to good agility, it's still luck, but at least you're giving them an extra chance when they start.

And enough already with the RL comparison, if I had poor strenght when I was a kid, with bad endurance, always coughing and being frail, I'd certainly wouldn't try to sell myself as a mercenary when I'm in my 20's, same goes if I can't concentrate for more than five minutes, I certainly won't spend all of my youth trying to become a magicker.

So by the age of twenty, you probably know what you're good at, except on Arm they don't give you your stats, then let you choose a guild, it's the other way around.. So stats reflecting the career you selected for your character would be very nice.

I love to play teenagers, but right now I keep making characters aged from 20 to 25 because I know that age affects your stats, and I know that strenght will be very important for me, as a warrior.. But I hate starting so late in my career, I love to build up a history from scratch, but right now, I know that if I pick a youth as my age, I risk ending up with very bad strenght, endurance, wisdom, unless I'm very lucky.

[Marauder Moe]

I find it strange that people will say that stats don't matter while still vehemently arguing (with references to people SUICIDING over bad stats) that they need to be able to pick/order/reroll them.

[Anonymous]

I'm telling you that stats matters to me, especially the ones matching the background and career of my characters.

Amazing stats won't make a super hero, or even a hero. It really helps you out when you start, tho.

[Marauder Moe]

Alright, we'll agree to disagree then.

[Linedel]

I could go for the following.

Allow options to have random or specified stats.

For each race, random stats, in general, would average to a sum of, say, 40, assuming 10 average for each stat.

Allow a character who wishes to choose their stats to distribute 34 points.

Or, allow a character to determine their stat order, then subtract one from each roll.

Yep, you'll be below average overall, but you won't be stuck with poor whatever stat you wanted.

However, I don't think its worth the effort to code.

[Angela Christine]

I could go for take-back reroll, more rerolls, or multi-rolls.  A couple games I've tried had something like:

Code Select Expand


        1       2       3       4     5    
Str     10      16      14      9      6
Dex      7      18       9      16     13    
Wis     15       9      15      12     17
Con     13      12      12      11     15
Int     18       9      12      14      9
Cha     17      10       8      13     11

Choose (1 2 3 4 5):

Of course for Arm the numbers would have to be replaced with descriptions.  The nice thing with this system was that all the modifiers were already factored in, what you get is what you see.


The arguement that good roleplayers don't twink doesn't fly for me.  If that is true, why not simply let everyone CHOOSE their stats?  (So if your character concept is "Batman" you can choose very good strength, very good agility, very good constitution and exceptional intellegence.  And if your concept is starving 'rinthrat/begger, you could choose all below-average stats but with above average endurance because despite it all you are a survivor.)  Or do like some MUSHs and give people a pool of points to assign to their stats however they like?  Then you can have an absolutely incredible if you want, but that means that your other three stats will have to be below average.

Choosing randomness over control seems to have been a deliberate design descision.  It allows the possibility for four great stats (or four awful stats) without making them common and meaningless.  It provides a realistic amount of randomness (people often do wind up mediocre or "average" in real life).  It encourages people to try different approaches.  I might never choose Endurance as my top stat, but after surviving falling off the shieldwall and being poisoned several times, you get to appreciate that character with exceptional endurance.    On the downside it also leads to frustrating situations where you have hundreds of mana points but are not a magicker, or you are an archer that can't find a single bow you are able to fire.

I am mostly on the side of randomness, though in D&D my favorite stat method was to roll 18 dice all at once and arrange them into groups of three however I wanted.    I would like the take-back reroll though, because the only thing worse than bad (or inappropriate) stats is re-rolling and getting WORSE (or less appropriate)  stats than you started out with.  When that happens I get so I HATE the character, because every time I look at her I'm reminded about what an idiot I was to stupidly reroll stats that, in retrospect, don't seem so bad after all.  


AC

[Graydread]

For what it's worth (not much I'd think) I'm in favour of at least a takeback reroll option as well, for the reasons stated by AC. I don't know how significant stats actually are in Arm, but it seems to me that somewhere along the line you have to trust your players - assuming that the vast majority will twink, go for uberPCs, play messianic characters may be justified, I don't know, but the message it communicates to newbies is not positive.

You've got something magical here in Arm. Isn't the world harsh enought that H&Sers will be wither like weeds in the rays of Suk Krath as it is? Just my two sids worth.

[Cavus]

None of AKs is me, I wanted to state.  

[Rhyden]

My best stat will go to Wisdom.
My second to strength.
My third to Agility.
My fourth to Endruance.

....

Most people will arrange their stats this way, most of the time, would be my guess.

Based on your character concept, or based on your knowledge of how to twink the code? You see, that's the thing of it. Assuming that we are all role-players here, then why in the hell would you pull something twinky like that, you who report bugs or don't get that item or armor because it does not fit you character, you who do not spam e;e;e;e;e;ew;n;e;s;?

It's no more twinkable than anything already is on Armageddon, and assuming that you are a RPer rather than a twink, then why should it be abused?

I really think that the brunt of most folks' arguments against this change to the chargen lies in their inability to accept something new. But as for me and my family, we'd like to make our peoples quick as snakes and dumb as Southerners, or strong as Northern Barbarians and slow as Southerners, or.....


I'll also support Cavus' idea, assuming that what I want will never get put in. It would be good to have a least that mediocre amount of choise in the matter.

Fully supporting The7DeadlyVenomz here and Bravo! Once again you have said it before I got to my computer, probably more beautifully as well.  :wink:

[Maybe42or54]

Just for an example.
How many -more- times has someone emailed the staff and asked them to lower their one stat because it doesn't fit in with their description then how many ask to have one raised?

Do that and if there are more, I'll be in shock.

[Rhyden]

Alright. I wish there was some way I could redo the votes so everybody who's changed their minds can also do this directly with the poll, but I don't know how. If it is possible to do this, it's just because I'm bad with polls but if it isn't, I'll look towards the immortals on this.

I think everybody's stepped forwards one step towards something that could be large. While still not adaptable to some, others have realized potential and use with this idea. Should/Could it be a reality within Armageddon? I think another vote would determine this nicely.

MM, you have very good points on the matter. It does seem that there might be more superthieves, uberwarriors and crazymerchants everywhere. But you have to realise that this is the outcome of their past experience. We aren't just beginning these characers as new, fresh babies (although that's what it seems like at times), most of our characters have seen around two generations of this life. They have class/subguild for a reason. Because they've been building on it progressively for a lot of the time you haven't been role-playing them. As time passes before the moment we begin to take over their lives, their score is molded.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

And as someone stated earlier, a kid with poor strength would not go hiring himself out as a mercenary, so why does it matter if the warriors have great strength?  Most warriorish folks, even in our own society, are more physically capable than the non-warriorish folk. Most businessmen are more intelligent than those who are not. And on down the line, as we go.

In the end, and this may as well be the end because folks never like to admit they are wrong, even if shown the light of right; in the end, being able to manipulate your stats is part of creating your character. It is not twinky, if you are not a twink, and it is not OOC anymore than writing that your character has black hair. It is real, it is part of creating the portion of Crackaggedon that hooks you into the whole thing, and you may as well accept it.

And there's no point in getting too upset in either event, for it is highly unlikely that we will ever see this option. And oh well, because we'll still play the game, won't we? Because we're hooked.

[Rhyden]

Now, most here will say this is powegaming and making uber characters. Well, it's not. Here's three examples to lead my point:

1) For a warrior: I for one may make the strength good. Why? Because they're a warrior for jeepers sake, they have to be strong! Fighting is what they do best!

2) For a thief: I'm probably gonna make agility and wisdom higher than str. and end. Why, you may ask? Because they're a thief!!! They need to be quick with their hands and cunning in order to be what they are! Jeeze!

3) For a merchant: My highest will be put to wisdom. Why, you might be pondering...because...he...is...a...merchant. He's gonna be smart. If this merchant wasn't smart in the head, s/he'd find another occupation!

[Maybe42or54]

I know a couple warriors that had shit for strength and were awesome at the end, before they died horribly.

[Angela Christine]

And as someone stated earlier, a kid with poor strength would not go hiring himself out as a mercenary, so why does it matter if the warriors have great strength?  Most warriorish folks, even in our own society, are more physically capable than the non-warriorish folk. Most businessmen are more intelligent than those who are not. And on down the line, as we go.  

He would if really wanted to be a warrior, if he comes from a long line of warriors, or if he had no other prospects.  The Byn is one of the elite mercenary companies, so logically the standards of most of the other (virtual) companies are even lower.   :twisted: All you need for an entry level position is the ability to hold a weapon without stabbing yourself, if you also happen to have your own gear and mount you're golden.

From a character design standpoint he might be better suited to a rogue class, but the character has no idea how to get started, and isn't really interested in a life of crime.  He might be suited for the merchant class, but he's young and hot blooded, and doesn't want to waste away doing scutwork in some other man's workshop for 10 years before he is ready to make it on his own, and he certainly doesn't want to blow his life savings buying his way into the apprenticeship.  Statistically he might be a model mage, unfortunately he doesn't have the innate connection to elemental magick, nor the arcane knowledge to gather magick from the prime material plane.  He becomes a mercenary because that looks like the most attractive option to him, not because his natural attributes make him an ideal warrior.


And a warrior _will_ be better than others at fighting.  Even a poor statted warrior will be better at fighting as a newbie than an average statted newbie anything else, including rangers and assassins.  Yes an exceptionally statted non-combat class will occasionally get lucky, especially if they have a good subclass and some experience, but for the most part a warrior will beat an equally experienced anything else in straightforward combat.  He may not be the strongest guy around, but he has a real nack for fighting.


Angela Christine

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

AC, you're right. But I said what I said because somebody complained that all warriors would have extra-strength, which I can tell you is not correct.

Basically, in the end, I was trying to make the point that it's not going to be twinked much. It is a RP tool. But, anyways ... you make an excellent point, of course.

[flurry]

To me, I'm not so concerned about twinking as I am that exceptional PCs remain genuinely exceptional.  So whatever system is in place, I hope it continues to have some level of random chance involved.   Control is nice, but with complete control over stats, you get into the Lake Wobegon territory where all the children are above average.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, a little while back an Immortal (maybe Sanvean?) posted that changes to this were under some kind of consideration or discussion.

[Xamminy]

Now, I like the option to reroll...and I'll tell you why.  Still, I'm not in the 'it must be changed camp' of thought.

The way character creation is set up now, we determine what the character looks like and all the things that happened to this character without knowing the characters real aptitudes besides the skillset we've picked for the character.  Stats are randomly determined after everything else.

Now, in the real world, our genetics tell us what our stats are as we're growing up.  You know if you're a genius before you decide to go scholarly, or know you're a brutish hulk before deciding to beat people up for their stuff.  Myself, from a young age I've been a skinny person but smart and quick.  If this was me in Zalanthas, getting picked on and knowing that the bigger kids will whoop my butt, I'd probably find another way than standing toe-to-toe with a big lumox and go the route of the assassin if I was that angry, or just a pick-pocket if I wanted to get back at my tormentors in that fashion.  See, genetics determines statitistical aptitudes prior to my having made choices.

Still, nothing has been proposed that would increase people's likelihood of getting good stats, numerically, just gearing the character towards something that fits the background.  "Not very big, but quick with words and fingers, Jimmy learned that he couldn't beat the neighboorhood bullies at their own game, so he turned to theft"...with exceptional strength, poor agility, poor wisdom and absolutely incredible endurance???  Now, I understand the argument to not write a background or description that suggests certain stats, but we're left with fewer, less-colorful options after that.  "Jimmy found that regardless of his size or lack thereof and despite his stupidity or lack thereof, he liked to beat stuff up because Daddy beat him as a child."  Well, great...but if Jimmy was a small kid with little strength, he may choose to poison Daddy instead, knowing he couldn't kill Daddy, the donkey-bench-press-champion, with just the strength in his arms.

Basically, it just makes more sense to me to see the stats first (which I don't like at all) or have some little bit more say in how the stats are arranged.

[jhunter]

Basically, in the end, I was trying to make the point that it's not going to be twinked much.

Really? How then do you explain the change in balance to the game that will follow with any sort of stat ordering as far as the non-human races are concerned?

Playing a hg for example, the worst thing about them is they are slow and dumb...with stat ordering anyone with any brains in their head is going to order agi and wis primarily to reduce the racial drawbacks.

Elves...str primarily...

See with stat ordering there will be no non-human pcs with averages in the stats that cause a drawback to them as people will just choose their stats in order to reduce this drawback. This is wrong.

I've seen the ability to order stats in other roleplaying games, (tabletop) flat ruin the game.

The randomness of stats as they are now keeps the playing field level and keeps people from choosing statistical adjustments by race with ordering to optimize their pc codedly.

I notice also, that every time this discussion is brought up and someone mentions this fact..(and that is what it is a FACT) people do not respond to it whatsoever because they know it is detrimental to their pursuit of being able to create powergaming pcs.

Either way, if the imms add in another option for stats...I hope they leave the option to do it the way it is in the game.
There should be sort of drawback to stat ordering as well. A cap on the limit of how high any of your stats can roll or something.

You choose random, the sky's the limit...you want to order them,the ceiling is the limit.

[flurry]

I agree, and that's also one of my reservations about stat ordering.  I think if  there is some player control over stats, race and age modifiers should be applied after any reordering.   Otherwise they don't have any meaning.

[Xamminy]

First, let me say that I understand asking for stat ordering is asking for a decent amount of work.  The problem with ordering at all is the variance of races and the spread for any stat from race to race, or rather stat to stat in a race.  To give an example...let's make up imaginary numbers, shall we?  Let's pretend that we're playing D&D where everyone rolls 3d6...for humans.  No problem for humans, right?  Just move the numbers around.  Now, someone's playing a HG, which roll 2d6+20 for strength, 1d4 for wisdom, 1d6 for agility and 2d6+15 for endurance.  (Please, do not take these numbers as gospel, as they are probably wrong, for humans as well as HGs)  Now, this is a problem, but I still like the idea of figuring out a way to assign them so that the descriptors would come out as the player intends...just so that what I see as realistic (someone following the path of least resistance, doing something they are hereditarily geared for rather than...I'll continue this one later*) can happen.

As far as 'twinking' to minimize racial drawbacks, sure, people will order to minimize this, but they can't get rid of it.  As has already been mentioned, this will offer no better stats than in the current system, but will just put the descriptors in places that make the player think that the character is in line with their vision.  If this is possible, I'm all for it for those of us that wouldn't abuse it.  Punish the people that do abuse it summarily, but just because some would, don't deny those that would use this to make their characters' backgrounds and descriptions match the reality.  (Reality?  Heh.)

* Okay, sure, there are people that want to be warriors, but aren't suited to it.  As this applies to the game world, I think people are coming from two different camps, here.  There are those of us saying that people would know their strengths and weaknesses and take a profession that fits it, in general.  Why could someone not, at a young age, realize that they were a weakling and that they could never carry all that armor, best to just learn a trade and make stuff for my money?  The way the current system sits, that sort of background isn't possible.  You'd have to make a merchant with that background, and then laugh when you got a high strength and low everything else.  The way stats are determined now simply forces people to be unusually sparse in their backgrounds...or risk being wrong about their character in the first place.  Seriously, for many people, their statistical strengths/weaknesses do determine the skills they learn and are capable of learning.  What I truly envision is having the stat ordering part of the character creation process prior to approval so that the staff can peruse choices (including choices for past characters) to see that people aren't simply abusing the system.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how it could be a problem..

On another RPI mud that I play, with stat ordering, you can be an elf..

Let's say that the elf gets a +2 bonus to agility, a -1 penalty to endurance and a -1 penalty to strength.

Everyone rolls a 1d18 for stats.. Now let's say that the rolls end up being 17, 15, 8 and 12..

And let's say that 1-8 is poor, 9-12 is average, 13-16 is good and 17-18 is incredible. (Just for kicks, I'm sure that's not how it works here..)

And the elf decided that his roll would go to agility, strength, endurance and wisdom..

So with the bonuses and penalties in the end, his stats becomes:

Incredible agility, good strenght, average endurance and poor wisdom.. (Compared to a human), compared to another elf, his stats might just be very good agility, average strenght, average endurance and poor wisdom.

Its still luck of the rolls, but at least it's targeted luck.. Same would go with an HG, with say, +3 bonuses to strenght and endurance, -2 penalties to wisdom and -2 penalties to agility, etc.. Even if he puts wisdom, agility, strenght and endurance, and he rolls 17, 14, 13 and 13, he will end up with good wisdom, average agility, good strenght and good endurance (which might turns out to be average, since 16 strenght and 16 endurance is probably just average for a HG).

So when you compare those stats to a human, sure, it's good, but if you compare it to another HG, his wisdom might be much better, but his strenght and endurance is just so so..

So even if someone tries to "balance" out the bonuses and penalties, he might still end up with an average character, but at least his stats might reflect more his background..

It works even better if you put a cap on the maximum total one can get with the rolls, say, 60..

[Rhyden]

Thank you Xamminy, it is good to see more and more people are seeing and realising the potential of my idea.

[Dracul]

I like the 'rush' of the one reroll that you can't take back. Seriously.

[jhunter]

As far as 'twinking' to minimize racial drawbacks, sure, people will order to minimize this, but they can't get rid of it.

Doesn't matter, the fact that they are minimizing it by choice will cause the overall average of pcs suffering from the racial drawbacks to be much lower than they should be. It is a matter of statistical balance with the game.

I like the 'rush' of the one reroll that you can't take back. Seriously.

Although we don't agree on much, I agree with you on this Dracul. I too love that rush of:Will I get crap stats and have to work through it, will I get lucky and get really amazing ones?
Both sides of the coin have alot of playing enjoyment to them. Personally I think in a way that people who are willing to play through horrible stats end up with a more well-rounded character in development.

And contrary to someone's belief on here I do not think as many people suicide pcs due to stats as they might believe. As far as I'm concerned the only ones that do are newbies and twinks, and I don't care to cater to those who are more concerned with stats than rp.

[Maybe42or54]

I agree with Dracul and Jhunter.
Rush of the roll is fun.

[Rhyden]

Both sides of the coin have alot of playing enjoyment to them. Personally I think in a way that people who are willing to play through horrible stats end up with a more well-rounded character in development.

Agreed there. With really great stats, you might be uber at what you do which is always fun. With really crappy stats, chances are, with me, that my character will really have to work at things, and usually live longer, making their life more enjoyable to me. Personally, either side of the coin wins some and loses some.