Score

[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.