Score

[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.