The curse of stats.

[amoeba]

I have to agree with Mr 137 on this.  I actually like tha randomness of the stat role.  I write my backgrounds and descriptions in such a way to handle any potential roll.  And I roll with whatever is given.  It really just about the roleplay anyway.

[jhunter]

I don't have a problem with the way it is. I've had stats that didn't match up with the desc of the pc but things worked out just fine. I really like the random roll anyway.

[Adhira]

Players.. uhm.. myself in the past, included, log in at non-peak hours to 'accidentally' die to a tarantula, or raptor, or convenient mob.. It is less likely to be observed, especially if you wish up for an easy wish, like 'animate this merchant plz' to see if an IMM is on.. o.o

Fair warning - you are never alone. Just because a request for animation goes answered doesn't mean there are no staff on.

Not all of us live in USA. And I am watching you.

Fear me.    :twisted:

[Marauder Moe]

I am and have always been a supporter of the random stat rolls.  I'm anti-pointbuy and anti-ordering.  I think characters with good stats that match their guild should be somewhat rare.  The more common people who just plain aren't as good as the naturaly gifted either RP that frustration appropriately or work hard to make up for it with skills.

I do agree that having 'the big, burly man' with a poor strength roll is a problem, though.  Something I just now thought of (and forgive me if the idea isnt totally original), is that perhaps one should be allowed to raise a poor stat ONLY at the expense of their highest rolled stat.  For instance, if the big, burly man rolled poor STR, average WIS and END, but excellent DEX, he'd have the option to raise his STR to average at the cost of making his DEX above average, or something like that.

[Jakahri]

The system is not perfect as is currently, but it works.

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of stat-ordering system. That way I wouldn't roll weak strength every time I play a tribal elf or city based thug. Those two roles seem the be the worst about rolling bad stats.

[X-D]

I completly agree with moe on all points.

Though, Personaly, I think the cost for switching stats should not be 1-1, but more like 1 for 2.

[moab]

Changing the stat system would be useful.

Certainly mushes allow you to choose your stats (setting limits in both directions) and later write your description.  Coupled with the right balancing mechanism, this is a workable solution.

Allowing a player to simply bias the stats in a particular direction also would be a workable solution.

Arguments of powergaming and abuse are invalid, really.  Changing the stats system doesn't encourage these - lack of checks and balances do.

I voted yes and no.

[proxie]

I do wish that there was a way to reroll one stat. Reroll agi/str/wis/end or the regular reroll self if you want to give it a try for an all around better roll.

Now... having said that...

Nothing irks me more than people whining that they can't get into their beefy muscular guy because his strength is average and so they hope they'll die soon. And it turns into a self fulfilling prophecy and sooner than later they're making another PC.

Stats don't make that huge of a difference. The game is about roleplay. Give your beefy muscular guy a trait or a flaw to explain why you can't wield the uber heavy bastard sword of doom. "I can't use those, it's disrespectful to the one who trained me." "I have an extra bone in my hand, sorry, I can wield it, but using it just would destroy my sword arm forever. Yeah, I had the watermaker look at it, but I'm just stuck."  "Sure. Any guy can wield a sword and bash at things like a deranged gith. I prefer this type. It's more useful to the way I fight."

And I adore just ADORE the "In my background it says my guy was the legion of doom command leader of his mercenary group. I can't roleplay with him until he gets higher up in skills, so I'm going to go destroy things until I'm up to his background level."  

I almost wish stats were relegated to the 'stat' command, so when I type score, I get the down and dirty of how my PC is, not her codebased stats. If that happened, I'd like encumberance swapped to score.

What's next? Coded penis size? I can just see people suiciding because their manparts aren't as manly as they want to be. And all the poor buxom f'me's with a small chest running around all sad because they can't get any of those codedly huge men.

Proxie

[Puppet]

And I adore just ADORE the "In my background it says my guy was the legion of doom command leader of his mercenary group. I can't roleplay with him until he gets higher up in skills, so I'm going to go destroy things until I'm up to his background level." Proxie

Do you mean abhor? Or do I just suck at picking up on internet sarcasm?

[moab]

...just thought of this...
perhaps another way to fix this problem is to simply hide the stats completely like they did with skill percentages.

[amoeba]

...just thought of this...
perhaps another way to fix this problem is to simply hide the stats completely like they did with skill percentages.

But what would I look at when I'm bored?  :wink:

Actually that is not too bad an idea, but it could lead to some odd situations. For instance, someone putting in a description that he is a skinny weakling, but rolling AI endrance.  He tries to play it as weak, but he seems to survive even falls off the shield wall and gith gashing him in the neck.  Me, I think it would be fun.

[Nao]

I like the idea of hiding stats. It's the old issue... How do you know irl how good you're with a sword? you try. I've never thought about this but strength and such aren't really that much different... You try how much weight you can lift.

[bracken]

Strength and size seems to be the main gripe.  For most other things it's
"That's life...get over it!"
So could the strength stat be modified by the character weight we assign at the start?

[Cale_Knight]

Hell, why not hide the skill list too? Want to know if you can use that sword? Well keep trying.

In fact, let's get rid of encumbrance in score. If you're getting tired when you walk, obviously you're encumbered.

And there's no reason to be able to see your exact hitpoints and stun. Junk those too.

---

In all seriousness, I learned my lesson about making a character concept that relies on a certain stat. I will never make a "muscular" or "graceful" character, or one who's supposed to be intelligent. It's not worth the frustration of getting a roll not in line with the concept. All my characters, by necessity, have to be physically ambiguous - not too bulky but not too skinny, not slow but not fast. Because if you mention a single actual trait, you might end up stuck in a position of having to change what your concept was in the first place, and that sucks.

[moab]

...and actually, Cale, it's pretty cool that something seen as a problem in the game by many players (perhaps you as well?) has left you writing non-super buff guys or lanky, super-agile elves.

You're *gasp* joe-zalanthas.

This, I think, is a good thing.

[HardCarbon]

Hell, why not hide the skill list too? Want to know if you can use that sword? Well keep trying.

In fact, let's get rid of encumbrance in score. If you're getting tired when you walk, obviously you're encumbered.

And there's no reason to be able to see your exact hitpoints and stun. Junk those too.

---

In all seriousness, I learned my lesson about making a character concept that relies on a certain stat. I will never make a "muscular" or "graceful" character, or one who's supposed to be intelligent. It's not worth the frustration of getting a roll not in line with the concept. All my characters, by necessity, have to be physically ambiguous - not too bulky but not too skinny, not slow but not fast. Because if you mention a single actual trait, you might end up stuck in a position of having to change what your concept was in the first place, and that sucks.

 Me I'd like more information...  even if its just   Novice... competant.. skilled for skills....I really hate not being able to give a straight answer to .. "Do you do it well?"

[bloodfromstone]

I wouldn't want stats hidden. I like to have an idea of my character's strengths and weaknesses to roleplay them properly. Skills, you can generally assume when your character starts out that s/he blows at all of them. If you're a fighter, you can get away with emoting a little more deftness with a blade, but you still suck, when you get down to it. You actively improve and work on your skills as you play, so you're generally pretty familiar with how good or bad you are with them. Stats don't change. You can start of great or terrible. If they were hidden, until you've gone around trying to lift a lot of things and getting shot in the face and seeing whether or not you live... Well, you'd be left with a rather nebulous idea of how to play off your character's base stats.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Even with all the flaws of the current stat system, you gotta admit that nothing feels quite as good as typing "reroll self" and seeing all your stats dramatically increased.
The current system has been good to me. I may be biased, but I wouldn't want to see it radically altered. I like a certain amount of randomization to my characters, and it can be interesting finding an explanation for the warrior who has below average strength, but exceptional endurance. Crazy stats can really make a character memorable.

[Synthesis]

I think people who have been playing for 5 years or longer should have their minimum stat roll be "good."

With a 100hp minimum for any race/class combination.

And we should start with 10,000 'sid.

Because we deserve it, duh.

:roll:

Edited to add content:

I'm pretty sure the stat system already takes your preferences into consideration, in a generic, class-based way.  That is, certain classes get bonuses to certain things during the stat roll process.  Over the years, I've noticed that my warriors are generally stronger, my assassins are generally more agile, my rangers generally have more endurance, etc.  Now, this certainly isn't always the case, but I think if you average it out over time, the tendencies are there.

Beyond that, I agree with a few previous posters that, if your character's concept revolves around a good statroll...well...prepare to be disappointed.  If it's that important, go through the special app process.  Otherwise, just play out the character.  Chances are, you'll be getting a brand new statroll within a couple of months, anyway (if not sooner).

[joyofdiscord]

I continue being baffled by this recurring discussion.  Maybe the RNG Gods have smiled on me, but I've had a dozen characters, and every single one, every single solitary one, had stats pretty much -exactly- in line with what I expected from their age/weight/class combo.  In those rare cases when the stats diverged significantly, it was invariably in the direction of being much, much better than I'd expected.  Obviously, 12 characters isn't really enough to make a definite statement, but it's enough to show that having appropriate stats isn't a fluke, not unless flukes come in dozens, rather it's the norm.

Just pick an appropriate age/weight, and your stats will be just fine.  Most of the specific situations I've noticed that people have tended to cite over the many times this discussion has been rehashed is that they basically bottomed out age and weight to make some scrawny teenager, and they somehow expected uber STR and END because this lithe, slender teenager was actually winner of the Mr. Known World Body-building Pageant and so of course he has to come with AI STR.  Occasionally, there's also some complaints that their elderly characters have been -gasp- frail and clumsy.

Some sort of mild prioritizing system would be nice for customization purposes, but definitely not simple stat ordering, because age/weight are important for determining the absolute limits of those stats, as they should be.  I don't feel it's at all necessary though, as we can practically already choose exactly what stats we want.  The only limitation on the current system is that the stats, being based off age/weight, actually have to -fit your character-, instead of fit player whims.  I kind of like it that way.  You can't make a scrawny, starving rinther and expect him to be very strong.  With stat prioritization of any actual usefulness or effect beyond what we already have, you could roll that scrawny rinther and choose STR as a prime stat to create a deceptive image of your character.  If you make that scrawny rinther and choose DEX as a prime stat, as it realistically should be, you'll just sap his STR and END more than the code is already doing for you with age/weight calculations.  Choosing a young age and low weight is already the same as concentrating on DEX.

[Packersfan]

I like the stat system how it is now. I wish people wouldn't start these posts because then it puts ideas into other people's heads and then they start thinking.

[Dalmeth]

I like the stat system how it is now. I wish people wouldn't start these posts because then it puts ideas into other people's heads and then they start thinking.

God forbid people start thinking.  Especially on a discussion forum.

[Morrolan]

Okay, here's my two cents (not 'sids, since this is a way OOC discussion).

I think that a stat system in which everyone starts average, adjusted for age, race, height, weight, guild, and subguild, would be optimal.

Increases in the stats through use would be reflected as part of the increased skills that people get over time.  I know, it's not a perfect system, but I personally really like its simplicity.

Another option is that stats rise and fall with certain coded actions, like skills do now, except in both dierctions.  I'll leave it to others who might be interested to flesh out these ideas...but I think it would be much harder to code.

EDIT to add subguilds
EDIT again to ass height and weight