Below Average Stats

[Larrath]

If your stats are too low, you can handle it ICly if it's really that important for your character.  This means you should only do that for a maximum of once every four major long-lived characters.

How do you handle it IC?  Work out!
If your endurance is too low, start jogging and carrying around rocks.
If your strength is too low, start doing push-ups or weight lifting.
If your agility is too low, start taking acrobatics/dancing lessons or just do dexterity training like working on rolls and jumping.
If your wisdom is too low, start doing memory or mathematical work.  Take Kruth cards and teach yourself how to count them, get someone to teach you whatever.

Do one of the four above things three or four times, with good realistic roleplaying, make a nice clean log and email the MUD (and your clan imms if any) and politely ask to have the stat boosted.  Include the logs, and the IC and OOC reasons for why you want the stat raised.  If you want to get more intensive boosting for your character's stats, again, just email the MUD and ask politely.
I've had a character get his Strength boosted from Below Average to Average, once.  It wasn't such a big deal.

With all this said, it's silly to place such high importance on stats.  It's true that if your stats are below a minimum, such as having a crafter that can't keep 5 objects in his inventory or a magicker without enough mana to cast any spells, that something is wrong.  But these things are rare and probably much easier to get fixed by the staff.  Once your skill start getting truly good, though, all that strength and agility stop meaning quite as much - a warrior with 100 days playtime and Poor strength will still beat the crap out of a warrior with 30 days playtime and AI strength.

But anyway, if your stats make your desired role utterly impossible to play, email the MUD and work out a solution.  But stats are only ever such a problem with, like, one out of fifty characters if even that.

[ale six]

This thread is littered with so many stereotypes and misconceptions, it's pretty sad.

Bad stats do not mean your character is doomed to the suck and you should immediately suicide. Not everybody who plays a PC with bad stats is a social roleplayer who only cares about tavern sitting. Not everybody who disagrees with Bebop is doing so because we're playing "follow the leader" with an imm. The RPT didn't start two hours late because people wanted to annoy you..... oops, wrong thread.

When I create a concept, I don't think about skills beyond what guild best fits the PC. I don't get myself set on being really fantastic with anything. I'd rather just play my character and let her advance naturally. Maybe that's why I don't get disappointed when I roll bad stats. I had a warrior with below average wisdom once and I thought it was hilarious. I knew she was going to be slow as molasses getting good with her skills, but I didn't care. If she'd survived in her clan, she still would have made it up the ladder either way.

I'll try and phrase things differently. When you create a concept, it's because you want to play a -character-, right? If we were playing guilds and not characters, the game would have a whole lot less options. So what about the concept that you created, before knowing anything about your stats, becomes less attractive if you don't get a good stat roll?

You can suicide PC after PC until you get somebody with super powerful stats (or until the staff catches you), but in the end, that super stat PC is just as mortal as one who isn't. Further, making a memorable character is decided by you the player much MUCH more than by your character's stat sheet. I am sure there have been multitudes of 1337-statted warriors and rangers. I imagine lots of them could have gone out and solo'd three braxat by themselves, or whatever. So why don't more of these awesome-statted PCs get talked about? Probably because your PC needs to be memorable, long lived, and interesting for people to remember you and make you famous. Having good stats isn't enough to get you there.

[Ava]

Gaussian, as much as a random number generator can provide.

Dude, forgive me for doubting.  :lol:

[Malken]

I don't care if my warrior has below average wisdom, it doesn't affect him much when it comes down to him being a warrior.

I care if I end up with a warrior with below average strength, tho.

When I create a concept, I want to play the character that I've created, not a modified version of it due to unexpected stats.

Anyway, this conversation is going in circle..

There's just as many awesome-statted PCs talked about in game as there is poor-statted ones, I'm sure.

The difference is that I, and some others, enjoy playing characters with decent stats in which we are supposed to excel.

Heh, perhaps we should be able to re-pick our guild as well, once we see our stats.. That's not a bad idea.

[Bebop]

ONCE again.

I will reiterate.

Having crappy stats, does not mean your character can not be enjoyed.

Your character with some random disadvantage can be enjoyed.

This is my point put simply:  Though you can enjoy a character, stats do matter.  And it is inherently unfair to players in the aspect of Armageddon being a game, that they would have to start out with a below average disadvantage to their skills based on nothing more then randomness.

My idea is to keep the learning and ability rates of stats the same.  But to eliminate the learning and ability rates of poor and below average stats, so that the lowest someone can learn and fight will be at an average rate.  Everyone may not be able to be absolutely incredible, but it is not fair that some people are forced randomly to start out sucking inherently due to their coded abilites effected by stats.

The idea is simply this:  since everyone wants to enjoy and pursue their goals, seeing this as a game produced for the sake of enjoyment that should not be thrown out the window for the sake of realism:  the lowest starting point a character should be forced randomly to work with is average abilities.

It is not fair and it is a pain in the ass that some people should have randomly selected nerfed/poor cabablities that they struggle with.  All I'm talking about is an even playing field.  So that people at least have an opportunity to be average.  RP aside, if you are embarking to be successful with your skills stats DO effect this, like it or not.

[Xygax]

While I'm not going to lock this thread, it's usually a good sign that you're going in circles when you're using words like, "reiterate".  If you've said all that needs to be said on the subject, please let your words speak for themselves and don't re-post them over and over.

-- X

[Rhyden]

Hopefully I'm bringing something new to the threat without derailing it.

Personally, I'd love it if you didn't know your character's score. Or if we had the option of not being able to. To me, it would make my characters seem more real. You might say that one should know their character's strengths and weaknesses but it's not like I, myself know if my strength is good, poor, etc. I don't know if my wisdom is average. I know that I'm pretty smart and I know that because of comparisons and results of my experiences. I'd like it if this was the only way you knew your 'score' IC as well. Knowing you're quick cause you can shoot that d-elf in the head. Knowing you're strong cause you're carrying a bag filled of boulders. You get the point. Although, several people probably want to know what their character's score is, so, like I said, making it optional would be good.

-Rhyden

[Anarchy]

I didn't read all the replies, so if this has been said, let me say it also.

I have heard somewhere on the GDB from an admin, that they are considering adding a system to stats that allows you to pick what order you want your stats rolled. You may not get good stats but you'll get some control over how they are made up.

*shrug*

[spawnloser]

Sure, those characters have certain things they're not so good at.  Whatever.  That's realistic.  This is no epic fantasy game we play, but even in those epic fantasy stories, was any ever perfect in every way?

It's not an epic fantasy game?  Damn!  And I thought this was about fun.  Why don't we just implement high fees for gas for our kanks, a starbucks on every corner and cubicles for House jobs, like in Borsail or Winrothol all the employees will sit in the cubicles until a slaving job is assigned and the Serjeants can where corn flower blue.

It -is- a freaking fantasy game.  Jesus Christ.  It's not about having a shitty character, it's about drama and fun, like reading a good book.

Far be it from me to speak for spawnloser, but what I interpreted from his point was more emphasis on the "epic" part rather than on the "fantasy" part to which you reacted so vigorously.  I don't think anyone would deny that Arm is a fantasy game. But epic -- as in dealing with heroes possessed of incredible prowess who accomplish super-human feats against evil foes?  Probably not.

That was EXACTLY the point I was making...the focus was on EPIC not on FANTASY.  We are playing in a fantasy game, yes, but we are not all playing heroic people that save the world from the great evil.  If we were, Muk and Tek would both be dead and our characters would be conducting a democratic utopia by now.

[marko]

Stats do and don't matter.

Stat deficiencies are overcome by skill.  In fact, in the long run, skill is far more important than attributes.  But, a lot of people don't manage to have characters that survive that long.

In the short term stats can make a difference.  But that difference isn't as great as some people think.

[Hymwen]

It depends on the particular stat too. For a non-magicker, wisdom doesn't have much of a direct influence (as far as I know) on most things you do, it just makes you learn faster, so you have to practice more with a low wisdom. Agility doesn't matter much for a non-combat character unless you're a thief, and then you're screwed anyway

But some things like endurance, which determines your health (and the difference between below average and exceptional is big) doesn't have a skill that makes this difference less noticeable. For someone who fights for their life every day, a 30 health difference really is a big deal. For a magicker, the extra mana from wisdom is a big deal. For a warrior, strength is a big deal - it doesn't just mean a damage bonus, it determines which weapons you can use and how much armor you can wear.

Not saying that it shouldn't be that way, or that stats should mean less or be less random, but that's why some people really loathe when they plan to play a Bynner or arena gladiator or whatever, and end up with below average strength, poor agility and average endurance.

Also, for people who say "but skills will make up for it" - yeah, but a characater with poor stats will learn their skills more slowly on top of the direct disadvantages of crappy stats. Low wisdom, slow learner. Low endurance, you can't spar as much. Low strength, you can't carry as many hides back to town (or whatever). It's not like a character with poor stats get better skills to make up for it, so I think it's a flimsy argument.

[LoD]

As many have mentioned, statistics play a role in how our characters are able to perform with relation to the code.  To what degree depends on the guild's reliance on coded skills to survive the game world.

:arrow: Stats will have an impact on your character's performance.

One of the most exciting features of Armageddon is that you can create a character with a nearly limitless set of personalities, backgrounds, goals and interests.  If you want to play a slaver, you can apply for one.  You want a dwarven miner who's focus is to tunnel from Allanak to Tuluk, go ahead.  Feel the need to play prideful and vain Noble House guard who secretly loves nothing more than the perfectly crafted biscuit, all good.

But if you want to make a strong warrior, a nimble thief, a cunning merchant or a hardy ranger, you're at the mercy of the code.  This is not to say you cannot describe your character as you see them in your mind, or play them a certain way despite a contradiction on their score, but it makes things more difficult.  The game's statistics then play an integral role in the coded success your PC will have in comparison to others in the same profession.

:arrow: Random stats are realistic; not everyone will be talented or powerful.

True, but it's sort of like telling someone who loves to play baseball that they can play with the others, but they'll be playing one-handed.  Not a fair comparison?  The game sets people up for disappointment by allowing any reasonable character concept to be created before[/i] they ever see the statistics that will go along with that character.  It isn't unrealistic for the character to be less able than his/her peers, but it's often discouraging to the player to learn they will be challenged.  Some will welcome the challenge, embrace the flaw, and emerge all the stronger through dedication, patience and understanding.

Many others aren't interested in playing one-handed baseball.

That's usually when they conveniently rationalize a way for their character to meet an untimely end (easy to do in Zalanthas), and start again with a slightly varied description and background.  I am in no way condoning or advocating the suicide of a character, and I would never do such a thing over statistics, but I know that it does happen and I can sympathize with why some people might be frustrated enough to pursue it.

:arrow: I've been over the fence, and I prefer the greener grass.

Anyone who has created a ranger and been unable to pull an ash longbow has cursed and muttered to themselves.  Warriors who login to find themselves with 82 health sigh in frustration when they previously had a character with 115.  Half-giants that appreciated an agility score that allowed them to pick up more than one item may groan when they move to pickup the second rock and receive, "You cannot carry anymore." messages.

It's hard to play the loser, the challenged, the disadvantaged.  It's difficult to move forward with the full knowledge that others have it better and things will come more easily, and they do.  While statistics won't make someone a smarter player, or a better RPer, it can provide something of a safety net for people that allows them to survive aspects of the gameworld which would kill someone with lesser stats.  The frustration here is generally not that you have 'below average' as a stat, but that it could have been 'absolutely incredible'.

:arrow: Solutions?

The Imms have mentioned that stat ordering is something they are considering.  If you find yourself in a position where a given statistic is really cramping your style, you can always contact the Imm Staff and ask them to review your character and maybe make a few changes.  Many of them understand that we play this game for "fun" and that word means different things for everyone.  While they aren't interested in letting you play out your fantasy of having a warrior with a score of "absolutely incredible" in every stat, they will likely be sympathetic to players who face some legitimite issues, which do exist.

It is true that this game is ultimately about adding a chapter to the greater story and not about the success of your character.  It is true that RP does not need to suffer at the hands of disappointing stats, and that most roles can be portrayed perfectly without any stat fiddling whatsoever.  It is not true that stats are meaningless, nor that a player's concern over them somehow lessens their quality of RP.  

Some days you just want to be a hero.  Who can argue with that?

-LoD

[Hymwen]

I hate you, LoD.

Why? Because it seems like whenever I have an opinion that I want to express, I do so, and you come along and do something similar, only better than I can with my second-language english and my 3-4 months of playing time on Arm. You always make sense and express yourself with facts, understanding, fancy layouts, and/or in polite and sensitive manners. You've probably (hopefully) noticed by now that I was being sarcastic about the first line. I just wanted to up my post count and say that you're my favorite poster

[Coat of Arms]

It's more than the skills too. Stats have some major penalties to non-skill things that you use every day.

Elf with poor strength? Good luck using daggers and sandcloth and already being half way to your encumbrance limit.

Dwarf merchant with poor agility? Good luck crafting stuff that require more components than you can carry in your inventory.

H-elf ranger with poor endurance? Good luck surviving with like 70 health and 90 stamina (ok, probably a little more)

Half-giant anything with poor wisdom? You'll never learn what the word 'branching' means.


If you want to play a character with weaknesses that hinder you a lot, good for you. I encourage you but don't expect that others will want to play the same way. I've felt the rush of creating a character and seeing "good-extremely good-good-exceptional") and the feeling of wanting to play him more than any other character I've had. I've also felt the disappointment of planning and describing a rough-looking Bynner, only to see "below avg-poor-avg-below avg" and instantly have a big portion of my motivation go right down the drain. I can't speak for anyone else, but I did not enjoy the game as much with the character who would always be doomed to be the worst in the unit, the one who can't spar worth shit, the one who can't carry his waterskin, the one who never learns new skills and the one who lags behind the other clanmates who have trained just as much.

[amoeba]

Elf with poor strength? Good luck using daggers and sandcloth and already being half way to your encumbrance limit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I did not enjoy the game as much with the character who would always be doomed to be the worst in the unit, the one who can't spar worth shit, the one who can't carry his waterskin, the one who never learns new skills and the one who lags behind the other clanmates who have trained just as much.

I've had a delf with poor strength.  Couldn't carry more than one skin of water at a time. Could not use any swords, they all wieghed too much.  But you see the thing is, I never wrote up the character with a stat expectation of any kind.  I like the randomness of the rolls.  I use whatever stat comes up to help develop my character.

That character was a blast, I loved that character, I miss that character.  After 10+ days that character could take on two dujats at once, and did so.

I can understand you wanting to have a character conform to a predefined model based on stats, I have no qualms on that...within reason.  But on the same token, stating that because you have a weak character in some area you -think- is critical, that the character can not be a blast to play is simply wrong.

[Morgenes]

Just a fyi, the strength limits on bows was extended with the stamina drain code.  You can now shoot some bows you were previously unable to, however doing so will cost more stamina.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Morgenes wrote:

Just a fyi, the strength limits on bows was extended with the stamina drain code. You can now shoot some bows you were previously unable to, however doing so will cost more stamina.

This is a great change.

[Synthesis]

Just a note for you half-giants who can't pick up more than one object:  I believe it's Staff policy to give you enough of an agility boost to be able to hold two things in inventory.

All I had to do when I was playing a half-giant was wish up, and I got it fixed within a few minutes.

And the Gaussian distribution is the same thing as the normal distribution! *shakes fist*

[spawnloser]

In fact, if I recall how it was worded, they don't give you a boost...minimum inventory size is two items, no matter how low the agility.  Just like minimum mana for a PC magicker is enough to cast a spell, no matter how low the wisdom.

[Synthesis]

No, minimum inventory size isn't 2 items.  I've had lower.

[da mitey warrior]

Who not just do away with stats and have everyone get the median stat for their race.

After all, if there is any variation with stats there is going to be someone, somewhere, with better stats than you and that fact is going to ruin your character's life.

[Tlaloc]

Who not just do away with stats and have everyone get the median stat for their race.

After all, if there is any variation with stats there is going to be someone, somewhere, with better stats than you and that fact is going to ruin your character's life.

Honestly, I think this is the solution, if people are serious about this argument. If you're going to get rid of all 'bad' stats, and give people at least 'average', then by that logic, you must also get rid of all 'good' stats, and just give everyone 'average'.

The other solution would be to simply remove the ability of players to see their stats. Find out IC if your PC is strong, heh.

Will either of those happen? No. But those are both more logical, and likely (in my opinion) options than just getting rid of the "low" stats.

[SpyGuy]

Personally I think it would be great to be blind to your stat score (not hp or the like obviously).  But only if you could order your stats ahead of time.  This would also remove the usefulness of a reroll since you couldn't see if your stats needed one anyway.  Stat variation, however, is what makes one PC warrior codedly different from another and should stay.

But if I can order my stats so they at least fit my character profile then I wouldn't mind not being able to tell whether I had good strength or very good strength.  I'd have to see ICly and be amazed at how much damage I was doing.  Without stat ordering though it'd obviously just be a pain in the butt.

I stopped reading this thread 5 pages back, this may already have been mentioned several times.

[Cale_Knight]

Some folks may not know their own strength, but that's not the rule.

The way stats are, they give you a vauge description that only means anything relative to other folks of your own race.

In real life, I know about how strong I am, about how smart I am, about how quick I am, and about how tough I am. Just like in the game.

I don't see any reason why it would be realistic to completely hide stats.

[SpyGuy]

First, that wasn't a proposal I'm trying to make but a general comment that it wouldn't be such a horrible thing.  The system as is is perfectly fine in my book.  But if we go to a system of stat ordering and no rerolls I say we go all the way and remove stats from the score command.

But I'll defend invisible stats anyways.  Yes, obviously we all know (or think we do) how strong, agile, wise, etc. we all are.  But do you really?  You only know how agile you are in regards to how often and how much you test yourself.  This can be done in game by testing things that deal with the various stats such as lifting heavy loads, watching to see how often you attack in combat, knowing how much damage you can take, etc.

This is the same logic as having hidden skills.  In real life I know I'm not a half bad cook because I made myself dinner tonight and it was good.  In game I know I'm not a half bad cook because my PC is an ace at making travel cakes.  You don't need to be told your ranking in a stat or skill to know your relative ability with it, you just need to test it.  The benefits I see are added mystery about your PC, it being more realistic in how you learn what your stats are, and it may also prevent players from OOCly obsessing over that below average on their score sheet.

*Edit* To Maybe below:  Yeah that's the main objection I can't come up with a strong rebuttal for.  I'd argue that most people IRL really don't know their own strength or agility, at least not in terms that we do in game.  They know what they're more capable at sure, but that's where stat ordering would come in.  So you put strength as your primary stat you know it will be your best stat, though you won't know exactly how good it is.  I'd also add that you don't know what weapons you can use IG anyways until you go to a shop and look them over.  This proposal would just give people a general idea of their stats, much like we already only have general ideas on how skilled we are at dual wielding or how effective that obsidian longsword we own is.