Stats and the Score Command

[Synthesis]

The score command already returns your stats relative to your race.

How about letting it return your stats relative to your age, as well?

This would do two things:

1. You wouldn't see your stats get worse or improve as you aged:  if you start out with exceptional strength for your race and age, you will always have exceptional strength for your race and age.

2. It would let people who roll young characters know exactly where they would stand later in life:  currently, if you see below averages and poors, it's a pretty great temptation to suicide (and few people create younger characters for fear of the wrath of the aging code).  However, if you started off with good stats relative to your race and age, you'd probably be more inclined to see that youth develop over the long term, as he'd always have good stats relative to his race and age.

[mansa]

I don't think stats are relative to your age.

If you have Absolutely Incredible strength at 30, it's the same as if you are 13.

As for a change to that?  Sure, seems good.

[Synthesis]

I don't think stats are relative to your age.

If you have Absolutely Incredible strength at 30, it's the same as if you are 13.

As for a change to that?  Sure, seems good.

I know, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Using arbitrary numbers:

AI strength at "young" could be anything > 10, whereas AI strength at "mature" could be anything > 15.  Assuming you'd get +5 strength over time, your relative strength wouldn't ever change.  You're incredibly strong for a 13 y.o., and 30 years later, you're still incredibly strong for a 43 y.o.

Doing another little thought experiment: let's assume that strength increases over time, and there are only 10 point levels of strength: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.  The current global average for an adult human is 5.  Let's also assume that you'd get +4 strength from young to mature (+2 at adult, and another +2 at mature).

Currently, if you roll a 13 y.o., you're likely to roll low strength (1-4), and you'll see poor or below average on your score output.  However, under the proposed system, 3 would be the average for young humans, so if you rolled a 3 or a 4, your score would show average or above average.  As you aged to adult, you'd get +2 strength, moving you to 5 or 6, which would still be average or above average for your race and age. 

The proposed system wouldn't change your absolute strength score, but it would make young characters look better on paper:  if you -know- your 15 or 18 y.o. is going to have decent stats when he's older, you'll be more likely to play through the formative years.  This way, the game wouldn't be populated primarily by surly middle-aged fellows.

[tortall]

I like this idea.


But I also like seeing my stats go up after my birthday. It's really exciting. :-D

[SMuz]

I'd also support the idea. It'll make things a bit more confusing for newbies, though. ("Why does my AI endurance elder have only 50 HP?") But that only takes some getting used to.

[Synthesis]

Also, add this to the score output:

You are 30 years, 2 months, and 11 days old,
which by your race and appearance is adult.
You are 68 inches tall, and weigh 8 ten-stone.
Compared to others of your race and age:
Your strength is average, your agility is average,
  your wisdom is average, and your endurance is average.

[Ampere]

The score command already returns your stats relative to your race.

How about letting it return your stats relative to your age, as well?

This would do two things:

1. You wouldn't see your stats get worse or improve as you aged:  if you start out with exceptional strength for your race and age, you will always have exceptional strength for your race and age.

2. It would let people who roll young characters know exactly where they would stand later in life:  currently, if you see below averages and poors, it's a pretty great temptation to suicide (and few people create younger characters for fear of the wrath of the aging code).  However, if you started off with good stats relative to your race and age, you'd probably be more inclined to see that youth develop over the long term, as he'd always have good stats relative to his race and age.

This is the same kind of logic behind hidden taxes, people don't complain about what they can't see. I guess I'm one of the few who prefers to know how much I'm spending on my sidewalk.

When I see an 80 year old who can still swing an axe, I don't see Mr. Universe. I see an old guy who can swing an axe.  A person SHOULD be aware of their limitations.

This idea does not recieve the AMPERE SEAL OF APPROVAL.

...unless you're able to toggle between the two.

[Synthesis]

The score command already returns your stats relative to your race.

How about letting it return your stats relative to your age, as well?

This would do two things:

1. You wouldn't see your stats get worse or improve as you aged:  if you start out with exceptional strength for your race and age, you will always have exceptional strength for your race and age.

2. It would let people who roll young characters know exactly where they would stand later in life:  currently, if you see below averages and poors, it's a pretty great temptation to suicide (and few people create younger characters for fear of the wrath of the aging code).  However, if you started off with good stats relative to your race and age, you'd probably be more inclined to see that youth develop over the long term, as he'd always have good stats relative to his race and age.

This is the same kind of logic behind hidden taxes, people don't complain about what they can't see. I guess I'm one of the few who prefers to know how much I'm spending on my sidewalk.

When I see an 80 year old who can still swing an axe, I don't see Mr. Universe. I see an old guy who can swing an axe.  A person SHOULD be aware of their limitations.

This idea does not recieve the AMPERE SEAL OF APPROVAL.

...unless you're able to toggle between the two.

In a sense, you're already denied information:  if you roll a youngster, you have no idea how well you will be situated in 10 IC years (unless you've had the good fortune to live 10 IC years before).  So if you want to know how much you're spending on your sidewalk, you're better off knowing your stats relative to your age group than you are compared to the average adult.

[Riev]

I'm with Ampere, the man that tortures hungry bunnies.

I don't need to know my stats compared to my age group. I barely understand the code enough as it is, and if I see that I'm the strongest 30 year old, and a 40 year old comes by and out-powerlifts me, its going to be jarring.




Also, this is major feature creep.

[Synthesis]

I'm with Ampere, the man that tortures hungry bunnies.

I don't need to know my stats compared to my age group. I barely understand the code enough as it is, and if I see that I'm the strongest 30 year old, and a 40 year old comes by and out-powerlifts me, its going to be jarring.




Also, this is major feature creep.

1.  It's not major feature creep.  This is a very minor change that will give people an incentive to roll younger characters, without feeling like they will be crippled by heinous stats.  Compared to other recent code changes, this is very minor:  all it is is a line in the 'score' command return, and a slight change to the appropriate calculations to compare your stat scores vs. a different matrix.

2. Why should you be concerned that a 40 y.o. out-lifts you?  I'm not sure what your point is here.  You (the player) will know that you are exceptionally strong for your age.  If someone older than you is out-lifting you, chances are you'll be able to perform similar feats at that age.  What is jarring about that?

[KIA]

When I saw this thread, I thought it was going to be a suggestion to eliminate the stat command so that everything from stat and score shows up in score. Which would be good.

But now I've read it I agree with Synthesis. I like the idea of race + age for stats.

[Riev]

I don't think we need more incentive to roll younger characters. Knowing what LITTLE about the code as I do, I think there is just as much incentive to roll young as old.

Its a minor change, sure, but how necessary is it?




Probably as necessary as poop-code. Thanks Olgaris!

[Synthesis]

I'm not talking about teenager-young...I'm talking about like, 20-21 for a human.

You almost never see characters that age, because within the "young" range, you typically get atrocious stats. 

Think about it:  would you rather roll a character and see "poor" and "below average," and -hope- that as you age, they'll even out to "above average" and "good," or would you rather start -knowing- that you'll be "above average" and "good" if you can last it out?

Yes, your stats will still be low, and you'll suffer all the appropriate consequences as a young character, but then you can feel free to roleplay becoming stronger and more experienced, without having that constant, nagging POOR hanging over your head like a dark cloud.

[mansa]

Codedly, are you suggesting that each age has it's own stat range, for each race?


So,

Age 13, Human:
Strength
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Age 14, Human:
Strength:
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Age 15, Human:
Strength:
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Age 16, Human:
Strength:
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Age 17, Human:
Strength:
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Age 18, Human:
Strength:
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18


In my experience of the age code, it seems to settle most old problems that used to occur.

[Synthesis]

You don't need to calculate a range of stats for each age, or even each age group.

Really, all you have to do is take the current global ranges, then adjust them in the same way the age adjustments work.

For example:

Assume for an adult human, 10 is the average strength.  From young to adult, you get +2 strength.  So, average strength for a young human would be 8.  Each "bracket" (average, good, very good, etc.) would simply be recalculated based on the age adjustment you would see going from young to adult, adult to mature, mature to middle-aged, middle-aged to old, old to ancient.  For example:  if poor is 4-6 for an adult, then poor for a youngster is 2-4.  If below average for an adult is 7-9, then below average for a youngster is 5-7.

Even if the age adjustment code adjust stats by some random factor instead of a set number of points, you can recalculate the brackets using the mean of this random distribution.

[Maso]

I don't understand stats at all. Any improvement on that would be nice.

Plus I feel that if you start a young character you get majorly gipped. If you start a middle age character you are much more likely to get ace stats, young chars get crap stats - and by the time your young char reaches middle age they still have pretty crap stats. I don't understand why it has to be this way.

[Nyr]

Plus I feel that if you start a young character you get majorly gipped. If you start a middle age character you are much more likely to get ace stats, young chars get crap stats - and by the time your young char reaches middle age they still have pretty crap stats. I don't understand why it has to be this way.

Character stats change over time now, so this is untrue.

I don't think that the OP proposed change is something that needs to be done.  It seems more confusing, adding a layer of complexity that seems much less simple than this:

You roll stats after you create a character.
You can select priorities for statistics, or set none at all.
If you are not satisfied with your stats, you can reroll them once.
The measure that the score command gives tells you what your character's stats are in relation to others of his or her race.
As your character gets older each year, your character will get an appropriate bump up or down to stats, either numerically or categorically, dependent on the age and race.
(Numerically does not necessarily mean categorically.  If a race has a wide range for strength, it is possible that two of the same race could have the same category of "very good" strength, but one stronger than the other, since there is a numerical difference within that category.)

That's it.  I don't think this needs to be added just because people that roll young characters are dismayed at their stats, especially since they now change over time, appropriate to age.

[Maso]

Do they actually change enough to give a 30 yr old character who has aged from 15 the exact same chance of hitting an AI as a character rolled straight in at 30?

[Lizzie]

No, that wouldn't make any sense. Because that means the character would *also* have the exact same chance of rolling a poor.

A character is a person. People have maximum capacities set at birth. Different variables can affect those maximum capacities..but the max for that person is the max for that person, period.

I will never be capable of getting as strong as my next door neighbor. But the woman who was born with polio down the street will never roll an AI in agility, and I had AI agility by the time I was 20.

Why would I start out with an exceptional wisdom rolling up my character at age 20, whose wisdom has the same chance of being only average at 30, as someone who starts their character at average?

[Maso]

I don't mean after the 15yr old character has rolled awful stats, would they have the chance of suddenly jumping to AI. I mean, before the stats are rolled, do they have the same possibility of rolling stats that will increase to AI as someone who rolls at a starting age of 30 has of getting them straight away.

[flurry]

It doesn't seem like an improvement over what we have. I like seeing stats change over time. Also, I find it more intuitive to have stats given relative to race alone, rather than race and age.

I think discouraging people from killing off their own characters is a worthwhile goal, but I don't know if this would help with that. I suspect people who are inclined to do that sort of thing would quickly figure out what was subpar (by their standards) under the new system, and go back to the same old bad habits.

[Synthesis]

I think my proposal removes a layer of complexity, rather than adding one.

Currently: if you see you have good strength when you are 15, you have to go through this whole guesswork process to estimate what your strength will be when you are 45.

My proposal: if see you have exceptional strength when you are 15, you will see you have exceptional strength when you are 45. 

How is that complicated?

[SMuz]

Currently: if you see you have good strength when you are 15, you have to go through this whole guesswork process to estimate what your strength will be when you are 45.

My proposal: if see you have exceptional strength when you are 15, you will see you have exceptional strength when you are 45. 

I like that. Stats go up and down with age, but you just don't see it. You can't compare your strength to the strength of a dwarf or HG anyway, so how could you compare it against someone of different age? But I'm also fond of the current system, so I don't care much either way