Stat Rolls

[RogueGunslinger]

I think if there were no below average stats, and no ai stat, people would be a lot happier with their stats. Also sometimes it really feels like there's too great a stat range within the races, but too small a difference between them.

So instead of this:

Poor
Below Average
Average
Good              
Very Good        
Extremely Good
Excellent
Absolutely incredible


You would have this:

Average
Good
Extremely good           (old Very Good)
Excellent                     (old Extremely Good)
Absolutely incredible    (old Excellent)

[Is Friday]

Wow, what a "Everyone Gets A Ribbon" mentality for our harsh desert fantasy world.

[Beethoven]

It's not really "average" anymore if nobody is below average.

[RogueGunslinger]

It's already not average, first of all. And secondly playing weak, dumb, slow characters should be a choice, not something forced on you by code.

Who here has gotten a stat below average and enjoyed that? Not enjoyed themselves in spite of it, but actually enjoyed not being able to hold three items. Or wear a full set of leather armor?

[Is Friday]

Here we go.

[Beethoven]

Doesn't really bother me, I suppose, because I didn't prioritize that stat for a reason. I sacrificed my strength/endurance/whatever so that I could get a better roll on something else. Sometimes that means it's going to be complete crap. I'm okay with that, really.

[RogueGunslinger]

Yeah, we all know pickpockets don't need strength.

While I'm at it age shouldn't effect stats the way it does. When you're 55 in Zalanthas you should be one foot in the grave, not at the peak of your physical strength. Every 13 year old teenager should not have ai agility. In fact they should be rather clumsy without training.

[RogueGunslinger]

I could get a better roll on something else. Sometimes that means it's going to be complete crap. I'm okay with that, really.

What you're saying is you're accept it, even though it's illogical and not fun. I accept it to, in fact I was just bragging about my stats a couple weeks back. But it could be better.

[Beethoven]

What you're saying is you're accept it, even though it's illogical and not fun. I accept it to, in fact I was just bragging about my stats a couple weeks back. But it could be better.

I don't deny that there's room for improvement with the stat rolling system--I'm not a big fan of the whole crap-shoot feel that it brings to chargen--but I don't like the idea of making "average" the lowest possible roll that you can get, nor do I think that having fewer options with more difference between them is really going to fix anything.

[TheWanderer]

I dunno. I've only had, like, one poor in eight or nine characters. That was wisdom, and fuck wisdom.

Just prioritize for the role and things usually work out.

[Marauder Moe]

I like that some characters are exceptionally gifted, and most others are not.

The highs of playing a badass who's stronger/faster/tougher/smarter than everyone outweigh the times when you play a more averagely endowed schmuck who has to work harder than his gifted peers.

[TheWanderer]

I make sure all of my characters are averagely endowed, as to not seem ridiculous in their more private of moments.

[RogueGunslinger]

What you're saying is you're accept it, even though it's illogical and not fun. I accept it to, in fact I was just bragging about my stats a couple weeks back. But it could be better.

I don't deny that there's room for improvement with the stat rolling system--I'm not a big fan of the whole crap-shoot feel that it brings to chargen--but I don't like the idea of making "average" the lowest possible roll that you can get, nor do I think that having fewer options with more difference between them is really going to fix anything.

Who said anything about more distance? The distances are the same (I just changed the names a little bit, but the parenthesis makes it clear which is which).  And if you want your AI and Poor/below average you can opt in for it for them, I guess. But why force it on people?

If I want to play someone who's agile and skinny and long-legged, but the stat god ordained to give me ai strength, that sort've makes my concept weird, doesn't it? I mean I wouldn't exactly be crying but there would be a disconnect there between what I want my pc to be and what was portrayed. Stat ordering helps with this most of the time... but not always.

I dunno. I've only had, like, one poor in eight or nine characters. That was wisdom, and fuck wisdom.

Just prioritize for the role and things usually work out.

But it happens, and it sucks, and yes if you know the code you pretty much game your way out of it.

I like that some characters are exceptionally gifted, and most others are not.

The highs of playing a badass who's stronger/faster/tougher/smarter than everyone outweigh the times when you play a more averagely endowed schmuck who has to work harder than his gifted peers.

That wouldn't really go away. There's a very noticeable gap between average and excellent. And like I said before if you really want a chance at AI/below-average/poor you an opt in for it.

[Beethoven]

Who said anything about more distance?

I thought you did. My apologies. I misinterpreted this:

Also sometimes it really feels like there's too great a stat range within the races, but too small a difference between them.

to mean that you wanted to see more of a difference between the individual stat levels. I guess you were saying that you want to see more of a difference between the races.

[RogueGunslinger]

Not my most cleverly worded sentence to be sure. 

[Reiloth]

It might be nice if you could subtract from one stat and add to another, maybe just one level, to help divide the wealth. So you couldn't suck dry an AI to round out your shitty stats, but you could suck it down to Extremely Good, and bump your below average wisdom to average.

[slvrmoontiger]

Most characters of mine have started out with below average wisdom. It really sucks when you get a below average wisdom... Of course there was the half-giant I had that had a poor wisdom, now talk about sucking he didn't learn anything in the one IG year he lived.

Oh wanted to add. Wisdom is always changing. Wisdom by definition knowing something from experience and as a character ages they gain wisdom through their experiences. I think it should have the ability to increase as you learn and experience your environment.

As far as "All 13 year olds shouldn't have AI agility" I agree to a degree on this. Not that I've ever had a 13 year old character that's had an AI agility so your thought on "All" having it is completely incorrect.

[slvrmoontiger]

It might be nice if you could subtract from one stat and add to another, maybe just one level, to help divide the wealth. So you couldn't suck dry an AI to round out your shitty stats, but you could suck it down to Extremely Good, and bump your below average wisdom to average.

This is an interesting concept. I like this idea, maybe post something in Code Discussion for this.

[Norcal]

It's already not average, first of all. And secondly playing weak, dumb, slow characters should be a choice, not something forced on you by code.

Who here has gotten a stat below average and enjoyed that? Not enjoyed themselves in spite of it, but actually enjoyed not being able to hold three items. Or wear a full set of leather armor?

I had a d elf with poor strength once. She could not even use a spear. She was one of the meanest, PK loving (successful), bloodthirstiest members of her tribe. She rocked. My most favorite PC. She had to find other ways to kill and she did.

[Dances_with_toks]

oopsie!

[MeTekillot]

? ^^

[Dances_with_toks]

Move along, citizen.

[MeTekillot]

I, for one, thoroughly enjoy the low stat ranges. For every blow that I'vestruck that bounced from the fell shell and hide of carrus aand scrabs and tregils oh my, it was but another moment of bliss. In fact, please lower the ranges. I'd like to be knocked unconscious from two blows to my body instead of 3 because I'm a big fan of even numbers.

[Lizzie]

One of my last characters had below-average strength and it didn't have any effect on my game at all.
I've found if you don't prioritize, your stats set up automatically appropriate for your guild choice, taking your race into consideration.

That is to say - when I play a desert elf ranger, I'll need a light-weight bow, but I'll have no problem maxing out archery and hitting kryl with two arrows from 3 rooms away, if I work on it.

If I play a human burglar, I might stumble around with a lockpick a little longer than if I were an elf, but I'll be able to get into that apartment and probably carry out a lot more stuff than my elven adversary would.

I haven't ever played a dwarf, mul, or half-giant but I'm betting dollars to donuts that if I played a half-giant merchant, it'd take me a long-ass time to ever branch anything at all, but ain't nobody gonna chop down trees and cut them into wrecked logs like I can. I won't be nearly as perceptive as the half-elven merchant who sews clothing next to me in the Kadian hall, but that half-elven merchant won't be all that good at smacking down a pissed off gurth when some doofus brings a shelled one into the compound by mistake.

This is basically why I've stopped prioritizing. The game sets my stat priorities appropriately, and if I do anything different, I risk screwing it all up. I think stat-setting is good for people who *want* to be bad at something and want to make sure that happens code-wise. At least that's been my experience whenever I try to set mine.

[Delirium]

I agree with IsFriday.

[Delirium]

It's already not average, first of all. And secondly playing weak, dumb, slow characters should be a choice, not something forced on you by code.

Who here has gotten a stat below average and enjoyed that? Not enjoyed themselves in spite of it, but actually enjoyed not being able to hold three items. Or wear a full set of leather armor?

Yep. Nearly bottomed out strength and endurance - super low hp and stun. It suited the character's description and background perfectly and I went on to play them for almost 2 rl years. Never once did I regret the crappy stat roll. It was part of the character.

[Cutthroat]

I don't like the idea of shrinking the stat ranges or really touching them at all, except making average stats more common. (Although consider that the average stat is really somewhere between good and very good, assuming that each stat level has the same size range of hidden numbers behind them, which might not even be the case.)

The current prioritization system is pretty good as it is, but it's flat - meaning you can't tell the game how important a particular stat is to your character relative to the other stats, only that it's the most or least important. You could change prioritization to allow for adding "weight" to your preferences, instead of putting them in a flat order. Have us rank stats from 1 to 10 in order of importance or not rank them at all (completely random). Ranking them all the same number would be the same as choosing completely random. Ranking strength at 10 and the others at 1 would basically be like prioritizing strength, but shooting for a very high strength stat, with other stats being randomly low. A more evenly spread weight would make for more evenly spread rolls (but still no guarantees).

[Harmless]

In my experience the reroll command tends to be useful when I need it to be.

most of the time, if my initial roll is ridiculous, such as getting exceptional on one stat but below average or so on all the rest, then usually, my reroll is more balanced out. (due to probability, or perhaps, some kind of sekrit code.)

Anyway, I am wary of too much min-maxing (such as being able to modify your stats just after generation manually). I don't play the game to make "stat cutoffs" etc, even though I am sadly aware that certain important stat cutoffs exist, and giving people the ability to toy with their stats at char generation veers on breaking my immersion.

However, I am a fan of IC mechanisms to modify stats. That is why I like spice, even though I think the bug where you never come down off it unless you idle for days and days or whatever logged in needs to be fixed (and it looks like it might be), and I also support the idea of fitness training for PCs, because I am in RGS' camp where I think the age code for stats doesn't really look or feel realistic. It'd be cool if PCs that join military groups that have them train all day got a more significant boost to strength and endurance than someone crafting all day, and if you do lots of mastercrafts and acquire new languages and practice them that you'd eventually end up being a little wiser.

Except agility. Agility should only drop and keep dropping as you age, that's how it is in reality, especially when it comes to reflexes.

[Nyr]

And secondly playing weak, dumb, slow characters should be a choice, not something forced on you by code.

I would counter by saying that if you are playing a weak, dumb, or slow character, it is by choice--plus, the game is built to sustain those kinds of characters, regardless.

From another stat thread where I looked over the past few years of stat change requests:

my character has low endurance, can you guys help out?  (endurance prioritized last, so no)
my character is slow compared to others, he should be faster (agility prioritized last, so no)
my character is a linguist and should have higher wisdom (sorry, you selected wisdom as last priority, so no)
STR and WIS are my top two stats, can I swap one of these for AGI?  (no, we don't do that)
skills progressing slowly, can wisdom be boosted? (skills progressing normally, comparing to other characters may result in skewed or misunderstood results)
stats unplayable (the unplayable stats were the last two from stat priority)
stats don't fit the character concept, very good str is laughably weak (...no it is not)
lower my PC's age, I'm in love with the 'rinth (we don't really do this)
did not reroll because I was new to the game, I'd like str to be higher if possible (rerolled manually and managed to get them a one point bump to str even though it was set at lowest priority; even so, bows could still have been found for the character)
str bump, can't use bows (there are some specifically for folks with low STR, the downside is the range)
want to swap STR and WIS (we don't really do that)
I find it unrealistic that my pc is only average in agility and strength (well, average isn't really that bad, but you also rerolled and got better stats, then went with the worse roll, did you mean to do that?  you probably didn't, let's undo that for you)
I have a character that has aged over time but hasn't gotten better str (str was prioritized last, it more than likely won't increase that much over time, if at all)
missed chance for reroll (we allowed it)
PC can't use a single shield in the game (you did kinda put str as last priority, but there are actually shields in-game for your str level)
playing a younger character, str isn't as high as I really wanted (str was not first priority, but it was second/you are a younger character, it will probably improve over time)
stats are not in the order I expected (they were)
stat for endurance is too low to match lifestyle/accomplishments (it was last in priority and also rerolled to get it even lower)
can't use an axe for crafting, str is too low (str was selected last, did not go with roll for higher str, can still use other woodworking tools)

Not once has someone had an unplayable situation that they've brought to staff in the past 3 years.  Systemic or habitual unplayability issues would be a reason to review things, but with rerolls/prioritization, that doesn't appear to be a problem.

Also, under your proposal, it wouldn't be possible to play a weak, dumb, or slow character by choice because the lowest stats would be removed by code.  At worst you could play an...average...character. 

[Marauder Moe]

Though I tend to be against radical changes to the game that make things easier/friendlier... I actually might be able to get behind a point-buy system if the pool of points had a random component to it.  Maybe the upper half of a Gaussian curve, so most people get the standard number of points, a few get more, very few get godly pools that can support an AI with other stats above average, and then like 1/1000 can afford 2 AI's.

I also might be OK with letting people spend CGP on stat boosts, possibly even post-creation, once those are more automatic.


Really, though, stats are probably fine the way they are now as a whole, save for a few racial specifics.

[williamson]

I agree with IsFriday.

I agree with Delirium.

[RogueGunslinger]

I think that's a bad argument. Just because the IC gameworld is harsh doesn't mean the coded randomization of stats should be harshly ranged in spite of how you want your character to come out.  I'm not so much suggesting it to be more friendly/easier as I am more realistic, and more easier tailored to your characters description. The name of the stat's doesn't matter, it could be "good, decent, bad, poor, shit, and useless" for all I care.

[Nyr]

But no one has ever had stats that flew in the face of their concept that didn't choose for that to happen--at least, no one that has actually contacted staff to try and have it fixed in the past few years.  And you'd think anyone wanting that fixed would do that, considering the other ones I mentioned where there wasn't a legitimate case to change anything.

[Norcal]

But no one has ever had stats that flew in the face of their concept that didn't choose for that to happen--at least, no one that has actually contacted staff to try and have it fixed in the past few years.  And you'd think anyone wanting that fixed would do that, considering the other ones I mentioned where there wasn't a legitimate case to change anything.

I know that staff have helped me out when I had trouble with this, not by changing any stats but by helping make them more playable for that PC. It was one of the things that really endeared me to the game.
Is this response going a step farther saying that in a case where we felt our stats went against the concept we had in mind, that staff might be willing to change them?

[RogueGunslinger]

That's all true, Nyr. I was mainly talking about Is_Fridays post that people were agreeing with.

My main problems with your argument is that you're saying people can get by just fine with one or two bad stats when it happens: To that I say sure, you can get by, but not without frustration and annoyance and I'm not sure what those frustrations add to the game. If people want to roleplay those frustrations I say let them opt in for their insufferably bad stats.

Or that if its a stat that wasn't prioritized, then tough cookie: I think you should be basing those decisions on the characters description and background, not some arbitrary policy or "we don't do that" reasoning.

[Harmless]

Basically you have to be careful when predicting your outcomes in designing a PC. When ordering stats I just treat it like a modifier I apply in D&D. +2, +1, -1, -2; that way it is balanced with people who assign no stat order.

Lizzie's wise in not assigning any stat orders because the likelihood of an extremely low stat roll becomes MUCH higher every time you order stats. Remember, you're putting a -2 someplace.

The likelihood of the lowest result, 3, is very rare when you roll 3d6. It will happen 1 / 216 times, or 0.46% of the time, on a human assuming no age modifiers and no stat ordering.

As soon as modifiers come into play, though, the odds are vastly increased. To get a 3 with a modifier of -2 means you could roll a total of 3, 4, or 5 on your 3d6 and still end up with the minimum, 3*. The odds of rolling a 3, 4, or 5 on 3d6 is 1/216 + 3/216 + 6/216, for 10/216 or 4.6%. Ten times more likely.

Usually, I don't give this many shits about stats, because I habitually play roles that are less likely to be hit with an extreme modifier on one of their stats; for example, a -5 or -6 which could be easily conceived (Strength= Lowest priority, -2. Elven race, -2. Youngest age in range, -2.). Instead, I will re-order stats to compensate and balance out where I know I am being penalized, and also avoiding an unbalanced roll such as AI-poor-poor-poor.

*Or even less than 3, but I have a feeling 3 is a stat "floor" and that the MUD uses similar floors.


..TL;DR, listen to Lizzie, in order to avoid stacking a -2 on another -2 in one of your stats and favoring a more balanced roll, every time.

[Nyr]

Is this response going a step farther saying that in a case where we felt our stats went against the concept we had in mind, that staff might be willing to change them?

Stat Increases                                                   (Characters)

   At one time we allowed long-lived characters to request bumps to their
attributes based on long-time role-play sent in as logs through the
request tool.

   With the option of selecting your stat order, the ability to reroll and
undo the reroll, and the stat-affecting age code now in place, allowing
stat boosts is no longer as vital or necessary as it once was.  We'll still
consider requests for stat changes that impact playability (rangers who
cannot use bows, for example).  Any such requests should still be sent in
through the request tool.

   Any requests to bump for other reasons will be rejected.

No one has filed a request with a legitimate case for this in the past four years.  When someone does have a playability issue, we can address it at that time, but we have not had to address one in years.

Given the statistics of these requests and given the policy above, no, we probably will not change your stats if you feel they go against your concept.  We haven't had to since this was in place.

My main problems with your argument is that you're saying people can get by just fine with one or two bad stats when it happens: To that I say sure, you can get by, but not without frustration and annoyance and I'm not sure what those frustrations add to the game.

We are willing to review unplayable stats.  No one has filed a request in the past four years that showed they had unplayable stats.  Those with bad (read: not unplayable, just lower than they wanted) stats did end up doing it to themselves by prioritizing other stuff in hopes that RNG might be nice to them for whatever was listed as #3 or #4.  Those that had issues for other reasons we've dealt with on a case by case basis.

Or that if its a stat that wasn't prioritized, then tough cookie: I think you should be basing those decisions on the characters description and background, not some arbitrary policy or "we don't do that" reasoning.

Is this what you are talking about?

Player position
Hey, I have a character that has a lot of muscles and his background is that he is pretty physically active.  However, his strength is too low for me, I want it to be higher.  What can you do?

Facts
Player selected str at lowest priority

Staff response
Sure, we'll adjust your strength upwards because your description and background support it.

This is an unrealistic approach.  We feel that your stats should match a concept that you enjoy.  We also feel that the player is in charge of that concept as well as all other character generation options (age, height, weight, stats, guild, subguild, description, location, background, and any alterations to any of the above based on special application criteria).  The only thing they aren't in direct control of is the roll, but they can influence that, roll twice, and pick between two rolls.

I'll go a step farther, here: can you come up with a case you've actually experienced in which you had one or two bad stats and it caused you frustration and annoyance?  No names or anything, just what the stats were and what the concept was.  Looking at the specific scenario would help this discussion, rather than identifying hypothetical ones.

[CodeMaster]

I personally love the wide variation in stats.  When you roll a monster set of stats, you really do have a gem on your hands.

The only class I see as being most afflicted by bad stats is the warrior - all the other classes have ways of using skills and timing to tune situations to their advantage.  (And at the end of a day, a warrior can just lock you in his apartment. )

Some minor frustrations I've had with bad stats: I had a character who was so weak he couldn't hold some of the mugs of ale in the game.   He also couldn't hold some empty glass bottles, which is necessary to be able to break them to get a weapon from them.  The one time I found a shield he could use, I was elated.  I brought it to the armor repair and was given back a shield he couldn't use anymore - oops.  I deprioritized str (last or second-last, I think).

I felt like it made sense that my character would at least be able to clutch an empty cup, so I typo'd them and many of them were fixed during the lifetime of that PC.  If this is happening to you, that's what I'd encourage you to do, but it can be annoying when it happens 'in the moment'.

[Kismetic]

It would seem the most common complaint statistic of low strength could easily be fixed by raising the minimum weight by a few points.  Then again, somebody has to play that super weak character, and unless you rolled random (not prioritized) ... 

[Beethoven]

Some minor frustrations I've had with bad stats: I had a character who was so weak he couldn't hold some of the mugs of ale in the game.  

Now that's funny.

[number13]

Imagine if  there were two choices:

1: An "average" stat array that is always Very Good, Very Good, Good, Above Average, which is assigned to each score in order of prioritization (or randomly, as normal).

2: The usual rng numbers, including the reroll mechanic.

I actually think given the choice, 95% of characters would end up using option #2.

[Fujikoma]

Imagine if  there were two choices:

1: An "average" stat array that is always Very Good, Very Good, Good, Above Average, which is assigned to each score in order of prioritization (or randomly, as normal).

2: The usual rng numbers, including the reroll mechanic.

I actually think given the choice, 95% of characters would end up using option #2.

I wouldn't. If I got just one AI I'd be tickled pink. The rest can be poor for all I care. (this has happened to me, without the AI, IIRC, but, maybe my memory is fuzzy)

[Jingo]

I don't usually have a problem with stats.

But elves with poor or below average strength are pretty well impossible to play as combat characters*. I disagree that I should expect a nigh unplayable character because I prioritized something last.

edit: *iirc 2011 that is

[path]

If this were a vote, I'd have voted 'no' and gone on to refrain from explaining myself or reading any of this thread.

[Narf]

I can't really think of any downsides to giving players a choice of a standard array or the existing system. It'd work well for people that are making character descriptions with certain stats in mind since you're muscular person will now be able to count on having a certain strength to back it up.  For people that enjoy the random roll, that'll still be open.

I can't see it damaging play balance at all, since it's just pumping up the number of characters with averagish stats in the world.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of pen and paper RPGs have a point buy system available for stats.

[valeria]

I don't think it's necessary but I wouldn't mind the change.

I once slogged through ride training after the ride code change on a dwarf warrior with low wisdom.  I can see why people complain about low stats.  BUT as Nyr points out with his examples, I brought that one on myself.

Low stats have never upset me, but good stats do make the character more memorable to me.  Unfortunately my two best stat rolls have been on (1) a noble, and (2) a character that died relatively fast, so I've never turned it into phenomenal cosmic power or something.

[tiptoe]

The only time I've ever had a stat roll that was "unplayable" was with a HG. Agility was so low that I couldn't carry more than one item at a time. After a month of struggling with it, I sent in a request and it was bumped enough for my character to be able to hold two things. Pretty sure it was still poor. I was totally fine with that, and it was my fault for prioritizing agility last.

[FantasyWriter]

I would not like it if the stat ranges were reduced.
I've never had a PC with anything below average or lower unless they were prioritized in the last two slots (that I recall), and anytime I've had a "shitty" stat role, it was when I went with random prioritization.

Why not do away with "random" stat roles, because in my opinion one generally has a stat order in one's background, more times than not if you spend a few minutes thinking about it.
Instead of "random" stats, have a "suggested stat order" for each race/guild combination that give players the best chance of having an a stat roll that hovers around average?

I've been playing long enough (not to mention I am approaching 100ish PCs due to my high mortality rate) that I can get a "decent" to "good" stat role if I want to play it safe, or I can take a risk and min-max my stats when I am willing to take a hit somewhere to get a guaranteed boost somewhere else.  I think it would be better for new player and people who don't want to put a lot of thought into stat order to have a "suggested" order instead of a "random" one.

[Norcal]

I don't usually have a problem with stats.

But elves with poor or below average strength are pretty well impossible to play as combat characters*. I disagree that I should expect a nigh unplayable character because I prioritized something last.

edit: *iirc 2011 that is

That is just not true, as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.

[Bushranger]

Imagine if  there were two choices:

1: An "average" stat array that is always Very Good, Very Good, Good, Above Average, which is assigned to each score in order of prioritization (or randomly, as normal).

2: The usual rng numbers, including the reroll mechanic.

I actually think given the choice, 95% of characters would end up using option #2.

I think this is the problem, expectation that all four stat rolls should be Above Average or better. If anything I think the "average" stat array should be more like Good, Above Average, Average, Below Average. Yes you can easily roll better than this stat array but I think expecting better than this sort of result causes these sorts of threads.

Prioritizing stats should be "I want this characters Str to be really good" or "This character should have good wisdom and agility" and it works really good when you look at it like that. When you have a concept that is more like "This character is really smart and can shoot the eye of a jozhal at three leagues, she is also really tough and she lifts weights every day so I'll prioritize wisdom agility endurance strength and hope for Exceptional, Extremely Good, Good, Good" it doesn't work because there is a desire that too many stats get favourable rolls.

[Narf]

Just to be clear, there are nine levels a stat can have. The middle level is titled "good" in game. Average is actually, assuming roughly even distributions or a standard bell curve, pretty well below average (3 out of 9).

Maybe it would help if the names were changed so that the middle level (5 out of 9) was actually titled average? I don't know, that doesn't really address the issue that the OP wanted to talk about though.

A lot of people are suggesting that really poor stats don't make characters unplayable. I think this goes without saying. The game's been around long enough that there shouldn't be any situations left that make something consistently unplayable. And as Nyr mentioned, if your character was truly unplayable you could just submit a request. The issue at hand is whether the game would be better for most people if an alternate rolling method were used. No one's really said "We need this to play the game."

[mansa]

Just to be clear, there are nine levels a stat can have. The middle level is titled "good" in game. Average is actually, assuming roughly even distributions or a standard bell curve, pretty well below average (3 out of 9).

Maybe it would help if the names were changed so that the middle level (5 out of 9) was actually titled average? I don't know, that doesn't really address the issue that the OP wanted to talk about though.

A lot of people are suggesting that really poor stats don't make characters unplayable. I think this goes without saying. The game's been around long enough that there shouldn't be any situations left that make something consistently unplayable. And as Nyr mentioned, if your character was truly unplayable you could just submit a request. The issue at hand is whether the game would be better for most people if an alternate rolling method were used. No one's really said "We need this to play the game."

Stats don't have to be 9 levels.  Stats could be a range of 9 - 18 or could be a range from 20 - 50.

I remember writing something about this before ...

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,34069.msg408783.html#msg408783

[Narf]

Just to be clear, there are nine levels a stat can have. The middle level is titled "good" in game. Average is actually, assuming roughly even distributions or a standard bell curve, pretty well below average (3 out of 9).

Maybe it would help if the names were changed so that the middle level (5 out of 9) was actually titled average? I don't know, that doesn't really address the issue that the OP wanted to talk about though.

A lot of people are suggesting that really poor stats don't make characters unplayable. I think this goes without saying. The game's been around long enough that there shouldn't be any situations left that make something consistently unplayable. And as Nyr mentioned, if your character was truly unplayable you could just submit a request. The issue at hand is whether the game would be better for most people if an alternate rolling method were used. No one's really said "We need this to play the game."

Stats don't have to be 9 levels.  Stats could be a range of 9 - 18 or could be a range from 20 - 50.

I remember writing something about this before ...

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,34069.msg408783.html#msg408783

I was aware of this, but it doesn't matter for the sake of the statement that "good" is still actually average.

[Bushranger]

Just to be clear, there are nine levels a stat can have. The middle level is titled "good" in game. Average is actually, assuming roughly even distributions or a standard bell curve, pretty well below average (3 out of 9).

Maybe it would help if the names were changed so that the middle level (5 out of 9) was actually titled average? I don't know, that doesn't really address the issue that the OP wanted to talk about though.

A lot of people are suggesting that really poor stats don't make characters unplayable. I think this goes without saying. The game's been around long enough that there shouldn't be any situations left that make something consistently unplayable. And as Nyr mentioned, if your character was truly unplayable you could just submit a request. The issue at hand is whether the game would be better for most people if an alternate rolling method were used. No one's really said "We need this to play the game."

Stats don't have to be 9 levels.  Stats could be a range of 9 - 18 or could be a range from 20 - 50.

I remember writing something about this before ...

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,34069.msg408783.html#msg408783

That's just it, the ranges are different for each of the descriptive stat levels. I believe AI has the narrowest range, perhaps only a couple of points, while average has the widest range. Good might be in the middle of the descriptive levels but numerically speaking Average is the average and should be considered as such. It is not a roughly even distribution and from what I have experienced over the years the bell curve is around where average and above average meet. Sorry, it is not a bell curve. I mean to say the widest range (by far) is average/above average andit trails off sharply from there. Poor and below average are also narrower but not by very much.

[X-D]

Meh...i do not see the issue....the stat ranges are set for PCs who are slightly better then the rank and file vnpc. enjoy it...move on.

[RogueGunslinger]

I suppose we'll all just keep doing what we do. I understand the system enough I shouldn't really give a shit about people who land low(or overly high) stats I suppose.

[Twilight]

Basically you have to be careful when predicting your outcomes in designing a PC. When ordering stats I just treat it like a modifier I apply in D&D. +2, +1, -1, -2; that way it is balanced with people who assign no stat order.

Lizzie's wise in not assigning any stat orders because the likelihood of an extremely low stat roll becomes MUCH higher every time you order stats. Remember, you're putting a -2 someplace.

The likelihood of the lowest result, 3, is very rare when you roll 3d6. It will happen 1 / 216 times, or 0.46% of the time, on a human assuming no age modifiers and no stat ordering.

As soon as modifiers come into play, though, the odds are vastly increased. To get a 3 with a modifier of -2 means you could roll a total of 3, 4, or 5 on your 3d6 and still end up with the minimum, 3*. The odds of rolling a 3, 4, or 5 on 3d6 is 1/216 + 3/216 + 6/216, for 10/216 or 4.6%. Ten times more likely.

Usually, I don't give this many shits about stats, because I habitually play roles that are less likely to be hit with an extreme modifier on one of their stats; for example, a -5 or -6 which could be easily conceived (Strength= Lowest priority, -2. Elven race, -2. Youngest age in range, -2.). Instead, I will re-order stats to compensate and balance out where I know I am being penalized, and also avoiding an unbalanced roll such as AI-poor-poor-poor.

*Or even less than 3, but I have a feeling 3 is a stat "floor" and that the MUD uses similar floors.


..TL;DR, listen to Lizzie, in order to avoid stacking a -2 on another -2 in one of your stats and favoring a more balanced roll, every time.

I remember when the original announcement came out, and always assumed it worked a little differently, based on some fairly precise wording I have since forgotten....

I think what they must have done was normalize the dice roll when it is created...ie instead of one stat being 2d5 and another being 1d10, they made them all 1d10, and then applied +/- per race or guild.  At least within each race, so that when you rolled you had 4 dice rolls that are the same dice.

So, when you prioritize, you take 4 1d10 rolls of the dice, order them from highest to lowest roll, then apply modifiers.  Not sure if the dice rolls for prioritized stats are the same as not prioritizing (ie could be a 1d10 roll if prioritized, 2d5 if not).

Given this schema, it might be justifiable to get the imms to change something if you rolled all 1's.  It just isn't if you rolled a 1 and a 2 and don't like how they gimp your last two prioritized stats.

Edited:  Errr, or nevermind.  Re-read and these aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

[Harmless]

I'm not sure how it's coded, but if it were a 1d10 roll, then that might explain why some people like the system and also the concern for being "gimped." In a 1d10 roll, each value in the set has equal probability of landing, so that very high and low values are more common than say a 3d6 roll. Some people have voiced liking this system. They are probably aware of the fact that this system allows for a greater chance of a very statistically powerful character, in exchange for just as many more "duds."

In any case, the concept of ordering stats still applies whether it be a +2->-2 modifier to a 3d6 or the ordering of 4 1d10's. The math works out differently but the concept is the same; the average roll is 5, so an average set of 4 rolls will have 2 above 5, and 2 below five.

D&D's system is useful in a pen and paper setting, where we expect our characters to be able to achieve certain things. By making very low stats statistically improbable, players always have enough to get by. For example, 3 strength is basically impossible to deal with for anyone, and is usually only the result of temporary curse effects, with the idea that players had better fix that issue quickly or they'll die.

Armageddon is sort of like a PNP game but it's different. Characters are often very short-lived. If you play your role realistically, you will often find yourself stumbling into death. There is a reason why the populations of the cities is so low; the birth rate approximately equals the death rate. Every other character you play SHOULD be dying easily. (That is not to say quickly. I think the sweet spot for me, personally, on a statistically weak character is to have lived for 2 IC years. That's only a few months, plenty of time to meet a lot of people and even lose a lot of them, too.)

Death is extremely powerful. It is one of the most powerful tools for moving people's minds and affecting their emotions. A well-planned death is a frightening tool. An accidental death can sometimes be an opportunity for interesting change.

You should be glad you're weak. Now, you know you will die eventually, the question is how? You begin to look forward to your death rather than fearing it, as you, and your character both know that they may still have a purpose. (And additionally, you will be able to reroll and enjoy playing with chance all over again.)

So, I don't want the system to be any different myself. However it's working, it's working.