Stat 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.