Stat Ranges - Too Broad?

[Inks]

Wisdom is a decently good deal on non magickers. You wouldn't main prioritize it but there is extremely noticable difference with high wis. Wis also affects skills such as scan.

[hopeandsorrow]

Having tried and played on a range of stats.

Low strength on a half-elf on a ranger is the biggest ooc/ic annoyance in the world.  It effects how much you can carry, how much armor you can use, and how hard you hit (I think).  
I've ran into a couple of times that the stat roll I got just wasn't very 'playable' in a code sense.  Being a inept weakling is not my ideal of escapism and I dare to say a few others could agree to the sentiment.

Not all of us are paragons of role playing whom will spend months to what equates to a codely gimped combat oriented character.

Storage is an option, suicide is a strangely fitting way out what could amount to a bunch of wasted time (This below average strength, Good bye cruel universe). All bet frowned upon. Nothing states though, characters can't take stupid risks are the player can feign IC ignorance.  It happens, it's discouraged but it happens.

I honestly wish there was ways to alleviate that rather frustrating point.

Again I'm thinking solely in the context of a list of rangers/warriors I played and what I noticed on the whole being an issue from the blow average-good range to the Very good to exceptional range.   Bad stats are a bummer and in the end, will kill a character concept (Either by stupid risks or out right storage) and then creates double work for staff, a storage request and another character app.  

I think no one is a stranger to a hand crafted background of a character you envision being strong, only to roll in game with a unimpressive if not down right pathetic strength roll.  Or crafting a hopefuly lively interesting character, to only find the coded side of things their gimp and will remain that way for ever compared to their peers.  It's a bummer, it be nice there was something more then just priority roll and building concepts around ages so you get decent stats... as oppose to just rolling with the concept you want without worrying having -too bad- of stats.  

Eh, stats just suck, especially if you're fond of combat roles. Priority helps but RNG will RNG, some days.
So I voted yea, I wish the lower range just... didn't suck so bad.  It's bad enough that average-good feels light years behind EG or exceptional.   High stats is a terrible drug because the supplier is just so inconsistent.

[Majikal]

I've ALWAYS been in favor of a pt system. Nothing is more upsetting than rolling up a character idea you're excited about and getting shit-tastic stats on both of your rolls that essentially ruin the whole concept.

[Hauwke]

While I do love me some good stats, and I have noticed that any thing with a high strength roll is amazing as fuck in combat. I do like the rp of having a slightly weaker character. Well over a year ago I had a character with fairly shit stats. Like below strength above average agi and so on and so forth.
From a 'Im gon rek ur assholez all nyt long' point of view sure it sucked. I could barely kill scrabs. Granted the agi meant i could just dodge all day long and very slowly barely graze its ass to death. But granted the character never got to a decent level of fighting skill so who knows that char could well have eventually wound up being the bomb at some point years down the line.

[boog]

I've ALWAYS been in favor of a pt system. Nothing is more upsetting than rolling up a character idea you're excited about and getting shit-tastic stats on both of your rolls that essentially ruin the whole concept.

The hulking half-giant struggles to hold a bone pick.

Yeah. I had a great character idea once soiled completely by shit stats. It'd be one thing to have one poor. Maybe even two poor and something above average at least - but no. It was something like, poor, poor, average, below average.

Jayzus.

Stats are important, no matter what you do. Unless you're purely a flavor role and you don't plan on using any skills. But those extra few HPs when you get stabbed by someone that doesn't like your haircut on them could be the difference between life or death!

[Majikal]

I had a combat sponsored role with stats so shit-tastic I entered the game with.
Someone says ooc: lol, those stats.
I rerolled into further shitty stats which immediately got a....
someone says ooc: Ouch.
I did a lot of cussing in the hall of kings.

I got an unheard of THIRD reroll they were so bad.
They were still shit, though slightly, very slightly less shitty than the other two.

My first day on the job I bring in some new employees fresh out of chargen and they wiped my ass with training, one being a GUILD MERCHANT. With some effort I turned them into a capable pc but man was it rough in the beginning, especially because I didn't want to focus training skills as much as I wanted to just roleplay. It's eyeopening when you see just how much stats matter in a combat class, they matter far too much to be given to a pair of dice throws.

[bardlyone]

I think point buy is the way to go as well. If nothing else, do something like... all stats start at average base, you get, just as an imaginary figure, 2d6 in extra points, and can lower stats to poor to gain more points from the lowering, but still allow for pcs to have a 'varied' amount of stat ranges, but give the player more say in how they fit with the character concept in question to most appropriately fit with the pc they're trying to make.

[solera]

Great stats kill your noob as well..
I agree with point buy too. It gives you three choices with the story lines they lead to; badass, weakling /clumsy fool, or random chromosome shuffle.

[Malken]

ALL OF MY FAVORITE CHARACTERS OF ALL TIME ALL HAD SHITTY STATS IN ALL CATEGORIES™

[RogueGunslinger]

Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  It always leaves me feeling a bit sour. I honestly thought this was another one of those things that was obviously an issue for a lot of people that quite a few would agree on. All I can say is nothing big will change due to the player-base because we can never agree. It's always staff-decision regardless of conflicting player opinions, that has brought big change(TONS of people hated the idea of Tuluk being removed whenever It was suggested, for instance.)

Talking about it on the GDB is purely masturbatory. I am just glad staff doesn't weigh all opinions equally or make decisions based on the majority. Because most of us would make some really shitty games.

[Jave]

Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  

It may also be more of a "silent majority" at play. In a game of 100+ people, 4-5 advocating for something on the GDB may seem like there is a lot of player desire for the change. Then you make a pole and the other 95+ vote  

[Malken]

Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  

It may also be more of a "silent majority" at play. In a game of 100+ people, 4-5 advocating for something on the GDB may seem like there is a lot of player desire for the change. Then you make a pole and the other 95+ vote  

It's also a vote per GDB alias and not per IP address, so it's pretty easy to shift the balance your way if you really want to.

[BadSkeelz]

Just throwing this idea out there...

What if certain guilds could never roll below a given level of stat?

What if warriors were always at least good strength? What if assassins were always at least good agility?

Would that be too gamey or jarring? Does anyone really WANT to play the low strength, clumsy warrior who can't be looked at without needing a bandage? Or the assassin who can't lift his own dagger?

[Drayab]

I voted no because I like that there is a lot of variation in how your character plays depending on how you prioritize your stats and choose your starting age. I haven't had much trouble getting what I was aiming for by tweaking those two parameters. The complaints in this thread just seem overblown to me--they don't align with my own experiences.

If I were to change one thing about how stats work right now, it would be making endurance more useful.

[nauta]

Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  

It may also be more of a "silent majority" at play. In a game of 100+ people, 4-5 advocating for something on the GDB may seem like there is a lot of player desire for the change. Then you make a pole and the other 95+ vote  

Total unashamed unrelated to OP comment here, but this jumped a thought in my head: Arm sort of has different parties.

Conservatives.  Things are fine as they are.  Do not change things.

Progressives.  More changes!

MUSHers.  No new code, less code!  Do things via emote and the virtual world and imagination.

MUDers.  More code.  It's a game, dammit.

Wizturbo's Faction. Magick is awesome.  (I'm with you Wizturbo.)

And just like with regular politics, it's all some mash in the middle

You may resume your thread.  I had more to say about elections and a senate and a union of players and a union of staff,  but then I got bored.

[BadSkeelz]

I'd like to add Jobbers for those who see nothing wrong with playing 40 hours a week just to accompish something

[RogueGunslinger]

I voted no because I like that there is a lot of variation in how your character plays depending on how you prioritize your stats and choose your starting age. I haven't had much trouble getting what I was aiming for by tweaking those two parameters. The complaints in this thread just seem overblown to me--they don't align with my own experiences.

If I were to change one thing about how stats work right now, it would be making endurance more useful.

My problem is not a lack of good stats, or a lack of the stats that I want. My problem is how massively different a human with AI strength is, from a human with even good strength.

I know a few people keep bringing it around to unplayable low stats, but man I really tried for that not to happen.

I know exactly how to game the system to get stats as close to where I want them to be. But that isn't really how a roleplaying intensive game should be played, in my opinion. It gives you variety, but it takes away from creativity. It also benefits veterans over new players. Also that variety could still be there, through magick and spice and special applications instead of a crap shoot gamble everyone gets forced to play.

I'd love if both endurance and wisdom were more useful though, that I agree with.

[Drayab]

It gives you variety, but it takes away from creativity.

Yeah, I just disagree with that premise. If anything, I think shrinking the stat range will reduce the amount of creativity I can exercise when I craft my characters insofar as their stats matter to my concept. What you're proposing will homogenize characters. My strong characters won't be so strong; my quick characters won't be so quick.

Edited to add:

And just to be clear, the unplayably low stat issue is overblown in my opinion. I'm made lots of characters and it's never been an issue.

I also disagree that this is a veteran advantage situation. I think the way to get stats that fit a given concept is very simple, and anyone could figure it out by doing some forum searches and reading the help files. It's not hidden knowledge that can only be learned IG.

[wizturbo]

Just chiming in...

I like broad stat ranges.   I don't want a "fair" world.  I like physical inequalities and inequities, straight from char-gen. 

I do have some criticisms of the current system though:

1)  I would love it if I could see my character's stats before I write up my description and background.  For instance, if I happen to get an AI strength, I would like to alter my PC's description and maybe even their background to reflect that.  If you've got an AI strength, you probably didn't grow up as a tailor's assistant.  And you probably don't have a description with words like "frail, spindly, lanky, etc".
2)  If someone wants to play a PC that's statistically above average, I think there should be an option to do so via char-gen points, special applications or karma instead of having to rely solely on chance.   

[Drayab]

1)  I would love it if I could see my character's stats before I write up my description and background.  For instance, if I happen to get an AI strength, I would like to alter my PC's description and maybe even their background to reflect that.  If you've got an AI strength, you probably didn't grow up as a tailor's assistant.  And you probably don't have a description with words like "frail, spindly, lanky, etc".

Neat idea. Personally, when I make a character I operate under the assumption that I'll be able to get very or extremely good in my number one prioritized stat (assuming a character in the prime age range), and I develop my background and description accordingly. If I do get lucky and get the coveted exceptional or even AI (I have never rolled an AI in strength), I may submit a description change down the line with some extra beef packed on. I did that once for an exceptional strength human. She was a lot of fun.

2)  If someone wants to play a PC that's statistically above average, I think there should be an option to do so via char-gen points, special applications or karma instead of having to rely solely on chance.   

Please, no. I never, never want to see stat boosts. You want to talk about veteran advantage? This is the worst kind. The RNG may be a cruel mistress, but at least she is undeniably fair.

[Majikal]

For those of you that like the stats the way they are, I want to see a pros list as to what it adds to the game world and roleplay.

This is a roleplay game, give me a valid explanation on why I should alter my roleplay based on RNG. When my spindly tressy-tressed aide RNG's AI stats and is for all purposes a superhuman. Or my thickly-muscled, powerfully-built man RNG's below average strength, it breaks the idea of a character. Give me a reason why the current system is better and tell me what it adds to the game that is beneficial to ROLEPLAY.

[Case]

For those of you that like the stats the way they are, I want to see a pros list as to what it adds to the game world and roleplay.

This is a roleplay game, give me a valid explanation on why I should alter my roleplay based on RNG. When my spindly tressy-tressed aide RNG's AI stats and is for all purposes a superhuman. Or my thickly-muscled, powerfully-built man RNG's below average strength, it breaks the idea of a character. Give me a reason why the current system is better and tell me what it adds to the game that is beneficial to ROLEPLAY.

Is it even possible to RNG a ba strength roll on a on a prioritised stat in 1st, 2nd or 3rd? Like wtf are people making big musclemans then putting str last or whatever and whining about. Being thickly muscled and all that shit doesn't make you necessarily strong either. Not sure why a spindly tressy-tressed can't be AI in stats.

I think you're confusing roleplay with 'roleplay I wanna do because fuck yeah I'm awesome', which I mean is fine for tabletop or whatever, but I mean come on, people really exaggerate this stuff for MUDs. If we go point buy, most people will play the exact same builds, either to min/max, bullshit OOC made up shit max, or stereotype their PC. At least when it's random, doing any of those things isn't reliable in making you automatically Teh Best. If you don't roll it, you work harder or rely on luck more. Or kill the better people. Jealousy rocks in this environment. MCB and all that

[BadSkeelz]

Why should we have to rely on a RNG for determining whether we need to work hard at a PC or be lucky, when we're trying to play a game for our own enjoyment and self-amusement?

[solera]

 

", most people will play the exact same builds,"

Would most people? Some would. Some would continue to chose a random roll (how many still do this) or prioritize.
There just seems a fair number of our players that do want this feature.

[Case]

Why should we have to rely on a RNG for determining whether we need to work hard at a PC or be lucky, when we're trying to play a game for our own enjoyment and self-amusement?

like I haven't have all that many PCs but it's pretty hard imo to end up with stats that ruin enjoyment and I play some shit stats and I like lots of stats and stuff