Would you chose the point buy system for selecting stats?

[solera]

All righty. Another GBD poll. How many point buyers have we got in our RPI mud? Do these questions make sense?
For my own next PC, on my scrap of paper, I'd rank my stats, roll a dice to get the exact number, fiddle with the answers if I didn't like them, and enter chargen to use the point buy option.

[Majikal]

Suppose my answered in the other thread pretty much summed up my opinion.

Pros
A pt buy system wouldn't make cookie cutter pc's, there's benefits to making your pc stat-lacking in certain areas. Plays get to reliably play their tastes.

A pt buy system would reduce staff workload, suicides happen because of stats. I promise.

Ditto storage.

A pt buy system would let players make the pc they envisioned.

A pt buy system would update the chargen in Arm to... pretty much every RPG MUD ever. System tried. System proven.

Cons
I won't luck into another exceptional/exceptional/exceptional/exceptional d-elf of awesome.

[Jave]

I personally enjoy the random element involved in rolling stats, but I can understand the frustration with that system in Armageddon.

I think it's because Armageddon only has 4 stats to be honest. I've talked a bit about Harnworld before (an RPG I really enjoy. D&D done right, imho). And in that system you have the following stats:

Strength, Stamina, Dexterity, Agility, Eyesight, Hearing, Smell/Taste, Voice, Intelligence, Aura, Willpower, Morality, Piety, Deity, Height, Weight, Hair, Frame, Eyes, Comeliness.

And all the skills in the game are based on a combination of 3 attributes. So for example, your aptitude at climbing is determined by your strength, agility, and dexterity.
Your aptitude with an axe is based on strength, strength, and dexterity while a dagger's skill is based on dexterity, dexterity, and eyesight.

In a system like this, the randomness is a pleasant added sense of realism in that the gene pool is not evenly distributed. But there are so many attributes that your odds of rolling really shitty or really amazing on all 20 of them are slim to none.

In a game like ours though with only 4 attributes, that random factor is a lot stronger.

[Marauder Moe]

I like that some characters are just better.  They won the genetic lottery.  They have greater potential.  All the other chumps have to work harder, kill them, or accept living in their shadow.  It's exciting when you play such a character and thematic when you don't.  Equality has never been a theme of this game, after all.

[bardlyone]

I'd pretty much always choose the point buy system - but would prefer one that incorporated the notion Moe talks about, hence the suggestion of basically being average or below average in all stats, then giving you a die roll of points to allocate (let's say 3d4 or 2d6), but you can also lower one or more of your stats to gain points to put in another, so you could get 2-12 or 3-12 points to play around with on top of all average stats, or let's say you lower one of them and that takes you to 4-14 or 5-14 points to put in other stats. You'll still have pcs who are just "better" and just "worse" because of the random point numbers, but it gives the -players- as opposed to a random dice roll, more control over just how low is unplayable in X or Y stat, and lets you tank some stats to do exceptionally well in others, etc.

[AdamBlue]

Allow a mixture of both. You're given a random stat roll at the beginning, which you can reroll as you'd like (so if you're lucky you can hit that all exceptional or all AI)  but allow someone to fiddle around with the stats you're given, so if you want to play a merchant but you roll AI strength, then you can make your strength average and dump those points into wisdom instead. Or if you had AI wisdom but Below-average everything, you could deduct points to make wisdom very good and everything else above average.

[Jave]

Like Baldur's Gate?

[Narf]

My preference would be to allow either.

I would personally always choose the point buy, but there's no particular reason that people that enjoy the system as is shouldn't be able to keep doing what they're doing.

[Lizzie]

If there were more stats to choose from as in Jave's example I'd be all for point-buy. As it stands now, I much prefer random.
Edit: I prefer random plus option to prioritize, for the current system.
I wouldn't want as many stats as in Jave's example but I would like to see more than there are currently.

In the current system, if you included point buy, you could essentially have 25 points in each to = 100% allocated. There's just TOO much room for customization in each stat, and when you're finished, the result isn't going to make much of a difference. You'll end up with people complaining that they didn't allocate efficiently.

With more stats to choose from, each allocation will MEAN something significant. A single point up or down in any given stat could be coded to show a measurable result. I'd still want the option to randomize AND prioritize, with a more varied stat pool to choose from.

[Molten Heart]

I think some randomization is necessary. I wouldn't like a system with a set amount of points that can be spent anyway a player sees fit because it'd make everyone average overall. There would be no one who's exceptionally poor across the board or exceptionally amazing across the board, or varying degrees in between, A flat system with set points seems like it'd create characters that were too balanced with a zero sum of stats.

I'd go for a system where the base stats were randomized and could be adjusted, or even maybe if stat allocation points were randomized where characters received a random amount of stat points to be adjusted as a player saw fit to round out the character. This would still allow characters to be different, having good and bad stats. Players would just have more control over how bad or good each stat was, making choices and occasionally sacrificing with some stats lower in order to have other stats at a level where they think they need to be.

[Narf]

I think some randomization is necessary. I wouldn't like a system with a set amount of points that can be spent anyway a player sees fit because it'd make everyone average overall. There would be no one who's exceptionally poor across the board or exceptionally amazing across the board, or varying degrees in between, A flat system with set points seems like it'd create characters that were too balanced with a zero sum of stats.

NPCs could still be exceptional (either good or bad). There's no reason why PCs necessarily have to be the ones representing the genetic lottery.

There's a lot of aspects of the game that are already like this. Players like playing certain types of characters, and those types can't realistically represent the population of Zalanthas. So NPCs fill in the gaps of what people don't want to play.

[solera]

My preference would be to allow either.

I would personally always choose the point buy, but there's no particular reason that people that enjoy the system as is shouldn't be able to keep doing what they're doing.

Yes, I meant you would still have the choice at chargen. I do agree with Moe and the others, I like he total stats level being random .

[hopeandsorrow]

I hate bad stats.

But I sympathize with arguments against the point buy.  You'll start seeing a lot of carbon, printed out copies of characters once some one figures out the best min/max build.  Meta-gaming, which is disheartening and boring and a numerous other things that can make most online games stagnate and boring.

Although it seems odd that players who claim stats don't matter complaining about how point buy system will effect the role play or variety of characters... I dunno.  Seems like we try to ignore the stats in its current form when comparing PC's ability.  How many people have below average Wisdom, but aren't exactly playing dunces?  We ignore that stat often, because its convenient for us.  The choice to play dumb/ignorant/ or not isn't every decided by that stat in most cases.

It's a bit hard to ignore something as obvious as Strength, as there is a very coded measure that is on display for other PCs. What you're carrying, what your're wielding, and how effective you are in combat tells can at lest shed some light into a PC's Strength/Agility stat.   You can't hide it behind role play as effectively as you could with low wisdom.

I'm on the fence.

On one hand, -average- sucks, because I stated on the other thread.  That prioritization + storage/suicide of bad stats equates to making higher then "average" stats the norm for those in combat rolls.  The staff perhaps (I dunno) know the true "average" of warrior PC's.  Which I can speculate with much confidence is not Strength: Average.  So even if codely in context of the world strength average should be average, compared to their PC peers their strength is actually low.

Below average really sucks even out of combat.  Especially if you were spoil by high strength before, you become frighteningly aware how much you can carry and the tremendous effect it can have on survival-ability.  Water weighs a fair amount, so does protection, food, tools like climbing gear/torches and this is a sobering experience to the requirements of wilderness survival.  Perhaps my rangers always were a bit OCD to having adequate supplies and back ups, on and off the mount.  Being obsessive about that keep many of them alive.

With a point buy, at lest players exercise some agency over the physicality and nature of their PC's coded innards.  Which no one states you have to meta-game to victory, you could choose to strike a balance and not a min/max.  But once the min/max character build arm's race starts.  There is no un-ringing that bell. 

As well there is that first bit of excitement upon first getting the app approved.  The pre-hall of the kings character, the pre-stat roll holds a huge list of exciting possibilities.  Although this usually for me ends with "Eh, not bad... not great... roll with it".  This would be missed if there was a shift to point buy. 



An interesting equation is Happiness = Reality/Expectations.  In most cases, one part of the equation is easier to change then the other.  Keeping low expectations, will = more happiness. With life or a character concept.  Yet because Armageddon is a game, we actually have some effect over reality (for our pcs) Currently that's stat prioritization, other times it's storage/rerolling.   Point enables the player to exercise some level control over the reality of their character. Low expectations is wise but isn't preferable when it comes to most folks and escapism.

I found it better to not focus on stats or on combat at all because my roll was shit. I focused on other things, and it ended up working out great.

It was playing an average agility human ranger that made me realize you can do great things with a PC even if they are a stat-cripple, and he was.

I pulled Dman's quote from the other thread because he makes a good point but an unfortunate one as well.

You can have lots of fun with out focusing too much on code. I might sound utterly cliche one of my favorite flavor attempts ultimately require so little code and stat focus that I had a lot of fun just being that PC.  It was... magical.

Yet that is an achievement the relies on the player.  Desertman has being playing for years (As many of others) for the folks who lack a lot of the knowledge of the nuances of the community, culture, and world.  Achieving things on the more social side is difficult.  Power and fun is very achievable with out coded combat prowess but it requires something that only comes with time and consistency, experience.  I would dare to say it also requires some level of social ability that not everyone is blessed with. Player awkwardness and shyness can easily carry over into the game, I know it does for me, I'm terribly shy and it perhaps shows with my role play.  I'm an 'OK role player' and I have a surface level knowledge of the player communities nuances and culture.   In other words using myself as an example.  I'm ill-equipped for leader/manipulator/social roles on an OOC level.   There's no code to that (which is good) but it also takes years worth of real life to get to the level some of the members of this community has achieved.  While a player like me, work on developing those soft skills, hard code skills are a happy way to be at lest useful for those players who are good at the politics.

If I'm trying to maximize my fun and escapism, I sadly have to rely on code way more then I can rely on my sheer role playing ability.  That will only come with time and perhaps luck, as a bit of an 'outsider' there is an heavy sense that I'm not always in the know.  That certain bits of nuance are lost on me.   I'm not yet and effective enough role player, a knowledgeable member of the community to be effective or dangerous on a social level.

A friend of mine who doesn't play anymore major gripe about the game when he stop playing was he felt like he was competing against players and not PC's.  That you had to have the soft skills of OOC knowledge and abilities on an OOC level to be an effective leader/betrayer/manipulator.  I can understand what he means, sometimes it can really feel your competition isn't the Character but the player at the keyboard controlling the character.  Stats/skills/code helps alleviate this to a degree.  There is no matchmaking here, there is no ELO score to keep things fair. The game, more-so in terms of social conflict is harsh and those with the best soft skills and tiny bit of luck will win every time.  Can maximize their impact and fun with out the backing of code.  This is not an accusation as much as I pointing it out, as something that people who are new or with less knowledge or plays the game inconsistently should aspire too.

Point buy only helps create that agency that at lest in worse case scenario, you've got code even if you aren't a gold star role player who's mastered the more complex social mechanics that are at work in terms of conflict and players.   You've got the ability to at least player a competent or great warrior/ranger/thief or whatever.  The code works with you.

A good example is a thief.  A good thief doesn't need steal skill at master, being a good con man is about trickery and manipulation, and misdirection.  There is no code for that, there is only the player ability.  Perhaps I could skill up pick pocket to being proficient code wise.  None of that will make me a good con-artist.

Again I wrote all that to state I'm still on the fence, I wish there was a happy medium in which it felt stats were unique, fun, and interesting for a character (mainly those centered around combat) avoiding any overt meta-gaming.  There is no easy fix, Armageddon isn't an MMO or tabletop or an single player RPG.  It isn't inherently competitive but it is competitive.   Stats I guess will also ways be one of those things, any one can make a case for for any system and it will have its merits.  Deciding on whats better for role play and what maximizes player engagement is perhaps the real challenge.

[Drayab]

I picked point-buy because, given the choice, it's the optimal way to build your character. And this is precisely the reason why I think it's a bad idea. If you want your character to be good at what they do, then you have to build your character accordingly. If we want to have un-optimized, non-cookie cutter characters, then we need an unbiased method of doling out the genetic gifts and curses, and that's the RNG.

[whitt]

I chose point buy, because dice hate me.  But I feel that point buy should amount to having one good, one above average, one average, and one below average stat.  You could go to good-good-below-below or even exceptional-below-below-below, but I wouldn't want to see a system where every sneak had AI agility, every warrior had AI strength, every gick had AI wisdom, and everyone playing flavor roles had AI endurance.  Which is where the point buy system would lead us.

[wizturbo]

If I had to design a system from scratch for Armageddon, I would probably keep everything the same as it is now when it comes to chargen, with the exception of letting you write your description after your stat rolls.  When I see a description that says "thick with muscles", or "moves with a feline grace",  I want it to correlate to reality.

You create your character's personality, the environment dictates how good your character is at things relative to others.  You shouldn't get to decide that your character is a bad ass, just how they act. 

But with that said, I would also permit stat boosts with proper roleplay for any stat below average.  Getting up to average in the physical stats should be achievable for anyone who isn't playing someone with a physical disability.

[Narf]

I picked point-buy because, given the choice, it's the optimal way to build your character. And this is precisely the reason why I think it's a bad idea. If you want your character to be good at what they do, then you have to build your character accordingly. If we want to have un-optimized, non-cookie cutter characters, then we need an unbiased method of doling out the genetic gifts and curses, and that's the RNG.

There are many point buy methods that have been developed over the decades that were designed to avoid cookie cutter characters.

To date my favorite was an old 80's game called DragonQuest where you had a random roll that determined your maximum stat, and your total stat points. These were inversely correlated so you either had a character with incredible potential in one stat at the cost of the rest, or one that was overarchingly above average (or somewhere in between).

Other methods to prevent cookie cutter stats is to charge more points on a sliding scale (DnD uses this now) to weight the abilities as having different values (Old Hero system style).

I imagine a proper connoisseur of gaming could give you a few other systems that encouraged stat diversity.

[Drayab]

I suppose implicit in my criticism of the point-buy system is the idea of a set number of stat points that players can allocate however they wish.

Maybe I could get on board of a point-buy system if it were a particularly well designed one. That DragonQuest idea where your total stat points are still determined by the RNG sounds appealing, for example. I wouldn't call that a straight point-buy system, but a kind of hybrid system.

I'm sure a part of the reason why I like the current system is because it's simple and it is working well from my end. Call it a combination of the KISS principle and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[lostinspace]

I would like pointbuy for stats, but keep the random rolls for derived stats.

[wizturbo]

No matter how you design a point buy system, there is always an optimal configuration.  Players will figure it out, and that'll be the new norm.  At best, you might have a philosophical split between option A or B on what's best.  That's perfectly okay for a hack and slash game, in fact, that's exactly what you want...a nice balanced opportunity for all characters.  But in Armageddon I personally like the fact that things aren't balanced.  Equality doesn't contribute to fun roleplay.

[Alesan]

Forcing people to play what they didn't intend to play and calling it "roleplay opportunities" doesn't sit well with people either, it seems. There doesn't look to be any kind of compromise.

[BadSkeelz]

Forcing people to play what they didn't intend to play and calling it "roleplay opportunities" doesn't sit well with people either, it seems. There doesn't look to be any kind of compromise.

Roll stats first, then write an mdesc and select guilds?

[Alesan]

Forcing people to play what they didn't intend to play and calling it "roleplay opportunities" doesn't sit well with people either, it seems. There doesn't look to be any kind of compromise.

Roll stats first, then write an mdesc and select guilds?

Maybe, but most people come up with a character concept first. I don't want my character design to be placed in a boundary of attributes, however loose that boundary is. I wouldn't mind a points buy system, and I wouldn't mind things staying as they are, but I don't want to have to roll stats first to find out what kind of character I get to make.

[wizturbo]

Roll stats first, then write an mdesc and select guilds?

That's my preference.  Not sure about picking guild after though, as guilds typically come with some stat boosts too if I recall.

But the thought of having to write my msdesc without knowing if I'm actually buff, agile or tough has always been silly to me.

[wizturbo]

Maybe, but most people come up with a character concept first. I don't want my character design to be placed in a boundary of attributes, however loose that boundary is. I wouldn't mind a points buy system, and I wouldn't mind things staying as they are, but I don't want to have to roll stats first to find out what kind of character I get to make.

Aptitude isn't what defines a character.  Aptitude is an environmental condition.   People are not strong, smart, or fast in a vacuum, they're strong, smart or fast relative to their environment.  

You create a character and then one of the first environmental things you cope with or benefit from are your stats.  At least that's how I philosophically view roleplaying.

You don't create a character concept as: "A peerless warrior who can kill a mekillot in a single blow."  You create a character like, "A fearless, stubborn daughter of a Yaroch farmer.  Would face a mekillot without hesitation."

[hopeandsorrow]

If I had to design a system from scratch for Armageddon, I would probably keep everything the same as it is now when it comes to chargen, with the exception of letting you write your description after your stat rolls.  When I see a description that says "thick with muscles", or "moves with a feline grace",  I want it to correlate to reality.

It's an interesting Idea... I'm almost curious to how people would react if they knew their next roll was going to be utter shit.

Would they bother even playing?

[wizturbo]

If stat rolls are what determines whether or not they're going to play, then I'd rather they not play...  at least within reason.

I can understand if you play a weakling character for 2+ RL years, and are excited to play a tough guy.  But I'm guessing it's a very rare occurance that you literally are forced to toss a character concept (keep in mind, it's a character concept not an aptitude concept) because of low stat rolls.

I will say that it's somewhat unfair that only physical aptitudes are held in check this way.  Social roles tend to have aptitude determined by the player, rather than any stats or environmental conditions, and that's not entirely fair.  It would be cool  if there was a charisma stat that determined how NPC's treat you, how comely your character is, ectera... But that's kind of hard to code, and obviously wouldn't be something that's easy to enforce in player interactions.

[jstorrie]

I would strongly prefer point buy to Arm's current system. very strongly.

if it exacerbates the problem of every $class focusing on $stat, then fix that problem by rebalancing the stats themselves; the current system already fails to address that problem, really.

[Jave]

Forcing people to play what they didn't intend to play and calling it "roleplay opportunities" doesn't sit well with people either, it seems. There doesn't look to be any kind of compromise.

One has to draw the line in the sand somewhere. In a table top game if the DM is running a campaign set for 1st level characters and one of the players insists that their concept calls for being 5th level at the start or that they need to have maxed strength despite the fact that they rolled a 16, what do you tell them?

We have a setting. We have a chargen system. I've always felt that as players the onus is on us to create concepts within the confines of the rules set down.

I don't player characters anymore but when I did:
I didn't make concepts that hinge around having AI in a particular stat because I know there's no way to assure I get it.
I didn't make concepts that hinge around already being skilled in my guild because I know everyone's skills start the same.



I've just never felt the "but my concept is to play X" argument was particularly compelling. If what you want to play is outside the confines of the normal system,, you can special app for it. If you want to play things outside the confines of the normal system every time, what are we supposed to say?

[BadSkeelz]

I want to play inside the confines of the system, I just don't want to have to play on the shitty end of it due to a RNG.

What does having the Poor stat really accomplish? As far as I can tell it just lets people with good or great rolls get their dicks and clits hard because they get to be randomly better than others.

[Jave]

I want to play inside the confines of the system, I just don't want to have to play on the shitty end of it due to a RNG.

And we don't want you too either. As Nergal pointed out the RNG will already automatically give you a free reroll if you roll shitty dice before guild/age/race modifiers are applied.

[BadSkeelz]

And yet people still wind up with shitty stat rolls.

As I've said, I would just make the default lowest stat average. PCs are already exceptional. If your concept calls for you to have bad stats, people should spec-app in for that. My guess is there's far fewer people who want bad stats than there are people who just want decent ones.

[Narf]

No matter how you design a point buy system, there is always an optimal configuration.  

Don't be so defeatist. There's a number of ways to solve this.

1) Keep the random rolls for players that want them. This will create some gambling players that have stronger, unusual stats in exact proportion to the population that's willing to play such a character.

2) Create a Rock/Paper/Scissors type balance between the stats where each stat is best for specific scenarios, but no stat is best overall. I'd argue this is already true to some extent.

3) Realize that with a game as opaque in its system as Armageddon that while you may hear people claiming that a given stat array is the best ever, the liklihood that they're actually overarchingly correct (ie, their build is really as strong as they think it is) is pretty minimal.

[hopeandsorrow]

It is interesting to think about.

The stat system isn't entirely unworkable and the more arguments I hear for it, the more I understand its been the way it is for awhile.

I'm just of the camp that I really hate those 'bad' stat roles.  They give you a sinking feeling some times when you have some specific or even general in mind and the RNG decide to pull a 'fuck you lol'.   You know, ahead of time, that on some level, you'll never garner the respect and fear of some one of equal status/guild/race.

I know in a perfect world, role play should stand on its own and ultimately that's why people play. Yet things are far from perfect, I can only imagine if the statistical information was gathered on how many pc deaths occurred, was those of less than favorable stats.  
Or how many less than optimal stat'ed character we see hanging around simply because storage/suicide might just equate into a bad account note.  (this is not an accusation). Are people rolling with average stats because the genuinely want to? (One can only speculate).

This always goes back to why high stats are such a terrible drug.  Once you experience them, most everything falls short.  It's hard to get excited about average when you've seen exceptional, hell it's hard to get excited by 'good'.  It takes increasing creativity to continue to create concepts that can dance around code in hopes of an enjoyable experience.  (Some off-peak players I can only imagine at times, ONLY have code to play with some days).

Stats seem to me to be incredibly difficult to work with from a design perspective.  Trying to keep the world varied, interesting, and in some terms 'realistic' while still giving players agency to play and be the characters they want too.  With out creating an entirely new meta and cheesy stuff that comes along with meta-gaming.

The stat roll before creation has some interesting merit, if only to see how the experiment would turn out and to how players would craft their PC's around the knowledge that their next PC will be average or exceptional.

[Jave]

As I've said, I would just make the default lowest stat average. PCs are already exceptional. If your concept calls for you to have bad stats, people should spec-app in for that.

Well if you app a 14 year old expect strength to suck till you age up to 25-30. But with the obvious age modifier set aside ...

Making it so no one ever rolls a stat below average?  

I go back to my previous example: What can you say to a player at your D&D table when they tell you that their concept requires they not be able to have a single bad stat?

I'm sympathetic to, "Jeez, I rolled a 9 strength on my warrior dude ... that's like the primary stat of the class."
I'm less sympathetic to, "I rolled a 16 for strength, a 12 for dexterity, a 9 for wisdom, and a 13 for endurance but ... my concept calls for me not to have anything below average so I need my one weakness shored up."

[Jave]

Just to clarify, I totally get the emotional reaction.

I don't roll up a new PC, see two poor's a below average, and an average and get super excited at all the role play possibilities that's gonna generate either.

I wince and go: shit ... ok shit ... what can we do with this?

But after the initial sting wears off, I enjoy the character all the same. And those downs make the ups of rolling AI's all the more sweet.

[wizturbo]

I guess to be fair, I've never experienced a character where all of my rolls were average or below.  Maybe it's as bad as some people say...  But I've definitely dealt with characters who had low stats in pretty important areas.  They've always been more flavorful than the godly rolls I've had. 

Maybe just add a third re-roll for everyone, that isn't eligible for re-roll undo, as a last ditch, break the emergency glass solution for the improbable situation that both your roll and re-roll are awful.

[Jave]

I've only ever seen multiple poors on my characters when I play children and go in with the minimum age allowed for by chargen. In which case strength and endurance usually come out poor or below average and wisdom takes a hit as well (though agility usually rocks).

But I agree, after the initial sting wears off I've always enjoyed those desperate under dogs. Perhaps it's a perverse masochistic pleasure we share  

[BadSkeelz]

I'm sympathetic to, "Jeez, I rolled a 9 strength on my warrior dude ... that's like the primary stat of the class."
I'm less sympathetic to, "I rolled a 16 for strength, a 12 for dexterity, a 9 for wisdom, and a 13 for endurance but ... my concept calls for me not to have anything below average so I need my one weakness shored up."

Assuming that "9" is equivalent to poor and not average, yeah, that sucks. It's doable, I did it for years, but it's not something I'm really keen to play again.

But wisdom's a dump stat if you play enough.

If you get poor strength, endurance, or agility, it can be debilitating. Limited carrying (and armoring) capacity, hitting power, dodging ability, HP and stamina... Dealing with any one of those that's exceptionally low can be a chore.

If you get poor or below average rolls in two or more (entirely possible) then you may as well go >Kick the nearest templar PC.

Now, if the 9 in your example is equivalent to average, then there's no problem. Average stats in anything is workable.

[BadSkeelz]

Also, doesn't D&D work on a point buy system? Most other TT games I've played do. If you want an exceptional stat, you have to lower another one.

[Jave]

I was doing a D&D analogy so I was referencing D&D stat ranges actually. Where I think 12 is average? 9 is a little below? IIRC 9 is the number when you start getting penalties associated with rolls for that stat.

And again IIRC the point system is an alternate sort of house rule in D&D. It large still runs on rolling dice for stats as the norm.

[hopeandsorrow]

Just to clarify, I totally get the emotional reaction.

I don't roll up a new PC, see two poor's a below average, and an average and get super excited at all the role play possibilities that's gonna generate either.

I wince and go: shit ... ok shit ... what can we do with this?

But after the initial sting wears off, I enjoy the character all the same. And those downs make the ups of rolling AI's all the more sweet.

I can agree with this.

IF exceptional was normal, it cease being exceptional.

GREAT STATS(tm) are like a drug.  I had a roll on a character that literally made me high with his raw, out the door coded abilities.  Since then, every character stat roll I end up comparing to that.  It's perhaps unhealthy but it happens. 

I think (hope) that the discussion is trying to find the optimal solution (if possible) to remove the sting of bad stats, but maintain the high of great stats while trying to side set pure meta-gaming character building where it has no place.

Everyone remembers the two exceptional or time they got nothing below Good.  It's like having high quality meal one night, and every single night after that you're eating a frozen hungry man dangerously close to it sell by date.  You can't really complain, your eating... but you always compare it to the night you had Prime Rib.

[BadSkeelz]

Has anyone ever made a PC hoping they'll be exceptionally bad at anything physical? Has anyone ever desired a poor or below average stat?

[Marauder Moe]

My most disappointing stats:

Code Select Expand

Your strength is below average, your agility is below average,
  your wisdom is below average, and your endurance is exceptional.

This was on a mul that I spent a month of special application correspondence on.   

It really was pretty disappointing, but only for a little while.  Even though he was getting his butt kicked and failing to impress people with his supposed racial beastliness, playing him was pure awesome.  (Right up until an very untimely end by unfortunate sparring accident, but that's not relevant.)

[Jave]

Has anyone ever made a PC hoping they'll be exceptionally bad at anything physical? Has anyone ever desired a poor or below average stat?

I would imagine no.

But has anyone ever thought their stats were horrible and going to ruin their fun at the onset and then later looking back realized it wasn't so bad and actually, the poor stats drove some interesting RP that ended up being quite fun ... absolutely.

Does anyone then, after experiencing that ... hope their next PC has bad stats? Nooooope  

[Lizzie]

Another "what if we could actually make a change" possibility:

Based on a total point value of 100 per stat, preventing any possibility of all 4 stats being an AI (since I think 4 AIs is just as ridiculous as 4 Poors)

Your roll would equal only 300 points total, randomized with or without prioritization, as you chose it.

Then you can allocate another 25 points to any stat you want, in any combination assuming whole numbers, as long as that value doesn't exceed 100 (which would be the top of AI).

So if you had

str = 65 + agi = 80 + end = 70 + wis = 85 = 300

You can add 25 points to str, resulting in a str roll of 90 (that's still AI, but it's the beginning of it not the top) -<---edited cause maths
Or you could add just 10 to str to make 75, then add 5 to wis, then 20 to end resulting in str 75, agi 80, end 80, wis 90 (like if you were playing a mindbender/crafter, for example)

The initial 300 would be exclusive of racial bonuses, and the actual final roll would be whatever it is, after you leave the hall of kings.

No rerolls, if you choose to do it this way. If you choose the traditional random roll or random + prioritize without 25-point allocation, you could still reroll.

[BadSkeelz]

Has anyone ever made a PC hoping they'll be exceptionally bad at anything physical? Has anyone ever desired a poor or below average stat?

I would imagine no.

But has anyone ever thought their stats were horrible and going to ruin their fun at the onset and then later looking back realized it wasn't so bad and actually, the poor stats drove some interesting RP that ended up being quite fun ... absolutely.

Does anyone then, after experiencing that ... hope their next PC has bad stats? Nooooope  

Take the number of PCs that toughed it out, and compare them to the number of PCs that had very abrupt deaths out of character gen. If the former outweigh the latter, great. If the latter are more prevalent, well.....

[Jave]

Take the number of PCs that toughed it out, and compare them to the number of PCs that had very abrupt deaths out of character gen. If the former outweigh the latter, great. If the latter are more prevalent, well.....

Now we're into the territory of folks habitually suicide'ing for better stats. We typically note that on accounts if we see it, and it factors negatively into karma assessments in the sense that we're reluctant to give out roles with a lot of coded power to players who seem to care more about having said power than portraying a character realistically. Players who want the coded power that badly probably want it for a reason ... and unfortunately that reason is often: to grief other players with. -- It may be a one bad apple spoils the bunch situation but, it is what it is  

ETA: Sorry, my reasoning for mentioning that is just to explain that we do watch for it. And from what I've seen so far the number of people derping into the silt sea for a stat reroll isn't all that big of an issue. Our player base seems more inclined to tough it out and roll with the punches than rage quit.

[Riev]

I will say, even though its not the side I agree with, that the "random point generator" method of creating a PC is very ancient in today's gaming standards. Roll 5 toss lowest, roll dice for each stat, etc etc was great with DnD but I think it might be time to look at the 20year old system we have now.

Also I like rerolls.

[whitt]

Back when I played muds on an abacus, gemstone used to let you re-roll to your heart's content. 

I could see additional re-rolls being granted here as well if the maximum achievable stat was lowered each time after the first.  So, if you had some really bad stats and got hosed on the next re-roll?  It'd still be worth trying again, but you couldn't just spam re-rolls to all exceptional stats.

[Alesan]

Back when I played muds on an abacus, gemstone used to let you re-roll to your heart's content. 

I could see additional re-rolls being granted here as well if the maximum achievable stat was lowered each time after the first.  So, if you had some really bad stats and got hosed on the next re-roll?  It'd still be worth trying again, but you couldn't just spam re-rolls to all exceptional stats.

That sounds like a good idea to me.

[RogueGunslinger]

What if it narrowed things on both ends with each roll. So you would basically always have a good chance of average stats. But if you get a mix of high and low, you may want to keep it. Still leaves possibility for having bad stats, but not all of them being low(which I admit is already somewhat rare. And then people could still have godly stat rolls as well, as long as they don't re-roll more than once.


Also I think this would probably mean no more reroll undo.

[BadSkeelz]

Get 2 rerolls as normal. Reroll a third time and you get average stats across the board and that's it.

[Delirium]

Just to clarify, I totally get the emotional reaction.

I don't roll up a new PC, see two poor's a below average, and an average and get super excited at all the role play possibilities that's gonna generate either.

I wince and go: shit ... ok shit ... what can we do with this?

But after the initial sting wears off, I enjoy the character all the same. And those downs make the ups of rolling AI's all the more sweet.

People make fun of the whole "oh yeah, well, my favorite character had shitty stats" trope but... what if that's actually true?

Seriously. The character I still miss the most to this day had horrible stats.

Shatuka had barely above average strength... mediocre everything else... and she's still my second-favorite PC.

Just... I dunno, guys. Get over it. Play your character, warts and all. If you take some risks, get involved where appropriate, or at the very least, tell a compelling story, even if it's just for yourself... you are gonna have fun. If you feel like you need to win your scenarios as opposed to simply presenting and representing your scenarios... well you're gonna have a bad time.

Downing on people who are trying to say "just friggin' roleplay" and acting like that's somehow elitist in a roleplaying game.. is self-defeatist at best.

[wizturbo]

Get 2 rerolls as normal. Reroll a third time and you get average stats across the board and that's it.

Yeah, I like this the most.  A break the emergency glass, oh shit button you can press if both your roll and re-roll are abyssmal....  You get stuck with average stats, but that should be playable.

If coding that button is difficult though, a 3rd re-roll without the option to re-roll undo could work too.... the odds of getting 3 "unplayable" rolls would make the chances of this happening extremely low.  There's even some merit to having that 3rd "I feel lucky" button to push if you just wanna roll the dice some more, without a safety net to go back

[Delirium]

I should clarify I'm not against a point-buy system. But I am against the idea that somehow people deserve all-good stats all the time.

A point buy system would actually make it insanely difficult to get all-awesome stats across the board so - whatever.

[RogueGunslinger]

Just to clarify, I totally get the emotional reaction.

I don't roll up a new PC, see two poor's a below average, and an average and get super excited at all the role play possibilities that's gonna generate either.

I wince and go: shit ... ok shit ... what can we do with this?

But after the initial sting wears off, I enjoy the character all the same. And those downs make the ups of rolling AI's all the more sweet.

People make fun of the whole "oh yeah, well, my favorite character had shitty stats" trope but... what if that's actually true?

Seriously. The character I still miss the most to this day had horrible stats.

Shatuka had barely above average strength... mediocre everything else... and she's still my second-favorite PC.

Just... I dunno, guys. Get over it. Play your character, warts and all. If you take some risks, get involved where appropriate, or at the very least, tell a compelling story, even if it's just for yourself... you are gonna have fun. If you feel like you need to win your scenarios as opposed to simply presenting and representing your scenarios... well you're gonna have a bad time.

Downing on people who are trying to say "just friggin' roleplay" and acting like that's somehow elitist in a roleplaying game.. is self-defeatist at best.

Coming to a coded discussion thread to talk about how everything is fine if you roleplay without regards to the code seems a bit... I don't know? Silly?

[Delirium]

This is an RPI MUD. You can't, or shouldn't, totally divorce code from roleplay. Vice versa.

[CodeMaster]

Some disorganized thoughts:

1. If the NPC world was ten times deadlier, the effect would be that PCs would be squashed into a narrower effective range.  People don't care about that though, they care about how they measure up to other PCs.

2. Not against point-buy, but I appreciate people pointing out how it would be difficult to combat "sameness".  Point-buy also actually seems like huge challenge in this game because all the stats are so idiosyncratic.  For instance I think strength and endurance suffer far less from diminishing returns than wisdom does -- so how do you accommodate for that in a simple, unified points system?

3. I especially wouldn't mind point buy if some unpopular stats (hey you wisdom) got buffed up a bit.  If wisdom above a certain threshold allowed you to learn from "successes" and decreased the costs/lags associated with using the Way, you can bet it would be hard not to buy some up to that threshold.

[edit: whenever I write something like point 3, a couple months later I discover how wrong I was and that stat X is actually awesome if you know factoid Y about it.  So I'm ready to eat my words]

4. Some see the time they put into strengthening their PC as an investment.  I know roleplay is central to this game, but nevertheless this viewpoint is totally reasonable to me.  So I sympathize when I hear stories about new characters with better stats coming along and cheapening that sense of investment.

[Majikal]

The more I think about it, the more we could definitely break up some of the stats. I saw a few people suggest it.

Wisdom could definitely be split into Wisdom/Perception. Currently I see Wisdom more like Perception anyway in terms of code. I'm one of the players that don't RP my character based off my WIS and it's GENERALLY my dump stat. As far as skills that benefit from high wisdom it's fairly obvious, psionic stuff, magick stuff, and then perception stuff. This could easily be split down the middle.

Agility could be broken into Agility/speed or Dexterity or whatever. Agility being more combat defense, speed and defensive skills skills while dexterity appeals more towards steal/lockpick/climb/sneak/hide/archery. Currently the code kind of suggests that if you can run really fast, you'd be good at shooting a bow and picking locks.

[Bogre]

No point buy.

[Majikal]

No point buy.

Point buy.

Checkmate Bogre.

[Hauwke]

I dont think I have ever suicided a character because "lulz bad stats" I usually play for a bit and end up dying anyway cos I suck at code knowledges.

[Lizzie]

I dont think I have ever suicided a character because "lulz bad stats" I usually play for a bit and end up dying anyway cos I suck at code knowledges.

Yeah I've never suicided because of bad stats. I did suicide because I made the stupid newbie mistake of rolling up an Allanak burglar and walking to Red Storm right before a 4-day "tremendous storm" rolled in. That's 4 real days. I suicided the 3rd day and it was still raging when I rolled up a ranger the day after

[Harmless]

I like that some characters are just better.  They won the genetic lottery.  They have greater potential.  All the other chumps have to work harder, kill them, or accept living in their shadow.  It's exciting when you play such a character and thematic when you don't.  Equality has never been a theme of this game, after all.

this I like too, but we can have this with point buy also. You ended up with less total points, distribute accordingly.

[Qzzrbl]

I'm all for a point-buy system.

I'll admit I've sent fresh boots off to a bath in the Silt Sea (who hasn't? let's be real) in the past because of some unfortunate rolls, and I've played with a <poor-stat-that-isn't-wisdom> glaring at me from the score command and had fun with it. The determining factor that decides whether or not I go AFK in the salt flats is something along the lines of "do these stats fit my character?".  It really comes down to that. Building my character the way I want my character to be built, free from the tyrannical rule of RNJesus.

As far as arguments towards "optimal builds" with a point-buy system-- let's not kid ourselves here. Anyone who's played long enough has at least some idea of what "optimal prioritizations/age/guild/race/etc." are, depending on what kind of role you're going for.

Hell, let's just have both? Point-buys for folks that want it, and the current system which would allow chances for a bit more or a bit less points overall allowed by the point-buy system?

Leave the gambling to the gamblers.

[ShowClear]

What I prefer would be to leave it for staff to assign appropriate stats during approval based upon race/desc/background of your character and keep that hidden to view from the player. And skills should also stay hidden, only there should be an echo to indicate  when improving or branching.

[jstorrie]

I don't mind at all that characters vary in overall statted-ness. I just want fine-grain control over whatever sum of stats my guy does get, whether he's mediocre or elected-by-destiny.

[boog]

A 'range' of points you start with would be fine with me. I just like being able to allocate them myself. I'd rather be average across the board than have an above average and like, two poors.

Anyway! Points.

[Majikal]

What I prefer would be to leave it for staff to assign appropriate stats during approval based upon race/desc/background of your character and keep that hidden to view from the player. And skills should also stay hidden, only there should be an echo to indicate  when improving or branching.

Tall muscular men EVERYWHERE!

[Saellyn]

What I prefer would be to leave it for staff to assign appropriate stats during approval based upon race/desc/background of your character and keep that hidden to view from the player. And skills should also stay hidden, only there should be an echo to indicate  when improving or branching.

You... you MADMAN!

[Delirium]

What I prefer would be to leave it for staff to assign appropriate stats during approval based upon race/desc/background of your character and keep that hidden to view from the player. And skills should also stay hidden, only there should be an echo to indicate  when improving or branching.

Heh, if some people's staff persecution complexes are bad now...

[Synthesis]

1.  You get a certain number of base points in each stat based on your PC's age (basically the minimum stat possible for that age and stat).
2.  You get a roll, a reroll, and a reroll undo for extra points.
3.  You distribute those extra points how you like.

There will still be awesome PCs and shitty PCs.  Barring a wildly low double-whammy roll/reroll, there will be no more hulking men with average strength.  I really don't see what the problem is.

[wizturbo]

1.  You get a certain number of base points in each stat based on your PC's age (basically the minimum stat possible for that age and stat).
2.  You get a roll, a reroll, and a reroll undo for extra points.
3.  You distribute those extra points how you like.

There will still be awesome PCs and shitty PCs.  Barring a wildly low double-whammy roll/reroll, there will be no more hulking men with average strength.  I really don't see what the problem is.

Pretty simple to see the problem.   Random rolls create significantly more scarcity than point buys because of "dump stats".   In a point buy system, you can have an AI strength with just about any roll you get, if you're willing to sacrifice another stat to pay for it.  

That means people will optimize their characters, and we'll see a massive number of AI strength warriors, AI wisdom magickers, AI agility Pickpockets, etc...  Essentially the new normal will be maxxed core stat.  If we go with the "you roll to see how many points you get" methodology, then the only variation will be how many extra points you managed to roll to boost your other non-core scores.

No matter how you slice it, if you take the RNG out of achieving max scores, you're going to see max scores significantly more often.  This happens in literally every D&D game I've ever played with a point buy system, and I don't see any reason it would be any different in Armageddon...  

I for one want an AI stat to mean that character is actually absolutely incredible relative to other characters.  If 30% of all warriors have AI strength, then it isn't AI strength anymore, it's just slightly above average...



This is true even if you give players relatively few points to allocate.  
For instance, let's say stats range from 1-10 points, with very poor being 1, and 10 being AI.   All players start with this:

Code Select Expand


Strength - 1
Agility - 1
Endurance - 1
Wisdom - 1

You may allocate 16 additional points, up to a score of 10 (AI) in a given stat.  


If players allocate all 12 points evenly, they'd have average scores, and would suck pretty badly at combat:

Code Select Expand


Strength - 5 (Average)
Agility - 5 (Average)
Endurance - 5 (Average)
Wisdom - 5 (Average)


If they allocate it like this, however, they'd be pretty damn formidable.

Code Select Expand


Strength - 10 (Absolutely Incredible)
Agility - 4 (below average)
Endurance - 5 (average)
Wisdom - 1 (very poor)


Guess which point buy players are going to choose?  Of course, you can create systems where there are diminishing returns, but depending on how you tune those systems you create a situation where either no one chooses a max score because it's too expensive, or many still chooses a max score, because unless literally every stat is equally balanced for combat there is going to be an optimized distribution to be the best.  

[Synthesis]

1.  You get a certain number of base points in each stat based on your PC's age (basically the minimum stat possible for that age and stat).
2.  You get a roll, a reroll, and a reroll undo for extra points.
3.  You distribute those extra points how you like.

There will still be awesome PCs and shitty PCs.  Barring a wildly low double-whammy roll/reroll, there will be no more hulking men with average strength.  I really don't see what the problem is.

Pretty simple to see the problem.   Random rolls create significantly more scarcity than point buys because of "dump stats".   In a point buy system, you can have an AI strength with just about any roll you get, if you're willing to sacrifice another stat to pay for it.  

That means people will optimize their characters, and we'll see a massive number of AI strength warriors, AI wisdom magickers, AI agility Pickpockets, etc...  Essentially the new normal will be maxxed core stat.  If we go with the "you roll to see how many points you get" methodology, then the only variation will be how many extra points you managed to roll to boost your other non-core scores.

No matter how you slice it, if you take the RNG out of achieving max scores, you're going to see max scores significantly more often.  This happens in literally every D&D game I've ever played with a point buy system, and I don't see any reason it would be any different in Armageddon...  

I for one want an AI stat to mean that character is actually absolutely incredible relative to other characters.  If 30% of all warriors have AI strength, then it isn't AI strength anymore, it's just slightly above average...

There's a simple solution to that:  make every point above "average" cost progressively more points to get the increase, then make sure the RNG very rarely rolls you enough points to even get a single AI by that method.  So if you really want an AI, you have to either a) get a godly roll or b) get an awesome roll and cripple your other stats.

I mean, it wouldn't be difficult to code whatever distribution you want to see, and player choices are more or less predictable, so...it's just a technical problem.  It's only an absolute problem if you lack the imagination to implement it properly.

For example:

Let's say the stat range for human everything is on a 20-point scale.
Poor=1-2
Below=3-4
Average=5-8
Above=9-10
Good=11-12
Vgood=13-14
Egood=15-16
Exc=17-18
AI=19-20

As an adult human warrior, your minimum stats are:
4 str
1 wis
2 agi
4 end

Now, the RNG should be able to give you any roll from zero extra points to (enough extra points to AI every single stat).  However, we want an AI in -any- single stat to be difficult to achieve...so, first, we have to figure out how many points it should take to get from below to AI.  This will be at -least- 15 points on the RNG, if we simply do a 1:1 extra-point:stat-point ratio with linear progression.

For example purposes, let's make it so that every additional stat "level" doubles the number of points it takes to advance within that level.

So to get from adult-warrior-minimum 4 str to the lowest AI (19), it would take 4 points to get to max-average, plus another 4 points to get to max-above, plus 8 points to get to max-good, plus 16 points to get to max vgood, plus 32 points to get to max egood, plus 64 points to get to max exc, plus 64 points to get to 19.  That's 192 points! And your final roll will be:
AI str
poor wis
poor agi
below end

That creates a rather large incentive not to even attempt to max out a single stat, unless your character concept really requires it, because you're essentially wasting points.  Obviously there will still be dump stats, but for a warrior, agility and endurance are not so useless that you could completely ignore them to such an extent, especially if you only got 50 extra points on your roll and reroll.

For example, if you got exactly 192 points, you could spend:
64 points to get to max egood (15 strength)
66 points to get to max egood agility (15 agility)
48 points to get to min egood end (14 endurance)
And you still have 14 points you can throw into  wisdom, which gets you to above-average wisdom.

If there's anyone who would rather play:
AI str, poor wis, poor agi, below end
Than:
egood str, egood agi, egood end, above wis

...you're either supremely dedicated to your concept, or you're being newbish.

[wizturbo]

Obviously a diminishing returns progressive model would be better than a flat one, but I still prefer the status quo, or adding an additional "emergency" re-roll would be better.

I guess ultimately it's a 45%/55% split on the issue though, if you want to go by the poll, so it's a pretty polarizing topic.

[Drayab]

The question is poorly worded, anyway. It asks what people would choose if given a choice, not which one is best for the game.

[Beethoven]

I'm torn. I am afraid of the minmaxing and meta that might result from a point buy system, but I like being able to tailor your stats to your concept a little more than you can now.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

I like prioritizing, doing endurance agility strength wisdom. Strength I don't need, Endurance I love, wisdom I want things to take as long as possible to learn because I want something mindless to do for as long as possible during downtime.

[wizturbo]

Okay, here's a possible solution.  What if some subguilds modify stats in lieu of skills?

Want to be extra strong?  Pick the Strong subguild, which gives you +2 strength, but that's all.  Want to be extra agile?  Pick the Agile subguild, which gives +2 agility...  Etc.  

I think that's a real trade off, because losing a subguild for any guild is a pretty big sacrifice.  There is no "dump" subguild, even for guilds that have a lot of skills like ranger, you stand a lot to gain from a subguild.  Then again, you stand a lot to gain from +2 strength too.  It pretty much guarantees very good or above on a prioritized stat with the appropriate age parameters, even on a set of really crappy rolls.  On a set of decent rolls, you're pretty likely to get an exceptional or AI.

Part of me thinks that even this would suck, as it would make AI characters much more common than they are today...  But I'm kind of okay with it, because without a subguild they're more specialized characters.  Having a really buff warrior without subguild skills is definitely distinct from an average one that has those options.  The min-maxer side of me is having a lot of trouble deciding which option is better....which is probably a good sign that it would be balanced

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

I like wizturbo's idea. Honestly, I would expect a soldier in real life to be stronger than me, even one from a relatively ineffective military in regards to training, so I should expect the same of most soldiers and the troopers who are in there for the long haul.

[Lizzie]

Okay, here's a possible solution.  What if some subguilds modify stats in lieu of skills?

Want to be extra strong?  Pick the Strong subguild, which gives you +2 strength, but that's all.  Want to be extra agile?  Pick the Agile subguild, which gives +2 agility...  Etc.  

I think that's a real trade off, because losing a subguild for any guild is a pretty big sacrifice.  There is no "dump" subguild, even for guilds that have a lot of skills like ranger, you stand a lot to gain from a subguild.  Then again, you stand a lot to gain from +2 strength too.  It pretty much guarantees very good or above on a prioritized stat with the appropriate age parameters, even on a set of really crappy rolls.  On a set of decent rolls, you're pretty likely to get an exceptional or AI.

Part of me thinks that even this would suck, as it would make AI characters much more common than they are today...  But I'm kind of okay with it, because without a subguild they're more specialized characters.  Having a really buff warrior without subguild skills is definitely distinct from an average one that has those options.  The min-maxer side of me is having a lot of trouble deciding which option is better....which is probably a good sign that it would be balanced

You can already do that, without giving up a subguild.

Warrior/armorcrafter, +1 strength, +2 agi

It's a CGP app and if "ur doin it right" you'll have that character long enough that you'll be able to app another one by the time that one dies/stores.

[wizturbo]

Are you sure Lizzie?  I don't think you can get stat bumps from CGP...only skills.  A full on special app you could get improved stats with I suppose, but I don't think I'd do that often, if at all.  I save those for special snowflake characters that can't be done any other way.

[BadSkeelz]

I think Lizzie's alluding to the purported fact that guild and subguild affect stat values.

[wizturbo]

I was pretty sure that main guild had some effect, but not subguild...  hmm.

[Lizzie]

Actually no I was mistaken - it's individual skill bumps you can get, not stat bumps. But - you can get them in addition to picking a normal subguild - so perhaps there'd be an option to getting a stat bump too. Though - stats -do- change during your character's life.