Randomized Stats and the Strength Stat (not just encumbrance)

[Kryos]

I've been seeing hints and outright statements of the notion that if you want to fight things, you better have strength.  I, for one, am convinced a good strength wins(the combat game).  I cannot claim to have had sterile testing environments in which to conduct experiments where equal skill, different stat bodies slug it out and I observe and record the result over a period, however, I can claim to be reasonably capable of fleshing out systems working before me and understanding them.  I also hate that stats are randomized in Armageddon with so little refining by the PC.  

My experience in observing the armageddon combat system has repeatedly beat me over the head with 'go strength stupid'.  Don't get me wrong, agility is great, endurance is pretty useful, and if you want to be that guy who everyone says(or thinks) 'oh crap' when they roll up, you probably want all of them to be pretty high.  I've played characters with stats so good I didn't believe they were real, and they went off to do things that made me question how I ever functioned with those who didn't have certain levels of stats.  And with at least one so bad I even put in a request to hopefully make him more playable.  It didn't come to fruition.  Sadly, he was kersplatted by a duskhorn that he couldn't flee from before the attack command delay expired and it just exploded him.  I can't say I was sad to see him go, though I did have flee in the command queue.

These sorts over observations over the years, and a lot, lot more detailed ones that I won't go on about have lead me to believe there's two current problems with stats in Armageddon.  Strength is just way too gosh darn good in the combat engine, even with . . . er. . . shall we call it predictable incremental increases to damage output potential(PIIDOP).  This may change a bit with modifiers to how skills grow, so I'm adding that caveat.  But at the lower levels of combat skill, PIIDOP are insufficient to come close to bridging the gap between strength scores by two readable levels, and might, maybe, depending on the comparisons, impact at the middle ranges.  But that high strength guy is getting them too.  And she's more accurate than you.

So, the first problem I'm identifying is a perception that I would stand behind 100% that strength is just too valuable, and that elves and humans specifically better hope for the highest 10th percentiles of strength to be in the 'oh shit' category before a long, long, long time in their careers.  

The solution I'm offering is that for middle levels of strength, modification is done to tie less of damage in combat to strength and more to skill.  Or perhaps that skill is required to larger impacts of the strength score in damage.  For the mul - giantish levels of strength, perhaps this skill lock should be less severe, especially for the hg ranges.  What do you think?

The second is that Armageddon uses random stats with a one shot reroll.  This just sucks.  I could go off on a diatribe about the archaic nature of random stat generation in gaming and its roots in inequality and power structures in early gaming, but I think I'll just stick to it sucks, and a few suggestions and a chumming the waters for the input of others on solutions.  

The first solution is a reversion to the old school method I experienced when I fist popped into Armageddon.  You got to roll 10 times, sequentially, and could stop on a set you liked and fire off your PC.  You could not revert.  This meant that anyone who wanted decent stats could have decent stats, held an element of risk if you were greedy, and that sort of odd rush we achievers get in character gen when a sweet attribute line pops up.  I can't say without knowing numbers and running a few calculations if 10 iterations is the optimal distribution or not to avoid inflation of stat values and so on, but more than 1 probably is, especially when you end up staring at a stat line that does not match your character concept in the slightest.  And despite recording the returns on character stats for a good sampling of mine and making some inferences from such data, that enigma some times comes and surprises me to this day.

That being said, there is some fun and enjoyment in randomized stat pools.  Some inspiration and spark when they are better than expected but equally frustration and confusion when they are lower than expected or deviant from your inputted desires.  I can't say I advocate removing randomization, at least without overhauling the entire chargen process.  But I do advocate a change.  Rollling the four totals between 2-5 times and then assigning them is one, a sequence of non-returnable rolls mentioned above is another.

What do you think on random stats?

Tl/dr  Another wall of text brought to you by Kryos, enjoy.

[Lizzie]

This one example you gave here:

Sadly, he was kersplatted by a duskhorn that he couldn't flee from before the attack command delay expired and it just exploded him.  I can't say I was sad to see him go, though I did have flee in the command queue.

Even if he had AI strength, he would've lost. Your agility was too low to flee fast enough, and your raw defense was too low to survive the attack. Had nothing to do with strength.

Strength isn't the end-all-be-all to combat in Arm. It's important, but it won't mean much if your other stats, plus skill training, weapon and armor type, and raw defense offense aren't at least at a serviceable level, combined.

A "below average" strength, combined with EG agility, a good month's worth of daily or near-daily training for a half hour or more per (real-life) day on something (or someone) that provides an actual challenge, at least some manner of armor, while not encumbering you too much that it slows you down, with a decent (not necessarily awesome) and appropriate weapon, and quick hand-eye coordination/reflexes to manipulate the keyboard would've won you that carru. I know, because I've done it meany times with a below-average strength character.

Having played with a "less than good-strength" character many times, I can say at least for me, it hasn't stopped me from "winning" in combat.

[Jingo]

Thanks kryos for the Unnecessarily Large Wall of Analytic Text (ULWAT).

I haven't ever liked stats ever (except when I roll gud). But they are often aggravating for me as I try to play characters that are half-elves and elves.

I see two problems.

Strength is bullshit.

I played an elf with poor strength once. It made me want to claw my eyes out. You can't puncture the skin of a skeet. You put a tunic on and suddenly you're at "manageble". I had to beg staff to work with me on tweaking my stats.

Random stat rolls are bullshit.

The variance is just too damn big. The difference in potentiality for a character with poor to average stats and a character with very-good to exceptional stats is huge. Seriously I had a half-elf with 60hp. A CHARACTER OF MINE HAD 60 HP. My current character has 120+ and is human.

[Harmless]

whenever I'm playing a character with abhorrent stats, I think I enjoy it fine, but I sure don't attempt to play them as combatants. That's why guild_merchant, burglars, pickpockets, and magickers are my favorite PCs in general. The ones I stick with and get kudos for especially.

The worst is being a middling human or elf, with average stats. The mediocrity (not necessarily pathetically low, i.e. the best stat is a 'very good') is a total bore. You can predict that you'll get powned at some point in the middle point of the career. So that is awful.

I do wish that there was an ability to tinker with your stats to help make something out of lemons.

[Jihelu]

Poor human strength wont puncture rat skin but it will injure other humans most times which is kinda fucking weird.

[Jingo]

A "below average" strength, combined with EG agility, a good month's worth of daily or near-daily training for a half hour or more per (real-life) day on something (or someone) that provides an actual challenge, at least some manner of armor, while not encumbering you too much that it slows you down, with a decent (not necessarily awesome) and appropriate weapon, and quick hand-eye coordination/reflexes to manipulate the keyboard would've won you that carru. I know, because I've done it meany times with a below-average strength character.

I agree and I think most players do the above when they roll poorly.

However, if I didn't have 8 karma; what would stop me from suiciding until I got a good roll? Especially knowing that it could save me a month of work and all the encumbrance related headaches?

[Large Hero]

The "roll random stats until I like my roll" system is pretty bad. All it does is force people to sit and roll until they get good stats. That sort of thing is better suited for a single player game like the Baldur's Gate series. (However, "roll random stats until I like my roll" kind of already exists in Armageddon - in the form of people who suicide characters until they get a good roll.)

I think Point Buy is the best system for Armageddon.

Point Buy would let the people who think Strength is awesome prioritize Strength. It'd let the people who love Agility prioritize Agility. It'd let the people who want balance find balance.

Some might say - if we have Point Buy, everyone will be the same! We'll lose the Mystery and Immersion gained from giving some characters huge advantages, and others huge disadvantages, out of character generation!

To solve that problem, allow a one time random adjustment in character generation.

The process would look like this:

1. Generate character with Point Buy.
2. Do you want to apply a random adjustment to your character? (Might be positive, might be negative.)
3. If yes, apply random adjustment.
4. Done. Character stats must now be accepted and are ready for play.

IIRC, the current Staff Opinion is that prioritizing stats, along with customizing your age, height and weight, provides enough control to players.

[Jingo]

IIRC, the current Staff Opinion is that prioritizing stats, along with customizing your age, height and weight, provides enough control to players.

This is one thing I don't like. It doesn't adequately address the problems as I see them above. Reroll + stat priorities isn't going to help you when your special app comes out with 60hp anyways.

[Warsong]

It's not technically unrealistic that strength is so superior. Isn't that basically how it is in reality? Being physically strong has, historically, been the best feature of a warrior. Now, that's also because being strong in real life also makes you tougher, faster and all sorts of things that aren't really reflected in code, so in reality, while being fast can be just as important in fighting, being strong is closely related to being fast. You can be fast without being overly muscular, but being strong lets you swing a weapon quickly, leap further, and so on. I think it's fair to say that there's biological and historical justification for the prominence of physical strength. It just stands to reason. It doesn't need to be a flaw of the game. It feels a bit unbalanced from a gamist perspective, but... them's the breaks? As long as we can pick strength to be our highest stat, I think it's okay.

The fact that the advanced races are both designed around immense physical strength is where the potential problem comes in, because this just makes them so outrageously powerful that it can get a bit stupid. There's no advanced race centered around other stats. I guess there used to be halflings, but that's a thing of the past and I've never certainly played one or even encountered halfling PCs in my time, so I can't really say how well their coded power stacked up to half-giants and muls. But the fact remains that the advanced races only really offer strength. There's no super-agile counterpart to half-giants, there's no very high-karma race with sky-high wisdom to give magickers an equivalent to muls. It's just strength for your warrior or ranger. If you're not into playing mages, that's the extent of what your lofty karma can grant you: a character with absurdly high strength. That makes it feel even more as if the whole stat-game revolves around strength.

Stat randomization is something I hate. I dearly wish that Armageddon didn't have a stat system that allowed for two otherwise identical characters to have such a variation in total stats. A bit of randomization, sure; but to the point where one character can have literally twice as many total stat points as another of the same race, guild and age? I don't think there's any point. It just creates an arbitrary inequality between characters, one that isn't determined by your actions or social standing or how well you've done for yourself. It incentivizes having, ah, unfortunate accidents with characters that rolled badly, and thus makes it so that those who don't do that are indirectly penalized because others might do so and raise the average.

You're very unlikely to roll such bad stats that your character can't be played, but there's something really souring about pouring your inspiration into a concept and then coming out the other end with VG/AA/BA/Av. Especially when Amos over there got EX/EG/AA/VG with the same race/guild/age as you, having done absolutely nothing to deserve a vastly superior character. His character is not only codedly better but also much more likely to survive a long life and enable fantastic roleplaying opportunities, become someone of note, and generally be a better character to play even in areas where your stats don't directly matter. I see no reason why this is a good thing. It's a game. Why inject arbitrary disappointment into it where it isn't needed? Stats matter so much for a character's potential that it shouldn't be such a complete crapshoot.

In my opinion, total stats should be relatively static. Let's say every character begins with a pool of, say, 50 stat points. You then prioritize your stats and the game arranges this pool of 50 into four chunks of random size, assigns them in your designated order, and applies the bonuses or penalties for race, guild and age. This feels like a much better system to me. Then, if you didn't get great strength, you got something else instead. You didn't just get fucked over and handed an objectively inferior character for literally no reason other than pure bad luck. I'd enjoy the game much more that way, as someone who plays mundane go-getters who rely a lot on their stats and can't fall back on magick or sponsored role features.

[valeria]

This is another one of those things that I don't think needs to be changed.  I'll go into why later (it has to do with how not everyone should be good at everything, and how when you knock what is actually average upward it doesn't make people stop thinking they're disadvantaged, it just knocks the level at which that happens upward a la "oh man I only got 'good', this character's gonna suck"), but for right now I have to go shovel my driveway so I can get to work 

[Kryos]

This one example you gave here:

Sadly, he was kersplatted by a duskhorn that he couldn't flee from before the attack command delay expired and it just exploded him.  I can't say I was sad to see him go, though I did have flee in the command queue.

Even if he had AI strength, he would've lost. Your agility was too low to flee fast enough, and your raw defense was too low to survive the attack. Had nothing to do with strength.

Strength isn't the end-all-be-all to combat in Arm. It's important, but it won't mean much if your other stats, plus skill training, weapon and armor type, and raw defense offense aren't at least at a serviceable level, combined.

A "below average" strength, combined with EG agility, a good month's worth of daily or near-daily training for a half hour or more per (real-life) day on something (or someone) that provides an actual challenge, at least some manner of armor, while not encumbering you too much that it slows you down, with a decent (not necessarily awesome) and appropriate weapon, and quick hand-eye coordination/reflexes to manipulate the keyboard would've won you that carru. I know, because I've done it meany times with a below-average strength character.

Having played with a "less than good-strength" character many times, I can say at least for me, it hasn't stopped me from "winning" in combat.

This is going to come off curt, and I think I want it to.  My jimmies were slightly rustled by what I read.  But it is not mean spirited.

I'm going to state this clearly:  most of what you posted here is flat out wrong, and for varying reasons.  1)  It wasn't a carru:  it was a duskhorn.  2) I've had characters with high str and about the same agility flatten duskhorns with the same time played, or get away using the same form of engagement I did here.  Thus, your statement is wrong. 3) You are commenting on an experience you didn't participate in and offering this kind of criticism, which is questionable to start.  4) A character with extremely good strength and the same stats/skills as your below average would decimate you, as proven again, and again, and again through empirical data collected by me.  5) I said in the original post that other stats matter too. 6) It was in the same paragraph as you snipped that from.

I'm glad to have opposition opinions, or alternative ones to chew on.  In a way I covet it.  But this didn't seem like you bothered to read the whole of what I offered before putting up an argument against it.  That's what rustled my jimmies.

[Kryos]

This is another one of those things that I don't think needs to be changed.  I'll go into why later (it has to do with how not everyone should be good at everything, and how when you knock what is actually average upward it doesn't make people stop thinking they're disadvantaged, it just knocks the level at which that happens upward a la "oh man I only got 'good', this character's gonna suck"), but for right now I have to go shovel my driveway so I can get to work  

I noted the fear of inflation of stat values in my original post, suggesting this is perhaps why the iteration system I first encountered may have been flawed.  However, my main, personal concern was getting the stats that fit your concept.  Some times that does not happen, and some times in a very demotivating way.  Additionally, that strength is too valuable.

It's not technically unrealistic that strength is so superior. Isn't that basically how it is in reality? Being physically strong has, historically, been the best feature of a warrior. Now, that's also because being strong in real life also makes you tougher, faster and all sorts of things that aren't really reflected in code, so in reality, while being fast can be just as important in fighting, being strong is closely related to being fast. You can be fast without being overly muscular, but being strong lets you swing a weapon quickly, leap further, and so on. I think it's fair to say that there's biological and historical justification for the prominence of physical strength. It just stands to reason. It doesn't need to be a flaw of the game. It feels a bit unbalanced from a gamist perspective, but... them's the breaks? As long as we can pick strength to be our highest stat, I think it's okay.

Being someone who has fought, and often consulting another who has and does fight in an armed style, I put forth a measure of disagreement.  Strength has a weird effect on fighting, but it is NOT required to be absolutely deadly.  Truth be told, the people I feared the most in a fight were the ones with fast foot speeds and hand speeds, regardless of their strength applications.  That being said, wielding an obsidian tooth staggered bone is a bit different than steel, and its a game.  However, my main concern isn't a parallel to real life, but game balance.

In a system where defense will fail you almost certainly, a single stat controlling accuracy and damage and with massive disparities in its range is a danger, or at least an annoyance in my opinion.

[Marauder Moe]

Time for this one again, eh?

[Jingo]

Sorry Warsong. I stopped reading at "reality". Realistically strength wouldn't be as huge factor in combat so much as training the right muscles to work the right way. Which would mean that once you trained with a sword for an arbitrary amount of time, you would have the strength to wield that sword as hard as anyone else.

it has to do with how not everyone should be good at everything,

Well I'll play the chump character when I want to play the chump character. Not when I don't.

and how when you knock what is actually average upward it doesn't make people stop thinking they're disadvantaged

I agree that this is not the way to solve the problem. But note that this is effectively the end result of the current solutions we have. Reroll and stat priorities all let players to roll for better and more effective stats.

This is another one of those things that I don't think needs to be changed.

Of course it doesn't -need- to be changed. The current system works and has worked for 20 years. But that doesn't mean that the current system doesn't influence the behavior of players in negative ways. Either through the cycling of pcs for better stats or just prioritizing one and only one option every character.

And yeah, with the current thresholds there are some borderline unplayable rolls you can make. See 60hp half-elf and poor strength elf.

Just because it doesn't need to be changed, doesn't mean it can't be changed for the better.

[Kryos]

Time for this one again, eh?

If a wheel keeps squeaking, perhaps it needs oil. 

Also, I do not believe an earnest desire to improve play experience should be admonished, but I suppose if you wish to be indifferent you needn't post.

[Warsong]

Sorry Warsong. I stopped reading at "reality".

I'll make a mental note to ignore your posts for arbitrary reasons, too. Take care.

[Lizzie]

Kryos - I had a brain-fart. Sheesh no need to get curt, especially not intentionally. I typed carru when I was reading duskhorn. I know you meant duskhorn, I know you wrote duskhorn. So instead of getting annoyed, how about - switch out the word "carru" with "duskhorn."

My opinion and experience is the same, because - I -meant- to post duskhorn but for whatever reason, I was thinking about carru at the time I was posting this, and typed the wrong critter's name into the post.

[Kryos]

I'm getting older, I have brain farts too.  But more so it was the meat of your post that riled me.

I often condemn closed discussions (in a philosophical sense) and hate being hypocritical, so I try to keep an open mind when I digest viewpoints different from my own.  But that post felt more like you hadn't digested my wall of text before offering a response, and that's what poked me.  I understand wall of text approach has its drawbacks, and encouraging summary of its contents is one of them, but I try to keep them as dense as possible.  I often edit out or condense sentences devoid of substance before committing.

Its probably a pet peeve of mine(tied to my perspective) to have things out of context or skimmed.  Such as acknowledging stat inflation as a problem and having Valeria renew that, or that snippet offered seeming absent of context in my interpretation. Or maybe I'm grumpy in the morning?

Back to topic though, since it hasn't been touched on.  How viable would readers see the option of keeping the stat generation system kept the exact same as it is, with one cut and paste?  This paste is that you, upon approval, see your stat pool allocations and then assign it to your PC before committing.  

[Narf]

This is actually something I think about a fair bit. I've done a bit of game design in my free time and balancing interesting character opportunities with a sense of "fair" play is always a toughy. That said, here are some ideas I've come up with along with pros and cons.

1) Keep the current system but establish a guild-based minimum stat value. For instance: Warriors cannot roll under average strength or below average endurance. Rogue-types can't low under average agility.
  This method I'd term as most realistic in that people with poor aptitudes in certain areas will tend to steer clear of certain professions. Low strength types won't tend to end up as manual laborers, poor agility sorts don't become gymnasts. Furthermore it provides some additional insurance that a character won't be unplayable while keeping the "excitement" and variation of random rolls, ensuring a population of varying quality, but more realistic distribution according to that quality. What's more it provides some benefit to those people that want to play characters with unusual stat distributions, making them a little more viable. For instance if you want to play a high-wisdom warrior you can dump strength and know that you'll still have a playable character.
  This method can avoid problems with stat inflation by setting minimum values around population averages, but it won't do much of anything to solve the issue of fair play and stat envy. Furthermore, people that want to play characters that have high stats in their guild preferences might feel the sting of disadvantage compared to people playing more unusual characters as, on average, they'd have slightly lower net rolls.

2) A method originally pioneered by the DragonQuest system (for people that like obscure 80's RPGs), you could have a system whereby people randomly roll on whether they will be "exceptional" characters, or "above average" characters.
  The trick is that exceptional characters would be both exceptionally good and bad, having a lower net value to their stats even as their stat of preference shot to incredible levels. Above average characters would have better overall stats, but nothing that truly sets them apart in the world.
   This method leans a bit more towards the fair-play angle, but people might still end up with characters designed against their concept if their concept is highly specific. Furthermore, if a person doesn't agree with the balancing between the two categories (exceptional versus jack of all trades) then they could still feel miffed at being pushed into one of them by a random roll. It would maintain the benefits typically cited for random rolling however.

3) Keep the system as it is, but have some sort of coded benefit for characters with very low stats.
  This would probably require the most coded work because you need a system of reward setup that is separate from the stat system. A few ideas I had for non-stat related bonuses for low stat characters might be an increase in the maximum skill level provided by their subguilds, a free utility skill at a vaguely useful level.
  My personal favorite benefit would be some randomly added (minor) psionic abilities. Maybe the character could psychokinetically create a hands-free torchlight, or maybe their barrier was actually /good/. Perhaps they could overhear tidbits and individual words from nearby psionic conversations, or catch glimpses of people's thoughts (again, only small portions of a given thought).
  This system could be tweaked to create a trade-off for low stats that was either a consolation prize, or maybe it'd actually be so good that people would actively reroll their high statted characters to /try/ for lower stats. Wouldn't that be something?

4) And point buy.

  Everyone's talked about this extensively so I won't go into it, but I do think it's a valid system with a lot of benefit.

[Desertman]

Everyone wants great stats.

If everyone had great stats then great stats wouldn't be great anymore.

I like it how it is.

[Narf]

Everyone wants great stats.

If everyone had great stats then great stats wouldn't be great anymore.

I like it how it is.

Some people just want fair stats.

Some people want fairer, but not quite totally fair stats.

Some people don't give a damn whether their stats are good or bad compared to other people, but just want their character concept realized.

All of these people exist as glaring holes in your claim, staring at you. Watching you while you sleep.

[Armaddict]

If everyone had great stats then great stats wouldn't be great anymore.

This is a common theme that applies to both skills and stats.  There seems to be a push among the playerbase to make things go to the median; start skills higher, make stats more consistent, etc, without realizing that the actual effect is lack of variation.

Variation good.   Differences good.  Sometimes things go against you, but that's okay, because it's what makes it going for you give you the warm fuzzies.

[valeria]

Its probably a pet peeve of mine(tied to my perspective) to have things out of context or skimmed.  Such as acknowledging stat inflation as a problem and having Valeria renew that, or that snippet offered seeming absent of context in my interpretation. Or maybe I'm grumpy in the morning?

Just because you acknowledge something may be a problem with your idea doesn't mean that I have to agree, particularly since I think you downplayed it when it's my major issue with your proposed solution.

In this case, I don't think strength is broken. Also, your anecdotes and my anecdotes don't meet up: I've never prioritized strength (or any stat) and not received a playable stat in the area I prioritized. That, and the conclusion to your idea/proposed solution leads me to think you want better stats across the board. I don't think stat inflation is a good idea.

Picking one point to disagree with isn't skimming, it's how discussions work. It's a lot more likely that someone is going to pick out the one or two points they strongly agree or disagree with and argue those.  People rarely pick things apart point by point or respond to ideas they're ambivalent about.  Meanwhile, I know we're all here because we want the game to be great. My disagreement isn't an attack on you.

If everyone had great stats then great stats wouldn't be great anymore.

This is a common theme that applies to both skills and stats.  There seems to be a push among the playerbase to make things go to the median; start skills higher, make stats more consistent, etc, without realizing that the actual effect is lack of variation.

Variation good.   Differences good.  Sometimes things go against you, but that's okay, because it's what makes it going for you give you the warm fuzzies.

I strongly agree with this. It's the law of unintended consequences.  I'm not saying this would go full cobra effect, but I don't agree with plans that basically come down to knocking the average upward.

[shadeoux]

We could always build a char around the stats provided.

A) Racial Selection

B) Class Selection

C) Stats,
These will be your pregenerated stats, keep in mind if you do not like your stats you can
have the option to reroll a single time.
You get VG str, Good wis, Average agi and AA End,
Would you like to keep these stats?
Yes or No
If No Reroll process happens

D) Now that you know your stats upfront, you can build a character concept around that. And you
will know if your stats will allow that concept. No more Rangers not able to wield bows and the likes.

Lets say someone doesn't like either set of stats, they can have the option to try to make another
character (Aborting the current one), 12 hours later, or even 24 hours later with different stat choices.

Thoughts?

[Dalmeth]

Variation good.   Differences good.  Sometimes things go against you, but that's okay, because it's what makes it going for you give you the warm fuzzies.

You may not have noticed, but current random stats encourage conformity.  That variety you say you love only exists for masochists.

For my own part, I don't mind the randomness, I just mind the potentially crippling randomness.

Players should be the sole decision makers when it comes to playing a cripple, and to that end, I say remove the below average side of the scale or adjust the average so that below average is not crippling.