Should Arm's stat rolls go from random to an alternative?

[Strongheart]

Hey, Greve, I really agree with most of your actual points, but I do wish you'd stop implying people that disagree with you regularly suicide characters. You're not going to convince anyone like that, you know?

We're all friends here (when we're not cutting each other up with bone swords).

I second that!

[AdamBlue]

If there was a way to actually raise one's stats in-game, extremely slowly, it would be pretty cool.
Wearing heavy armor, or using large weapons could naturally raise someone's strength slightly, given it's done for a very long time.
Lots of running, or playing many games that require good hand-eye coordination (darts, ball-tossing, ect) could raise someone's agi.
Wisdom already naturally raises the older you get, but could also be gained through more intellectual pursuits (speaking in languages you didn't start with, working with skills you've already mastered as meditative reflection, using the way extremely often)
Endurance is raised slowly by getting wounded and recovering, and also maybe given a bonus by taking more permanent scars.

Conversely, make ways to also slowly lose stats.
Being completely unencumbered for long periods of time, or not engaging in any practice, sparring, or the like can very slowly lower your strength.
Being 'completely full' too much, or sleeping/resting for extremely long periods of time can lower your agility as you grow fatter.
Getting reeled, drunk, knocked out, or high too often can lower your wisdom.
Staying indoors for long periods of time or remaining completely unscathed for long periods can lower your endurance.

--
I feel it would encourage people that want to improve to:
Play darts and actually begin a training regiment if they wish to be faster.
Encourage weight-training for people that want to become stronger, and reward those that regularly train and wear outside of their comfort.
Allow people that often are trapped in hours-long way conversations to actually receive some small benefit and not feel as if they are wasting their time, as well as allow those who actively become more worldly to be more receptive to ideas.
To allow people to get hurt, take risks, and roleplay being a badass who does in fact get tougher and more grizzled the more fucked up they get.
I feel it would discourage:
Behavior where people particularly min-max their weight levels to be low that they have absolutely the highest defense possible.
Ignoring chores, patrols, and marches for military-based clans, or running drills.
Powergaming being immune to the effects of abuse of drugs, or repeated head trauma.
People only logging on to sit in apartments, never leaving.

This is just my two cents, it's not perfect, but it's an idea.

[only_plays_tribals]

I for one would welcome a way to organically increase/decrease stats through role play oriented IC behaviors, over extended periods.

[triste]

I for one would welcome a way to organically increase/decrease stats through role play oriented IC behaviors, over extended periods.

+ AdamBlue's post spelling out possibilites.

Also in favor, because is drives roleplay and doesn't introduce the issue of homogenized min maxxed builds right out the gates. Also helps address other twinkish and annoying behaviors that break roleplay. Implementation code wise would be potentially be a pain in the ass but since we are pie in the sky dreaming this is the best idea so far because it drives roleplay, which should always be the top consideration in this game.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

I know most of you probably already know this, but I'm going to mention it anyway because I haven't seen it in the thread yet. You do have the option of asking staff for a stat increase for role play. Just keep some logs of doing it and submit a request. I have never done it myself, because as I've stated earlier, I rarely, if ever, have a roll so bad that I can't deal with it, especially since the reroll option was implemented. I'm willing to bet that if your stats suck so bad as some have said they've rolled up, staff would likely grant the request. 

Also, since there seems to be some perception that most people want a change in the way stats are distributed, I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote again for keeping things the way they are. There are plenty of players that don't post on the GDB, so reading through a thread is no way to draw conclusions about what folks want.

[Riev]

I know most of you probably already know this, but I'm going to mention it anyway because I haven't seen it in the thread yet. You do have the option of asking staff for a stat increase for role play. Just keep some logs of doing it and submit a request. I have never done it myself, because as I've stated earlier, I rarely, if ever, have a roll so bad that I can't deal with it, especially since the reroll option was implemented. I'm willing to bet that if your stats suck so bad as some have said they've rolled up, staff would likely grant the request. 

Also, since there seems to be some perception that most people want a change in the way stats are distributed, I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote again for keeping things the way they are. There are plenty of players that don't post on the GDB, so reading through a thread is no way to draw conclusions about what folks want.

Last I understood it, stat increases were no longer entertained unless there was a literally unplayable scenario (agility so low you cannot have items in your inventory).

[triste]

Also, since there seems to be some perception that most people want a change in the way stats are distributed, I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote again for keeping things the way they are. There are plenty of players that don't post on the GDB, so reading through a thread is no way to draw conclusions about what folks want.

+1 +1 +1 +1

The prior statement by OP that "more seem in favor of point buy" involved a lot of... selective counting. And good point that the GDB isn't a solid measure. I mentioned this early on. GDB polls were removed because people use alt accounts but it would be great if there was an in game way to vote on propositions since one game account per person is strictly enforced with IP lookups etc.

Regardless, I hope imms are paying heed and considering options they can implement. Despite being told by selective readers that I am not in favor of compromise, I have mentioned a few times I am. But I am absolutely opposed to anything that completely flattens variation, leads to minmaxxing and hurts roleplay. Mechanics like lifting weights to get stronger could be fantastic if feasible.

[Strongheart]

False. OP (me) never once said that point buy would be the wider of accepted alternatives, I said that an alternative seems to be widely more popular than keeping the same random system.

[Strongheart]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/90ssqr/reminder_that_min_maxing_and_good_roleplay_are/

[Strongheart]

I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.

[triste]

I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.

Yeah, sure. I am a weirdo who likes realism and literature and am fine with things being unfair in terms of the total spread of points because it adds diversity and realism. But most modern gamers rage when they feel something is "unfair" so if artificially equalizing things will appease all sides of our playerbase sure. It by definition limits variability and diversity but I can back this up if some people really can't stomach bad stats and playing something other than an alpha chad beefcake. I would invite them to try different concepts; I wish people could see that this game isn't about "winning" with the "best stats" and at no point has it ever been. But I do concede this matters a lot to some people and I want them to be happy and not break rules by suiciding characters. Full point buy, as stated by four or more posters besides myself, will lead to the least variation out of all of these options and more skewed gameplay in a game that is already inherently unbalanced. But compromises like this, sure, maybe.

[Alesan]

I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.

Yeah, sure. I am a weirdo who likes realism and literature and am fine with things being unfair in terms of the total spread of points because it adds diversity and realism. But most modern gamers rage when they feel something is "unfair" so if artificially equalizing things will appease all sides of our playerbase sure. It by definition limits variability and diversity but I can back this up if some people really can't stomach bad stats and playing something other than an alpha chad beefcake. I would invite them to try different concepts; I wish people could see that this game isn't about "winning" with the "best stats" and at no point has it ever been. But I do concede this matters a lot to some people and I want them to be happy and not break rules by suiciding characters. Full point buy, as stated by four or more posters besides myself, will lead to the least variation out of all of these options and more skewed gameplay in a game that is already inherently unbalanced. But compromises like this, sure, maybe.

I suppose I'll just be seen as sensitive, but you sound really elitist in this post.

[triste]

I rather like Adam's post too though Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.

Yeah, sure. I am a weirdo who likes realism and literature and am fine with things being unfair in terms of the total spread of points because it adds diversity and realism. But most modern gamers rage when they feel something is "unfair" so if artificially equalizing things will appease all sides of our playerbase sure. It by definition limits variability and diversity but I can back this up if some people really can't stomach bad stats and playing something other than an alpha chad beefcake. I would invite them to try different concepts; I wish people could see that this game isn't about "winning" with the "best stats" and at no point has it ever been. But I do concede this matters a lot to some people and I want them to be happy and not break rules by suiciding characters. Full point buy, as stated by four or more posters besides myself, will lead to the least variation out of all of these options and more skewed gameplay in a game that is already inherently unbalanced. But compromises like this, sure, maybe.

I suppose I'll just be seen as sensitive, but you sound really elitist in this post.

From one of my first responses in this thread. "People who are stat obsessed brush me off as some kind of role play elitist for having this opinion but it isn't elitism to be open to roleplaying concepts besides He-Man." I am advocating for diverse concepts and players being more open minded which is the opposite of elitism. I am now saying if you desperately don't want to play weak characters so badly that you want to limit the range of concepts for everyone else that I will even concede and say you can have what you want!! I am not sure what is more un-elitist than that. Again, drop the ad hominem attacks accusing people of hypocrisy, virtue signalling, and elitism, it adds literally nothing to the discussion.

[Brokkr]

I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.

Unfairness between characters may be a design decision you disagree with, but it does not seem to be incongruous with other design decisions that encourage unfairness in the game, such as Templars, magick, racism, etc.

[Heade]

I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.

Unfairness between characters may be a design decision you disagree with, but it does not seem to be incongruous with other design decisions that encourage unfairness in the game, such as Templars, magick, racism, etc.

I agree with this. Arm isn't supposed to be balanced between characters. It's supposed to be unfair between characters. That's part of the roleplaying experience. But since players all have the same chance at rolling good stats, it IS fair to players. That's an important distinction.

Greve's suggestion of having a system in place where the randomness is still there only everyone has the same distribution of points overall but the spread is random would be a worthwhile compromise in my personal opinion.

I don't really think this is a compromise. It forces all characters to have the same number of "points" in stats. The only difference is that the players don't get to decide exactly how the points are spent. But with stat prioritization, they would get a pretty significant amount of control, and this would still make all characters roughly the same. It's that sameness that I have a problem with. I like that each character is unique, and may have very high potential, very low potential, or somewhere in between.

As I've said before, I think the system is fine as it is.

That said, some people may not know how the mechanics of the game work regarding stats. They may not know how age, class, and so on affect their stats, and that might be a part of the problem they have. If there was a bit more transparency on how stat modifiers worked, they might have fewer problems with the existing system. If they always wonder why they get lower than expected strength with a particular class, it might be worth them knowing that their chosen age/class combination is getting 2 penalties to strength, if that is the case.

At the risk of allowing more people to game the system to min-max character stats, I think the tradeoff of more transparency might be worth it to satisfy people who consistently have problems with stats. I would contend that the people who are most likely to game the system to min-max stats probably already have most of the knowledge to do so.

[Lizzie]

I am unsure how the current system is unfair to players, since different players creating characters with the same attributes have the same chance of good or bad stats.

Unfairness between characters may be a design decision you disagree with, but it does not seem to be incongruous with other design decisions that encourage unfairness in the game, such as Templars, magick, racism, etc.

Templars, magick, and racism can be manipulated by the players. A templar PC will only put a gem on your neck for being a magicker, if the templar's player has decided that his character will do that. A magicker won't ever cast a single spell, ever, until the player chooses to cast it. No PCs are ever racist until their players intentionally roleplay that way.

However, a person with AI strength will always have AI strength and will always demonstrate that whenever he is confronted with the need to use any strength at all. He has no choice. He is AI, period. Same with poor agility. A person with codedly poor agility might never be capable of carrying more than 3 items in his inventory, no matter how heavy or light (I don't know the exact numbers, it's hypothetical). A person with AI agility - if you spam-"give" him stuff, will display that AI agility by codedly receiving the vast numerical awesomeness that AI agility can allow, whether the player wants them to or not.

[Dar]

Fairness aside. Here are the observations of my own personal feelings when  I play the game.


When I roll up a character and it happens to have rolled unsatisfactory stats. Immediately, I feel dissapointed. This does not make me suicide the character, but I will confess, it 'is' affecting me nonetheless.

For example. If the character is exposed to lots of combat and I do not believe he will be good at it, nor will he have a high chance of survival. I will not get attached as much. I will be less inclined to spend a lot of time on that character. If the game is slow and I have a choice to log off, or go work on some coded development, I will choose to log off. I will do things riskier as I will not be too dissapointed if the character dies.

If that character still survives for a few weeks. Then my dissapointment over the character survival potential is going to lessen until finally dissapearing completely. I 'will' be invested in the character's story by then. He will be involved in plots, schemes, relationships, and so on. The stats will not really matter and I will enjoy the game. 

But I might not arrive to that point. And if I dont, it will actually be better for me. Because, once I am invested, I will take it 'harder' if that character finally dies to something completely uninteresting, purely due to a badly rolled stat. That death will impact me harder. It will cause me to want to play less. It will prolong the period where I do not make a new character. I will feel bitter that a dice roll have affected the story of my character and I 'allowed' it to get this far.

Is it possible that despite the stat rolls, that character will become very capable and accomplished, etc, etc. Absolutely. Done it numerous times.

Is that chance worth the disappointment and chagrin that I would feel if that character "doesnt" do it? I'm not so sure.

Would that disappointment be even greater if I let that character develop himself, become interesting, get embroiled in plots, do all sorts of shit for half a year and then die to a 1 week old dwarf who rolled high on strength? Yes. That's a 2-4 months long break for me.

So it's not about fairness. Or balance. It's about enjoyment of the game. The loss of enjoyment with how stats work right now (between randomness, to stat scaling, to strength being a weird overpowering stat), is far greater then the gain of enjoyment from high rolled stats. 


I love the fact that Armageddon is a game where you can die suddenly. Where your actions have consequences that can make, or break your character. But when you lose a character and end your story abruptly, not because you dared to walk into a dangerous terrain and got ate. Not due to starvation, or thirst. Not to grittiness of the world, not due to your actions, or actions of another player. But because ultimately, you rolled shitty? I will not enjoy it. I simply wont. It will not entice me to roll another character after that one dies, if I invested enough into it in time and emotion.


The solutions can be many and none of them are perfect. So I cant really offer a suggestion that solves everyone's problems. I can offer a suggestion that I 'think' would be cool, until proven otherwise by gameplay. That's the best I can offer. A dream that I think would work out best.

In my opinion. What should happen is that everyone will start their character at average of their race, + age modifiers. During chargen, they will have a choice to make one of their stats Exceptional at the cost of one stat becoming Poor.

Then during gameplay. A variation of "change objective" can focus a character to gradually improve one, or other of their stats. It would be expected for the person to roleplay it out, but not enforced by staff too stringently. After certain amount of time, the stat improves. And if a certain milestone is reached, a player is sent an echo requesting to have a bio written about it. With detailed help files explaining what's expected. And what is expected should scale with the stat. So, an increase of good to very good can be explained by a simple brief note of how the person joined Byn and they've been really making him work it. A bump from extremely good to exceptional would cause a change in a person's mental state and how they view themselves in the world and a bio writ should describe this.

Any stat that's at exceptional and is not being focused at the time, will deteriorate to extremely good when another stat gets boosted.
Any stat that's at Extremely good and is not being focused at the time, will deteriorate to very good, over the span of 2 boost periods of another stat. On and on until it's average.

A stat that's set to poor due to a choice on chargen, should take 2x time to be increased until it reaches average. After which it's like any other stat.

Then it's a matter of figuring out how long it should take for the stats to improve. It shouldnt be hours played. But I'm guessing somehow years alive related.


Will it eventually create cookie cutter characters? In a sense. It will. But the time requirement will be such that you will sort of expect that amount of physical stat from these well known, well established, well developed, old characters.

And, if we are playing the game correctly. Everyone dies! So that dude who spent 20 IG years getting his strength, endurance, and wisdom to extremely good. Minus the penalties incurred by old age will still die to 2 delves getting 2 arrows off each before the dude has a chance to react.


I would recommend the 'quality' of bios to be majorly ignored and never punished for by staff. They can be impressed and reward accordingly by those who use that aspect of the game to make some awesome roleplay and bring content into the game. But if a player prefers this to be a minor part of their character's lives. Let them. Less stress. Less worry. Less work.


Yes. It will create a sort of a cookie cutter development plan.  Start at 16. Prioritize wisdom. Put agility to poor and rely on youth to offset the penalty. Then learn learn learn, skillz skillz skillz, until age of 25. Where you're relatively developed skill wise and then your stats variate depending on your profession and preference.

But, guys ... that's kind of like how it happens IRL. We learn when we're young. Then we become thick skulled, so learning gets harder. But our lives make our bodies adapt to do whatever we end up doing better! 


At the same time. The choice of putting one of the stats to exceptional, as well as a well chosen guild and age, will be able to create a relatively passable character stat wise, for people who have no plans to make a long ass learning story and just want someone relatively ready to face the world.

Obviously, the idea needs a lot of balancing and thought. But the premise of it is simple. Everyone stats average at chargen with an ability to bonus and penalize 'one' stat each. This will define their character. And then let the rest develop, or deteriorate during gameplay. It allows for some monstrous combinations if the person lives long enough, but living long enough tends to do that already!

[Narf]

With regards to stat improvement throughout the game:

Armageddon does not need and would not benefit from more ways for older characters to be mechanically superior to newer characters. There are enough of these already in the game. If you want Arm to grow you should instead focus on making the initial 1-50 hours of a character's life more interesting. Giving extra ways for older characters to eclipse newer characters is going to be counterproductive to this.

Focusing on making the game fun for these first few days of playtime is going to contribute tremendously towards the dynamic atmosphere of the game, both bringing in new players and encouraging players to take more risks with their characters. Doing this, however, will require old and established characters to occasionally be willing to take a back seat both in the social aspects of the game and in the mechanical aspects as well (particularly since the two intermingle). Not all the time, mind you, older characters add tremendously to the game. But you can't design a system that always favors older, and by extension more risk-averse characters. Some parts of the system? Sure. But not all the time.

[cnemus]

I do not seek a change to the current system.

I respect that other players feel differently about stats than I do and it affects their enjoyment differently. I do not expect my way to be the only way to enjoy the game and am open to sharing of alternate ideas.

Some of the things that have been discussed and my position:
1. Point buy. I've thought about this and discussed it when stats come up in other threads. I don't think it works for Armageddon. I don't want it.
2. Average. I think average should be the average. If there is a change, I think it should be to reduce the expectation of exceptional.
3. Age. I believe the consistent noticing of a lower quality roll has more to do with the age the character is at than the roll.
4. Supporting the current system. I support our current system, I've posted on the GDB in support of it, but the reason I don't keep repeating it is because any statement in support of the status quo has always turned into a flame war and personal attacks. I would love to see that stop. Sometimes I agree with the way things are, sometimes I disagree, I will express my opinion and why with the sole desire to pursue more enjoyment for myself and others.
5. Suicide. This is against the rules to RP because it is a serious issue that affects numerous people in RL in various ways. I would prefer not to even see it discussed.
6. Poor. I have played multiple poor strength warriors. I've played a poor strength elf. Incidentally these were some of my very favorite characters. A big part of their story was needing other people and the roleplay that evolved out of that. They were not able to kill well (or carry anything, elf), but they had a meaningful place in the story. It is fine if some people cannot enjoy this playstyle, but some people genuinely do. People are different and that is okay.
7. Swap stats. The ability to swap stats further rewards those characters who roll better, giving them a greater pool to play with and reallocate for further advantage. It's okay for the rare case of a truly unplayable stat (ranger can't use a bow, crafter can't hold items, warrior can't wield a weapon), but for personal optimization... I will never support.

If there were any changes I would be open to they would be:
1. Making average more frequent, exceptional more rare.
2. Less reliance on the roll for stats and more reliance on age and class.
3. The roll, age, and class modifiers providing a hidden cap to stats that increase over use. (I do not support degradation of stats beyond aging effects. Degrade through non-use aggravates me.) In this type of system every character starts play at below average and has to use skills based on that stat to get to their max. It supports longer lived characters and hides what your final stat roll actually was.
4. Replace the tiered stat values with three: Above average, average, below average.

I have DMd tabletop games since first edition D&D. I have played with pure rolled stats, dice pools, point buy, and countless variations. I prefer point buy for the games I run. I have spent a lot of time considering the implications of stats on fairness. Armageddon is similar to tabletop... but it isn't tabletop. It also is not a modern MMO. Asymmetric statting is in my mind essential to overcome certain other aspects of the game. Uniformity (in systems like point buy) would lock in certain other aspects of the game. Right now, that magicker might have low stats, the soldier might gave good stats, or vice versa... if they will always have equal stats and both choose to optimize them, that dynamic will become less fair. Controlled asymmetry is a fundamental necessity. Changing any system has consequence beyond the one thing being changed.

[Heade]

But you can't design a system that always favors older, and by extension more risk-averse characters.

You know, I don't think we can equate older characters with necessarily being risk averse. That might be true with some players, but certainly not all. I've only recently been allowed to talk about this, but just over 1 year ago, I had a relatively long-lived character that had a problem with a particular Templar. Early on in his life, this problem was established, and the idea was put into his head that he should kill said Templar. So, he set about his business planning to do just that. He amassed some semblance of power as he attained the highest held player position in his clan, and became a pretty competent warrior and assassin. But, in doing so, in carefully planning and honing his skills towards this singular goal, another thing happened. He became a long-lived character.

So, when he finally went to execute his plan and died, some players in the game thought I suicided him, because they thought it was preposterous that such a long-lived character would take such a risk as to attack a Templar in their city, and they didn't know the background behind it, or that he'd been planning to do it for a long time. I was sent OOC messages balking about me "suiciding" a successful, established character. But, it wasn't suicide. It was a completely IC thing for him to do, and I let him do it, knowing the odds were stacked against him. I wasn't tired of the character. I had a lot of things I'd still have liked to do with the character if he succeeded. But I also was not risk averse.

As far as I'm concerned, if I'm not playing my character true to their nature, there is nothing to risk. My attachment to a character comes from their stories and relationships, not from their stats. Roleplaying the character and seeing how it all turns out IS the fun for me. There is very little fun involved in not doing anything risky ever. And for those who play long-lived characters and never actually take any risks? Live a little. It's fun. And new characters are fun. They come with new relationships and people you meet along the way.

Some of the most solid relationships you will form are with people that you "grow up" with, people who are improving as you improve. Once you reach the peak of your advancement, making new bonds and forming new relationships is harder, because you're less dependent on other people. As you become more self-sufficient, you have less reason to engage in cooperative activities with other characters that help to build trust. And, interestingly, trust is sort of a necessary element to betrayal. I find that old, long-lived characters often find themselves quite isolated as those they "grew up" with die off, and the relationships they later have start out as mentor-student, rather than as friends and peers. It's a completely different relationship dynamic that doesn't foster the same type of trust as when you're more or less equals.

So, I know losing long-lived characters still hurts. But, knowing the information above, and the fact that I am a fairly social player that plays for RP more than anything else, I find it far easier to loosen my grip on a character and let them do what makes sense for the character, rather than finding ways to ensure my character lives forever.

Some people have tried to tell me that doing things like never going into any apartment ever is entirely IC and in keeping with happenings in the game. Even an apartment independently occupide by their lover and the parent of their child. This level of paranoia and risk aversion is, in my opinion, absolutely terrible roleplay. Don't agree? Try this on for size, then.

In real life, STDs can be deadly. There is a percentage of the population that dies every year from STDs. However, if you're celibate, your chance of getting an STD in real life is basically zero. Yet, almost no one is voluntarily celibate. Why? It could save your life. Because people take risks every day in real life. Therefore, anyone RPing a believable character will also take risks appropriate to that character.

When I run into people who play like that, completely risk-averse to the point of breaking my immersion in the game world, I'll just do everything possible to avoid RPing with those people. And if they utilize their position of longevity to continuously force their way into my story with their immersion-breaking behavior and speech, then maybe my character will just develop some reason to plot their demise. So please, if we've sired children together, come in and hang out with me in my apartment, where our children live, or I might suddenly decide I can't trust you because you can't trust me, and won't visit your virtual children, and that I should kill you.

Sorry for the rant. I just can't stand it when I see people doing that. It makes RPing with them feel gamey and awkward instead of organic and natural.

[tapas]

The real problem is that strength is OP as a stat. Don't get me wrong, I fucking love high strength combat PCs.

But it's still OP.

Narrow the range of strength to more closely reflect Darksun tabletop and slightly reduce its importance in combat and it won't be quite the end-all, be-all stat it currently is for combat-oriented classes.

Basically this. The difference between good and exceptional strength is double your damage. And much more carry weight.

The difference between good and exceptional endurance might be 10 hp. The difference between good and exceptional wisdom and agility is only noticeable in fringe cases or on elves.

I wouldn't even say that strength is just for combat characters. But essential for any character that wants to do anything alone. Anyone who wants to explore. Or wants to greb in strange locations. Or wants to be outdoors alone at all really.

You might think that your high-wisdom-agility-endurance character would do great at surviving the wilds. Until your realize your gonna spend most of your survival time fighting that goddamn scrab as you keep bouncing off their skin.

And yes. I've done exactly that. A 25 day character with boosted combat skills; exceptional wisdom, good agility and poor strength could have spent literally the whole ic day bouncing their blows of those two spiders that attacked her.

[Strongheart]

That's very true I feel, tapas. That is one of the largest reasons people with the karma seem to lean toward playing mages I think. Nothing wrong with playing them one bit but if we're talking homogenization, that's what players especially indies tend to play so that they can try an compensate for that stat deficit. That or something like a half-giant due to their strengths!

[Heade]

What would people think about keeping the system as it is, but adding a stat boost as a karma option? Maybe make it cost 1 karma to boost 1 stat at character creation. Maybe it could be implemented into the roll/reroll system so that people can choose to spend karma on it or not after they see their stats. And make it an exclusive option to non-magick subguilds.

It could promote fewer gickers and more mundanes in the game, and help some people who are highly concerned with stats without flooding the gameworld with superd00ds, since karma is time-gated.

[Dune Bunny]

What would people think about keeping the system as it is, but adding a stat boost as a karma option? Maybe make it cost 1 karma to boost 1 stat at character creation. Maybe it could be implemented into the roll/reroll system so that people can choose to spend karma on it or not after they see their stats. And make it an exclusive option to non-magick subguilds.

It could promote fewer gickers and more mundanes in the game, and help some people who are highly concerned with stats without flooding the gameworld with superd00ds, since karma is time-gated.

I love this idea.

[Strongheart]

I'm just not sure how well that'd go, Heade but I appreciate you looking for a compromise and I like the idea, it's not half bad if it's only offered to non-magickers. Definitely feels that mundanes seem to be the minority which wasn't the case when there were full gickers! But the trade off is being a lot less class sniffable versus what it used to be.