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

[JohnMichaelHenry]

I'd like it. Gives folks that prefer to play mundanes something to spend their karma on. Might wanna cap it if you get lucky with your stat roll though.

[lostinspace]

It should be unavailable for karma-required races and psions too. HGs, Delves, and muls don't need even better stats.

[Narf]

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. (Story edited out for brevity)

Your individual circumstance is largely irrelevant when making game design decisions. Design decisions should be made to account for the majority of circumstances whenever possible.

Take the following assumptions:

1) Each risk taken has a chance of ending the character.
2) Characters that take many risks have many chances to die. Charactes that take few risks have few chances to die.
3) Many chances to die will on average end a character faster than few chances.
4) Therefore, on average the population of longer lived characters will be made up of a higher percentage of risk averse characters compared to the population of short lived characters.
5) Because all of these are based on chance, there will always be some representatives at the end of either curve that will fall outside the norm. These occurrences will be infrequent comparative to the norm, but frequent enough to give people the incorrect impression that they're representative of larger populations.

Good game design shouldn't entirely ignore experiences high or low on the bell curve, but attention should always be weighted towards the center.

But I've gotten a bit off track. Really my point is that we need to have more available avenues of enjoyment for characters during their early lives and adding a bunch of mechanical benefits to characters that live a long time isn't very conducive to that. If you did add more benefits to longer lived characters you would want to balance them out, either with more restrictions (bleh) or by giving newer characters some benefits to compensate (that they would lose after a while? I don't know).

[tapas]

The solution is to just narrow the stat band so that exceptional values don't pop off the way that strength currently does.

This can be done with either configuring the number roller to give more reasonable rolls or by making sure outcome values scale linearly instead of exponentially.

[LindseyBalboa]

Point buy systems are inherently geared toward games where stats increase. They don't really increase here, so there's no benefit in choosing weaknesses that your character can overcome through RP and time and experience.

The only benefit to point buy here would be min-maxing, as far as I can see.

If you have a stat so bad you can't play your character, you can request for staff to change it, but I've never once had this happen in... Fifty characters? My best combat character had an excellent as his best stat, and somehow stayed alive and made a name for himself. The other issue, that if you have a description that says you're muscled out like a hulk and you roll average strength, you get to come up with a quirk or you can request a description change. I don't think a change to the random rolls is necessary or would be helpful to anyone in the long run. In the latter case, writing a description after you know your stats would be the logical change, but then it would require waiting even longer and more staff approval to get into the game.

However, I have to agree that strength seems to overwhelmingly be the only stat that matters when it comes to combat. If I want to do a high agility character that fences around and kills someone with a bunch of small, fancy flicks of his wrist, that -sounds good- but in reality means I'm going to keep bouncing off someone's heavy armor and then die when they do hit me and their strike goes through whatever leather I can carry. (Edited here) Yes there are other ways to combat but when 1v1 combat tends to rely (there are exceptions sure whatever) solely on one stat, it might be worth looking at that again.

[lostinspace]

What about instead of narrowing the stat band, we allow player to reroll average, which just sets their stats to average across the board? Don't want to risk bad stats? Reroll average. Want to take the gamble? Reroll and reroll undo.

[X-D]

I am actually getting tired of explaining this point, done it so many times over the years.

There is nothing wrong with strength in stat balance, It is not OP, it is exactly as it should be. The weight of that stat in certain types of combat in game is about as close to Real life (along with the rest of the stats) As I have seen in any game.

As to low str PCs with weapon skill buffs at 25 days played spending half a game day fighting a scrab or a spider...Maybe you should consider the likelihood that you are doing something wrong. My PC is a very low str not heavy combat, 14 days played and without buffed weapon skills, kills scrab in 3-5 rounds...oh sometimes it is a tough scrab and lasts as long as 8, far from a great length of time, and spiders in 5-8, no magickal enhancement or spice. Hell, highest stat is only very good and that is not str or end....Not a high str race either.

And I have no issue with not being able to take on that bruiser in plate armor in melee...I will simply use one of the many other methods available.

And with stat ordering, and even staff saying "Pay attention to age/race/class." And the docs even telling you the right ages...If you end up with a low str PC...you are likely the one to blame.

[tapas]

Nah. Strength is busted good. Anyone that says otherwise is gaslighting you.

[KittenLicks]

Hey, I don't think X-D is gaslighting anyone, and that's pretty rude to say, honestly.

X-D, I'm fully prepared to believe that you know some 'right' way to train up (or fight with?) a low strength character, and I think that if you wrote a guide to explain how to do that, that'd be a huge help to the community and everyone that struggles with low stats. I imagine it's probably IG information though, so I expect you can't.

The problem is that the default without doing things this 'right' way is a character that is rather useless at combat. Anecdotally, I've had a low strength character that took 10+ rounds to kill rats, so I can fully imagine someone spending a whole day trying to kill a scrab.

And with stat ordering, and even staff saying "Pay attention to age/race/class." And the docs even telling you the right ages...If you end up with a low str PC...you are likely the one to blame.

You're pretty correct with this though. The issue is that strength is just so much better than the other three options for combat, that anyone that is going to be in combat is just forced to prioritize it first to be effective. And I think that's kind of the core of the problem.

[Strongheart]

I was about to say the same, KittenLicks! Those who are more familiar with the mechanics that have been mostly obscured throughout the years will have a better handle on things. It may be a tad too revealing if he starts sharing the secrets of this stuff just as you said

[Hauwke]

Guys, two handed at master provides a frankly stupid boost to damage. Even elves can tear a scrab apart with high enough skill in it. Low strength is not a death sentence.

[KittenLicks]

Guys, two handed at master provides a frankly stupid boost to damage. Even elves can tear a scrab apart with high enough skill in it. Low strength is not a death sentence.

That's useful to know!

[X-D]

Here is another key,

Code Select Expand

Help melee: Injury can be in terms of health points, stun points, or both. It is possible for your character to be relatively intact, but knocked out.
Along with

Code Select Expand

Encumbrance

(Items)

There is a limit to what anyone can carry, and the more heavily loaded one is, the harder it will be to move around and fight. Some basic rules are:



[Strongheart]

Not sure what you mean by key, X-D. Nothing there seems to be info that isn't already known to newbs!

Reminds me that I think it's important to realize that strength ALSO allows you to wear the most protective of armors that the defense of high agility characters such as elves do not make up for toward that front.

[Narf]

One thing to remember about the strength versus agility is that strength is mostly just good in combat. It gives bonuses to player convenience in that you have to make fewer choices about what to carry around (high strength can just throw everything in their pack and not worry about it), but because of agility's usefulness outside of combat in comparison to strength it needs to be at least somewhat less useful in combat.

Agility and wisdom both give skill bonuses to some very useful skills, including skills that provide other means of PK.

For all the nonexistent people who asked me, endurance is the weak stat under the current system.

[Narf]

Reminds me that I think it's important to realize that strength ALSO allows you to wear the most protective of armors that the defense of high agility characters such as elves do not make up for toward that front.

That depends on the conflict style.

PVP: Probably true
PVE: Nope. Armor does not compensate for being able to dodge a mekillot.

[th3kaiser]

If you're straight up meleeing some horror shell armored high str PC on a high agility elf I'd suggest you rethink your strategy. It's a very very winnable fight from the elf's perspective if you remember you're not a bruiser.

In any case, I rather like the random stat system. We have stat ordering and reroll undo which is absolutely plenty if you pay close enough attention to your age/race/guild when making the concept.

[whatislove]

Not personally a fan of the way stats are attributed, and would support literally any other system other than the current one. Useless opinion out.

[X-D]

Not sure what you mean by key, X-D. Nothing there seems to be info that isn't already known to newbs!

Your right, it is info that should be known to all...But that does not mean it is utilized.

But alright, I will spell it out.

If your PC is to weak to do HP damage through armor...

[tapas]

Just use clubs like everyone does already.

[KittenLicks]

Maybe I'm just that new, but I would honestly never have guessed that having low strength means that you have to etwo a club and hit things until they're knocked out, or that hitting armored things still drained stun. I would have guessed the opposite in both cases.

[Greve]

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.

Let's make an analogy of it.

Bob, Steve and Karen are having a car race. They're racing for money, so they care about the outcome. It's not just some casual fun-ride between buddies, there's something at stake.

But the three cars available to them are a F1 Ferrari racecar, a decent BMW and a thirty year old Ford with a flat tire. To determine who gets which car, they each roll a die and the highest roller gets the Ferrari while the lowest roller gets the Ford. By your logic, the race is now fair because they each had the same odds of getting the Ferrari. According to your argument, the value of the race as a competition is not lessened by the fact that Steve is driving a Ferrari and Karen is driving a wrecked Ford.

While Armageddon is not quite the same as a competitive sporting event, the game still has many elements that make the existence of features that match the above analogy deeply problematic. Nothing compensates for a bad statroll. There are no caveats to a fantastic statroll. You simply get an objectively better or worse character. There are roles where this doesn't matter very much, but there are most certainly also roles where it matters a whole lot.

It doesn't matter one bit that every character has the same fundamental chance to get x and y stats. That's absolutely irrelevant as soon as the dice are rolled. What matters is the fact that the outcome has such an extreme degree of variance. Stats have far too big an influence on a character's coded abilities for such a level of variance to be healthy. That stuff was alright back in the early days of AD&D when we sat around a table with four longtime friends who could laugh about it, and a dungeon master who would be mindful of the fact that Steve got hilariously unlucky with the dice. Maybe the DM would throw Steve a bone and let him find that special magic item that made it not feel like crap to play such a character, or he would have all the orcs charge at Bob who rolled amazing stats, just to keep things interesting. We haven't got that on Armageddon. When you roll great stats it's just pure luxury at no cost, and when you roll crap stats it's just a universal disadvantage that you can do nothing about. That really, really sucks. It's violently anti-fun, and literally all other forms of gaming have long since realized this.

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 are inherent features of the setting. Everyone knows exactly where they stand with these things, they're integral to the game and everything revolves around it. This is not the kind of unfairness that anyone here is talking about. It's not even in the same ballpark. As it stands, the stat system is more comparable to giving characters 1d10000 starting coin instead of 900+2d100 or whatever it is. It's like having a special and objectively superior version of the existing classes, like Super-Raider that gets 10 points more in each skill cap than a normal Raider, that you have a 10% chance upon creation to get. Or a shittier version that has 10 less in each skill. That's what the stat system is. That cannot be compared to the "templars can be mean to you and elves are persecuted" type of unfairness that defines Armageddon as a game and makes it resemble an actual world. I frankly find it disingenuous to make such a comparison.

What is lost by changing this? What valuable part of the Armageddon experience would be gone? There's more than enough room for variation between characters even with a stat system that keeps them to a roughly equal pool of total points. You'll still have dudes who are really strong and dudes who aren't, and you'll still have the chance for your roll to come out the way you hoped or the opportunity to make the best of a roll that didn't. You just won't have dudes who are great at everything, or dudes whose roll is so bad that there's nothing to be enthusiastic about. I cannot for the life of me see what possible benefit there is to the current system, unless you misuse it in bad faith.

[KittenLicks]

I'd like to add that it is probably a bad idea to have a system that encourages people to break the rules by quietly suiciding bad-statted chars. I'm sure staff doesn't want to have to be constantly trying to figure out whether Amos fell off a cliff because his player wasn't paying attention or if it was a suicide because Amos had average strength. I'm sure the players don't want to worry about being suspected of suiciding when they accidentally enter n instead of e one day on a low-statted character. Especially, you don't want to roll high stats and wonder if people are squinting at you, wondering if you have been suiciding to get them.

It just fosters needless suspicion everywhere.

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

I truly think a flat "above average to all" option should be implemented for people who don't want the randomisation - not an exceptional character but passable for if you need a concept to work.
Additionally, for roles you're applying for (NOT for standard players), a means of viewing your stats beforehand so you can prepare and/or make story adjustments, or sdesc changes etc. Poor dex? Maybe they have a hook hand, etc etc etc.
I do like the idea of a karma cost boost to a stat in case you really NEED say, higher endurance on your desert elf, but I'm also terrified of stat boost dwarves and HGs only ever throwing it into Strength.
Regardless, this is an imperfect system, but we must be careful of any sweeping changes or it'll only get worse and more unfair - and I think staff accepts and understands that already or they'd have done something.

[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.

By your logic, the race is now fair because they each had the same odds of getting the Ferrari. According to your argument, the value of the race as a competition is not lessened by the fact that Steve is driving a Ferrari and Karen is driving a wrecked Ford.

While Armageddon is not quite the same as a competitive sporting event, the game still has many elements that make the existence of features that match the above analogy deeply problematic.

The game isn't a competition, and having characters that are not even roughly equal in "power level" is not problematic when you view it as a roleplay sandbox(think, interactive movie) rather than a competitive game.

In movies, there are characters that are, by and large, better than other characters at doing what they do. Think Jason Bourne, Rambo, Zorro, or Batman. Now, all of these characters are pretty over-the-top insanely good at what they do, but they aren't the only characters in the story, and the fact that they are crazy good at combat doesn't devalue their supporting characters. The stories would be incomplete and less satisfying without the supporting cast. Batman needs his Alfred and love interests like Vicky Vale or Lois Lane. Jason Bourne is the star of the show, but there is interesting character development with his handler Nicky.

And those are just the characters SUPPORTING the stars of the show. On the other side of the table, there are adversaries who make life difficult for them. The Jokers, the Director X, Sherriff Teasles, and Don Rafael Monterro's are all necessary to the telling of an interesting tale. And each of these has countless minions that die along the way to their eventual defeat. But they all have 2 things in common: 1-Someone has to play them. And 2 - They lose.

But our game, as with all stories, needs far more supporting characters than stars. A story needs 1, maybe 2 stars. The rest are supporting cast and enemies of the stars that ultimately fail. None of us get to know ahead of time if we're going to be playing a star, an extra, a supporting castmember, or whatever until we're in game, for the most part. And even good stats aren't the end all of it. It takes an alligning of the cosmos to end up playing one of the stars of the show. So, we should be content to play a nemesis or supporting member of the story, knowing that ultimately, our character is likely to lose, and die.

If everyone has the exact same coded potential to be Batman, there will be no Batman.

The system is fine as it is. It's not meant to facilitate competitive gaming. It's meant to facilitate roleplay and stories. And it does that just fine.