PROPOSAL: Make stats less static

[MeTekillot]

No specific implementations here just yet, but I propose that stats be made less static.

Let people train their stats. Let them become stronger, faster, more wise, and more tough.

BUT! At the same time, put them at risk of losing their stats semi-permanently. That is, semi-permanent in the fashion that their stat will remain lowered unless they train it back up again.

EXAMPLES:
Getting knocked into negative HP or taking a hit that eats more than 30-50% of your hp will lower your endurance by 1.
Falling more than 3 rooms sprains your ankle. You lose 1 agility.
You are locked in a room and starved for three days. You lose 1 strength.
You are knocked unconscious by a sap. You lose 1 wisdom due to a concussion.
A thug or Templar (is there a difference?) cripples you. You lose 3 from the stat in question.

OPPOSITE EXAMPLES FOR STAT GAIN:
You choose which stat you are trying to raise with a 'train' verb, or perhaps through more organic, less rigorous means. But regardless.

You walk around at EXTREMELY HEAVY encumbrance until your stamina is within 10 points of 0. You gain 1 strength or 1 endurance.
You meditate (-random focus every tick) or Way others until your focus nears 10 points of 0. You gain 1 wisdom.
You challenge an elf to a dance-off and learn from your failure. You gain 1 agility.
You imbibe a spice tonic made by the illustrious Houses of either Kurac or Dasari. You gain 3 to a particular stat, but lose 1 from another stat.

[Night Queen]

Element of risk is an important thing for most skills, especially ones that make it easier to kill others, you have to give people a chance if they mess up to get hurt or in trouble while raising stuff - if it's just a reduction or timer it's easy to shrug off if a character doesn't usually ever put themselves in dangerous situations, having a stat reduction doesn't really affect them... But at the same time, a chain of stories about sponsored roles dying trying to train stats wouldn't be very interesting

[Jihelu]

Not sure I agree with the examples but I do wish we had ways of increasing stats, or lowering them.

I'd consider them semi-permanant.

Get your ass handed to you? A temporary endurance drop as you recover, ranging from IRL days to weeks.

Consistently train/'work out' (however that is coded)? Bonus to strength till you stop doing these things.

[Narf]

Eh, not sure I like the whole "training gives you stats thing"

In the real world, training is hard and the general population is limited by their time and willpower.
In arm there'd be very little reason for everyone not to run around being as good as they could get because it's not tiring or hard to imput "lift big thing" ten times a session or whatever.

So why not just assume that people already are?

If you did implement this, there needs to be some sort of limitations or you're just going to effectively raise people's stats across the board.

[MeTekillot]

Sure, I absolutely agree with limitations. Could be you quadruple your food needs and you need to regularly eat certain types of food with certain seasonings, or you need to occasionally dose with spice or rare herbs.

[Lotion]

Nethack has this
https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Exercise
https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Attribute

It would be cute if arm had something like this and then every ig month or so you login and have slightly different stats

[Yelinak]

I feel like if you can train stats up, it becomes another thing you have to do if you're in a combat role. Sparring is bad enough. I'm at peace with the fact that stats are what they are. It would annoy me if I knew that unless I did these exercise-like things on a regular basis, I'd be missing out on stat improvements that others are getting.

[Birdbrain]

I'm new around here.

Once I read up more on helpfiles and got a feel for the game, I realized that my first character was trash, and that I'd already squandered the very limited amount of time available for a reroll. It was a pretty bad feeling, and left an initial sour taste in my mouth for the game.

I have to say that I am really, really not a fan of how stats are rolled in this game. I don't think it should be possible for your stat rolls totals (summed all 4 stats) should be able to vary to such a wide degree that it feels like one character is awesome out the gates and the other is riding the struggle bus. It seems like this system exists as a throwback to the old pencil & paper days of 2nd Edition. Even if we stick with the theme of continuing on in that vein, most tabletop systems have converted over to either point-buy stats on a bellcurve pricing scheme, or to a fixed spread of dice that you can allocate as you see fit. Simply because this is a issue that causes problems on the small scale of tabletop games where players are feeling like they're inequal in a cooperative setting, and here we are with 2-10x the playerbase on at any given time and it's a competitive system. If I knew that numerically, everyone had one awesome stat and one awful stat and the rest in the average-good range, then that'd be fine. What doesn't seem fine is that the current system allows for outliers where (using made up numbers here) one player might have 50% greater total number of stat points over the other due to a god roll. Or 50% under the median.

If stats are mutable and able to change over time, this problem simply becomes that of time played on the character. That opens a new can of worms for some players who are more part-timers or casual-paced gamers, but these games also were never really designed for people to be on a totally level playing field when it comes to time invested. Generally RPG's boil down to adventure more = get more and better stats/items/fame/etc.


A few suggestions from a noob perspective:
1) Three hours is insufficient time for actually new players. If the goal is to have your first character be a throw-away toon, that's fine I guess, but 3 hours into the game I was still frantically spamming help commands trying to figure out how to get more water.
2) The variance in total number of stat points on a character should be pretty static (and low).
3) Stat growth over the time fits the existing theme of skill growth over time and might encourage players to throw less characters into the bin and actually play them out- perhaps even playing *to* their weaknesses on their sheet to overcome their perceived deficiencies. Queue Rocky Balboa training montage.

[Narf]

A few suggestions from a noob perspective:
1) Three hours is insufficient time for actually new players. If the goal is to have your first character be a throw-away toon, that's fine I guess, but 3 hours into the game I was still frantically spamming help commands trying to figure out how to get more water.
2) The variance in total number of stat points on a character should be pretty static (and low).

I think staff is pretty "all in" on the dice rolling for stats, but both of these ideas could work within that framekwork. Offering new players much longer for a stat reroll (say first 2 characters get 1 day played or something) doesn't seem at all gamebreaking.

The variance-control idea is something I like. Allowing stats to be randomly rolled, but keep the total points similar across characters. So characters could be above average jack of all trades, or unbalanced savants with grave weaknesses and powerful strengths. But you wouldn't have people that are good at everything or bad at everything anymore. I honestly don't think these sorts of characters (I can do everything great! I can't do anything well!) add as much to the game as they take away. I get that their existence makes things a little more realistic, but the cost for that added realism is too high.

[Saiseiki]

To OP's first point of the current time being insufficient for stat reroll, at least on a first character:  +1.  I had ZERO idea what I was doing in my first dozen or so hours, and I know I'm not the only one.

[Maso]

I might be in the minority, but I generally like the way Arm stats work (with a few small exceptions). I like that not all characters are made equal with an equal number of stat points but just spread differently. If this wasn't a permadeath game and people were sticking with PCs for longer lengths of time I would feel differently on this. But because it is permadeath, and people usually roll through tons of characters - I think it works really well.

I love that we can have PCs that are totally trash at everything, and it's awesome when players lean into this, there should be total losers in the world, even if they don't last long (not all characters are destined to last.. some ought to be short-lived flavour characters who live fast and die young). On the other end of the scale, I love that there is the occasional chance for total legends, who just rock at everything and in the hands of a savvy player and good circumstances can achieve ridiculous things.

I think it's balanced and fair because.. everyone has an equal and fair chance of rolling these stats at some point. (she says, having never rolled an AI ever... bah).

Some things I don't like:

- I don't like that there is no way to work on stats IG, there used to be. I never ever used it, but I liked that the possibility was there and it always made me feel more at peace having trashy stats knowing that if I could be bothered, I could try and do something about it.

- How stats can just completey undermine a concept. Sometimes you really want to roll that big, stronk, burly PC and you write up that supporting background and appropriately muscled mdesc then they come out of the door with low str (despite prioritising). I had a chat with someone recently who had played a game where stats were rolled with similarly to how they are in Arm, but then everyone had an extra 4 points they could drop into anything. So they could boost up something that fell low or they could really pump up something that was already good... I really dig the idea of that little bit of extra flexibility.

- I dunno how rerolls actually work and we probably shouldn't discuss it in detail. But it always felt to me like rerolls weren't completely fresh rerolls, they always seem to be in the same ballpark with some stats always remaining the same and maybe a few shifting a little bit.. It could all be in my head, but I wish rerolls were.. completely, totally new rerolls.. If they're not.

[Alesan]

- I dunno how rerolls actually work and we probably shouldn't discuss it in detail. But it always felt to me like rerolls weren't completely fresh rerolls, they always seem to be in the same ballpark with some stats always remaining the same and maybe a few shifting a little bit.. It could all be in my head, but I wish rerolls were.. completely, totally new rerolls.. If they're not.

Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I think I remember reading that it actually IS designed as a partial reroll. I have a very limited experience (I think I've tried to reroll maybe two characters) and if I recall correctly, the last character I tried a reroll on ended up WORSE off for it. You're not only rerolling your attributes, but your pools as well. And if you reroll and revert back, your pools can end up different from what they started with. The system seems to be designed to discourage you from doing it.

[Supified]

I'd like a staff member to weigh in, but isn't this already possible through request plus role play?

I would assume you could in theory make a request with staff that was accompanied with the effort put fourth and then the staff could raise a stat and possibly even lower another to keep you in parity.

It isn't automated, but I think part of the problem with automation of such a system is abuse.  Maybe a way to work around the abuse angle could be done, but I'm not sure the request tool is a bad solution if you really want to work on stat alterations.

[Narf]

I'd like a staff member to weigh in, but isn't this already possible through request plus role play?

I would assume you could in theory make a request with staff that was accompanied with the effort put fourth and then the staff could raise a stat and possibly even lower another to keep you in parity.

It isn't automated, but I think part of the problem with automation of such a system is abuse.  Maybe a way to work around the abuse angle could be done, but I'm not sure the request tool is a bad solution if you really want to work on stat alterations.

My understanding is they don't do this anymore except under extremely unusual circumstances. Personally, I agree with this. The problem with providing stat bumps on request is that what would count as a valid reason is pretty arbitrary, and you have to figure that a pretty large proportion of players are going to assume a rejection of what they personally consider to be a very valid reason for a stat bump to be some sort of attack on them as a player. It's sticky and messy and prone to creating all sorts of interpersonal problems.

[Jihelu]

They aren't going to bump up your stats or skills, or add any, via request tool.

The only time I think they'll bump stats is if you're playing an elf and you got such a piss poor roll you can't wear your clothes.

[Brytta Léofa]

I'm new around here.

Once I read up more on helpfiles and got a feel for the game, I realized that my first character was trash, and that I'd already squandered the very limited amount of time available for a reroll. It was a pretty bad feeling, and left an initial sour taste in my mouth for the game.

I have to say that I am really, really not a fan of how stats are rolled in this game. I don't think it should be possible for your stat rolls totals (summed all 4 stats) should be able to vary to such a wide degree that it feels like one character is awesome out the gates and the other is riding the struggle bus.

What about reducing the variance of stats overall:
  such that nobody ever gets "poor", "below average", "exceptional", or "absolutely incredible",
and adding "boost stat" as a spendable bonus using CGP
  such that you could occasionally, for instance, add 1.5 categories to one stat of your choice?

Everybody much more the same, with Gooder Stats being something you can budget for?

I don't completely love this (and stats as they are don't bother me), but maybe it's a reasonable tack.

[The Lonely Hunter]

I don't think that this would work in today's atmosphere.

People are far too meta today and would get consumed by wanting higher stats. They would get even more twinky and I can imagine the complaints if a stat went down. We have already gone over the top of a slippery slope, that would just add grease to it.

Pretty neat and creative idea, however. Especially having a downside.

[creeper386]

I might be in the minority, but I generally like the way Arm stats work (with a few small exceptions).

I'm in the minority with you then. I like the arm stats.


As far as rerolls go, I know I've had rerolls that are worse, but lots that have been an improvement. And although perhaps rerolls has been changed since then, I've had rerolls that are DRASTICALLY different then my originals. Going from average stats to much lower or much higher.

[wizturbo]

I like the spirit of this, but not the specifics.  Seems like a lot of code work, and will inspire odd gameplay where people have some weird stat-boosting rituals they undergo before performing certain activities.  I'd prefer a more straight forward approach that provides long term benefits for characters as they age and progress, allowing them to customize themselves to better match who their character has become over the course of their life.

For example, what if you got to give yourself a stat boost after each in-game year, at the expense of another stat.  For instance, your Fighter/Weaponcrafter that took an arrow to the knee and decided to become a Salarri Merchant instead of staying with the Byn could knock a point off their agility and boost their wisdom instead.  If you want to ignore the roleplay element, and go with a more gameplay driven example... that Bynner who rolled only a Good strength that's been envious of every other fighter type who faired better at character generation has an opportunity to become buff, as long as they play the character long enough and sacrifice other stats to do so.

There's a reason D&D lets players boost their stats at certain milestones, and Armageddon was originally modelled off of tabletop-like systems...  Seems like a no brainer to me.  It would also be a fun moment when your character has a "birthday" and you get to do something to change your character as a result.

Guard rails on stat maximums should obviously apply here, and those maximums should probably be capped below what you could roll out of character generation to preserve the rarity of getting lucky genetics in life.  You may not be able to get that AI or Exceptional stat you wanted, but maybe you could get to Extremely Good through a system like this given enough time.  You'd never be able to have more total stats than you start with, but you could at least customize as if it was a point buy system over a long enough period of time.

[Halaster]

There's a reason D&D lets players boost their stats at certain milestones, and Armageddon was originally modelled off of tabletop-like systems...  Seems like a no brainer to me.  It would also be a fun moment when your character has a "birthday" and you get to do something to change your character as a result.

Not back in my day, sonny!  Back when I played D&D in 1st and 2nd Editions, you got 6 rolls of 3d6 and arranged them and that's it.  You rolled stats first, then figured out what you could play based on those.  Maybe you're DM was nice and let you kludge it a little.  But you got shitty stats and you liked it!  And those stats were in the snow, uphills, both ways!  Now get off my lawn.

[wizturbo]

Alright old timer.  Maybe 1st or 2nd edition will make a glorious comeback...  not holding my breath though

Even 1st and 2nd edition had things like feats though as optional rules.

[betweenford]

Okay Grandpa... Your Thac0 score is high enough to fight an anakore, now lets get you back inside....

[Patuk]

Dark Sun stats are rolled very differently from regular DnD stats. Also, getting back into things takes less(no) time as compared to Armageddon.

[Birdbrain]

There's a reason D&D lets players boost their stats at certain milestones, and Armageddon was originally modelled off of tabletop-like systems...  Seems like a no brainer to me.  It would also be a fun moment when your character has a "birthday" and you get to do something to change your character as a result.

Guard rails on stat maximums should obviously apply here, and those maximums should probably be capped below what you could roll out of character generation to preserve the rarity of getting lucky genetics in life.  You may not be able to get that AI or Exceptional stat you wanted, but maybe you could get to Extremely Good through a system like this given enough time.  You'd never be able to have more total stats than you start with, but you could at least customize as if it was a point buy system over a long enough period of time.

Rather than guardrails, I suggested cost curving stats. Poor to mediocre = 1pt. Average to good = 2pt. Great to amazing = 3 pt. Amazing to godlike = 5 pt.
Give people 3-4 points for every six months their character is alive. You want to get to godlike in something? Sure, but it's going to be the sole focus of all your potential progression, to the detriment of all other potential growth. At least, that's the idea?

This could even be a purely manual application process that wouldn't require any coded system changes. Give players a little "stat gain timer" on login like karma (but character bound, not account bound) and incentivize people to stick around and play out their plotlines than run back and play the reroll lotto.

Given the ability to modify their stats over time (to a degree) I'd totally see if some of the high-tier rolls weren't available out of Cgen just for balance's sake. That way someone who has one or two amazingly good stats in cgen can't simply progress their character to a situation where they're more or less stat capped across the board.

[mansa]

I would like a guaranteed stat bump of "1", after playing for 1 IC year, for all characters.   Roleplay not required.

After you log into your character, and they have aged 1 year, , and you get the message, 'Your birthday has passed', you have the opportunity to select a single stat to bump, and it will be bumped by 1 level.  This doesn't necessarily move it from 'poor' to 'below average', but moves it from '7 -> 8' on your hidden character sheet.

It is only available once.

[Maso]

I would like a guaranteed stat bump of "1", after playing for 1 IC year, for all characters.   Roleplay not required.

After you log into your character, and they have aged 1 year, , and you get the message, 'Your birthday has passed', you have the opportunity to select a single stat to bump, and it will be bumped by 1 level.  This doesn't necessarily move it from 'poor' to 'below average', but moves it from '7 -> 8' on your hidden character sheet.

It is only available once.

Pssssssssh. Don't ask you don't get! Aim higher! I want a stat bump of 1 EVERY IC YEAR. Age related changes still apply, so at some point you would be fighting against that.

[Alesan]

I would like a guaranteed stat bump of "1", after playing for 1 IC year, for all characters.   Roleplay not required.

After you log into your character, and they have aged 1 year, , and you get the message, 'Your birthday has passed', you have the opportunity to select a single stat to bump, and it will be bumped by 1 level.  This doesn't necessarily move it from 'poor' to 'below average', but moves it from '7 -> 8' on your hidden character sheet.

It is only available once.

Pssssssssh. Don't ask you don't get! Aim higher! I want a stat bump of 1 EVERY IC YEAR. Age related changes still apply, so at some point you would be fighting against that.

I feel like Mansa's idea is more likely to gain staff approval, even if that chance is still almost zero.

[MeTekillot]

I constantly argue for a system of coded bonuses and penalties that players can opt into to reinforce the theme.

What if players could choose to take quirks for their character, up to a cap of 3 4 or 5, and every one or two IC years, they receive that many points to apply to their stats for bonuses?

Examples (non exhaustive):
Virulent racist - choose one race that your character absolutely detests. When in the presence of this race, your character receives penalties of some kind unless they perform a hostile action against them.
Terrified of Templars - your character receives a delay (similar to the delays incurred by skills) when addressed by a Templar for the first time in a day (every RL hour).
Terrified of magick - as above, but they receive this delay once every ten RL minutes when they witness Elementalist or non-Templar magick.
Vice - your character is dependent on a particular vice. Whoring, spicing, alcohol, gambling, etc. Not to the degree of an actual addiction a la spice, but they must participate in this activity regularly or take penalties to skills or stats.

At the same time that a characterer would receive the stat allocation points as a result of these traits, allow the player instead to spend a stat allocation point to remove or add a quirk.

To qualify to receive the points, you must have 6 hours played since your last dispensation of points. You cannot accrue more points than you have quirks.

[wizturbo]

Not a fan of giving a stat boost without it costing something.  Not a fan of letting people EVER get to "max strength" short of getting lucky at character generation.  If you let up on those things, you take out the exceptional nature of having good stats.  It just means given enough time, ALL warriors will have max strength...  that's fine for some folks, but I'd rather have the diversity of haves and have nots that distinguishes Arm from other experiences.  Also has some game balance considerations if everyone can max out combat stats.

[Narf]

I'm gonna concur with the above poster, I'd be much more okay with stat boosts if they costed something.

[lostinspace]

I am generally against stat increases, I am however fine with stat redistribution.

If you really want that +1 strength, pick another stat to -1.

[pilgrim]

I don't think it would take too much code work to make stats draw from a set potential pool of points rather than a randomized one, or that it adds that much to the game to have "loser characters" who generally suck and "winner characters" who are great at everything. If anything, this design leads to a twinky attitude rather than a roleplaying attitude -- to be concerned with things like re-rolls and potentially generating throwaways until you get a character with good stats. When I roll a character it's because I have a concept in mind that I want to play and I plan my stats to support that concept, with according highs and lows. Of course it's realistic to have losers and winners, but we have a whole game world full of NPCs and VNPCs to provide that level of realism.

And sure, it doesn't really matter in terms of the way I play out a concept whether or not my character rolls good stats or not. Stats are a mechanical reality, however, and I don't think they should exist in such a way that: 1. detracts from the experience of players who prefer to focus on story, and - 2. encourages a form of twinking for people who are content enough to mow through throwaways.

Water finds a crack. Similarly, I don't think that time-gating stat progression is a great idea. With skill progression being a part of the game loop, adding stat progression could cause balance issues that don't need to exist. Longer-lived characters already have plenty of advantages over newbies. I prefer the idea of a set pool of points, again, and being eventually able to shift points from one stat to another in order to support the course of potential character developments.

[creeper386]

My personal opinion is having some sort of, everyone's pretty much average that comes from a pool of points ... really would make Arm a completely different game.

But then again almost all my characters already are pretty average so perhaps that's already kind of the norm.

[MeTekillot]

if you all insist that you must incur some sort of penalty in order to raise your current stats, at least make it a two-for-one. 2 points to one stat for every one you lose in another.

all of your physical stats already go into freefall if as your character gets older.

[Quell]

if you all insist that you must incur some sort of penalty in order to raise your current stats, at least make it a two-for-one. 2 points to one stat for every one you lose in another.

all of your physical stats already go into freefall if as your character gets older.

Oorrrrrrr, good ol' one for two. Lower two stats 1, raise one by 1.

[Lotion]

I would like a guaranteed stat bump of "1", after playing for 1 IC year, for all characters.   Roleplay not required.

After you log into your character, and they have aged 1 year, , and you get the message, 'Your birthday has passed', you have the opportunity to select a single stat to bump, and it will be bumped by 1 level.  This doesn't necessarily move it from 'poor' to 'below average', but moves it from '7 -> 8' on your hidden character sheet.

It is only available once.
what about after every 2^n years?

1,2,4,8,16, etc

[Greve]

I don't think it would take too much code work to make stats draw from a set potential pool of points rather than a randomized one, or that it adds that much to the game to have "loser characters" who generally suck and "winner characters" who are great at everything. If anything, this design leads to a twinky attitude rather than a roleplaying attitude -- to be concerned with things like re-rolls and potentially generating throwaways until you get a character with good stats. When I roll a character it's because I have a concept in mind that I want to play and I plan my stats to support that concept, with according highs and lows. Of course it's realistic to have losers and winners, but we have a whole game world full of NPCs and VNPCs to provide that level of realism.

And sure, it doesn't really matter in terms of the way I play out a concept whether or not my character rolls good stats or not. Stats are a mechanical reality, however, and I don't think they should exist in such a way that: 1. detracts from the experience of players who prefer to focus on story, and - 2. encourages a form of twinking for people who are content enough to mow through throwaways.

That's what I've always wanted. It really bothers me that you could have the same character roll VG/A/P/G or AI/EG/VG/EX depending purely on luck. Stats have such a gigantic impact on coded events that this level of randomness feels broken. While it should of course be said that it's nearly impossible to roll such awful stats that any concept is unplayable, assuming you at least prioritize properly, your stats absolutely can make the difference between a character that isn't codedly impressive in any way and one that stands out as incredibly powerful and succesful.

It's a stat system that has its roots in D&D. Back before all those new editions, stats in D&D were a total crapshoot, just like here. However, that game system offered a variety of ways to compensate for it. Magic items, freely available buff spells, multi-classing into something that better suits your stats, and - most importantly - a dungeon master who could accommodate the characters in their game and throw a bone or an extra challenge at players who rolled terrible or godly stats. We have none of those things on Armageddon. If you roll bad stats, your character is codedly crap forever. If you rolled awesome stats, your character is premium-mode at no cost or disadvantage. There's simply nothing that compensates for it. Rolling godlike stats is like paying for perks in a pay-to-win freemium game.

I've floated the idea before of rolling stats from a static pool. There didn't seem to be much support for it. Apparently, lots of players think it's awesome that a character can be crap or godly depending on blind luck. I've never really understood why, but that's the way it is. It's like if the game flipped a coin at creation to determine whether your skills cap at journeyman, advanced or master. Stats really can have that much of an impact in some cases.

If it was up to me, I would make it so that there's a static pool of stats and then a roll to determine the distribution. That leaves ample room for differences between characters. One guy might get VG/G/G/VG and another EX/A/P/EG. If you don't roll a really high stat, at least your other ones will be decent. If you do roll high in some, the others will be low. There would still be optimal outcomes, but they would come with disadvantages. There would be no rolls that are just straight shit for no reason. You know, the way literally all other forms of gaming have worked post-1990s, including the ones upon whose original systems Armageddon was based.

If you bring this up, however, you get accused of being a powergamer and not caring enough about roleplay, as if you could only care about one thing or the other. Dunno about anyone else, but I would focus less on code if there weren't these broken systems that get in the way. Armageddon doesn't turn into a MUSH if some of its more archaic and flawed systems are overhauled, same way it didn't when stat prioritization was implemented, or visible skill levels, even if people insisted at the time that it would. It's just silly. The less people have to worry about getting screwed over unfairly by the code, the more they'll focus on roleplay. Not the other way around. If people care too much about stats, it's because the stat system compels them to do so. The solution is very obvious.

Water finds a crack. Similarly, I don't think that time-gating stat progression is a great idea. With skill progression being a part of the game loop, adding stat progression could cause balance issues that don't need to exist. Longer-lived characters already have plenty of advantages over newbies. I prefer the idea of a set pool of points, again, and being eventually able to shift points from one stat to another in order to support the course of potential character developments.

Also very true. Stat progression would be a weak band-aid fix that solves basically nothing and adds an unsightly element to the already cumbersome progression systems of this game. More importantly, it would probably help characters with already great stats more than it helps those without. The way stats work, each point is worth more the more you already had, whereas an extra point at average might legitimately do nothing at all. I actually prefer that stats stay the way they are forever, just to keep it from being yet another feature to be gamed, but that they start out much more fair and without the need to grimace in anticipation when you first check them.

[Wday]

I would be happy if we could just do our bio after you get in game.  This way if I wrote the Hulk and he came out with POOR strength. I could Bio how on one summer day a elven person stabbed me in the back. Doing muscle damage causing me a great weakness.

[MeTekillot]

if you all insist that you must incur some sort of penalty in order to raise your current stats, at least make it a two-for-one. 2 points to one stat for every one you lose in another.

all of your physical stats already go into freefall if as your character gets older.

Oorrrrrrr, good ol' one for two. Lower two stats 1, raise one by 1.

Why? That sounds terrible and frustrating.

[Jarvis]

Honestly just have it so stats are rolled before putting up your descriptions. Its really weird to roll up Duncan the 8-packed DESTROYER of worlds and consumer of protein to have mediocre strength and crazy wisdom. Or even if all stats come up average, let me switch to the concept so I can make a captivating average guy.

I'd ask to assign stats but I know that to do that, the system would have to be unobfuscated, but some sort of solution so my anorexic human doesn't end up winning the Arnold Sport's festival three consecutive years.

[Jihelu]

Honestly just have it so stats are rolled before putting up your descriptions. Its really weird to roll up Duncan the 8-packed DESTROYER of worlds and consumer of protein to have mediocre strength and crazy wisdom. Or even if all stats come up average, let me switch to the concept so I can make a captivating average guy.

I'd ask to assign stats but I know that to do that, the system would have to be obfuscated, but some sort of solution so my anorexic human doesn't end up winning the Arnold Sport's festival three consecutive years.

I support this message

[spicemustflow]

Honestly just have it so stats are rolled before putting up your descriptions. Its really weird to roll up Duncan the 8-packed DESTROYER of worlds and consumer of protein to have mediocre strength and crazy wisdom. Or even if all stats come up average, let me switch to the concept so I can make a captivating average guy.

I'd ask to assign stats but I know that to do that, the system would have to be obfuscated, but some sort of solution so my anorexic human doesn't end up winning the Arnold Sport's festival three consecutive years.

I support this message

huge +1

[Greve]

I would be happy if we could just do our bio after you get in game.  This way if I wrote the Hulk and he came out with POOR strength. I could Bio how on one summer day a elven person stabbed me in the back. Doing muscle damage causing me a great weakness.

Honestly just have it so stats are rolled before putting up your descriptions. Its really weird to roll up Duncan the 8-packed DESTROYER of worlds and consumer of protein to have mediocre strength and crazy wisdom.

That's an imaginary issue. It's not a thing that happens unless for some reason you prioritize your stats in the opposite order from what you wanted. Your highest roll goes in your first priority, second highest in your second, etc. Things like age and class can affect the final result and could potentially make your 2nd priority be marginally higher than your 1st, but there's no such thing as what's described in these quotes unless you actively chose the options that would make that happen. If not, it's legitimately impossible. It's pure fiction and I don't understand why that gets +1'd. People make these scenarios up in their minds that literally cannot happen and then suggest changes based on it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Jihelu]

I would be happy if we could just do our bio after you get in game.  This way if I wrote the Hulk and he came out with POOR strength. I could Bio how on one summer day a elven person stabbed me in the back. Doing muscle damage causing me a great weakness.

Honestly just have it so stats are rolled before putting up your descriptions. Its really weird to roll up Duncan the 8-packed DESTROYER of worlds and consumer of protein to have mediocre strength and crazy wisdom.

That's an imaginary issue. It's not a thing that happens unless for some reason you prioritize your stats in the opposite order from what you wanted. Your highest roll goes in your first priority, second highest in your second, etc. Things like age and class can affect the final result and could potentially make your 2nd priority be marginally higher than your 1st, but there's no such thing as what's described in these quotes unless you actively chose the options that would make that happen. If not, it's legitimately impossible. It's pure fiction and I don't understand why that gets +1'd. People make these scenarios up in their minds that literally cannot happen and then suggest changes based on it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess I've had an imaginary issue then?
I've prioritized rolls and have gotten dog shit rolls. If I prioritize strength, roll up my hulking muscle man, and I get an average roll, I wouldn't have written my character to be hulking muscle man.

[triste]

Were you rolling characters that were also teenagers, or characters in their mid twenties or older?

We all know stats are age affected on Armageddon because your character's stats change right before your eyes as they age, this is not guesswork.

Look at this bullshit chart* that claims to be backed by science. Teenagers have higher peak testosterone but lower minimum testosterone. Minimum testosterone is highest around age 25. It takes a few years to build muscle mass. QED a human is likely to be at their physically strongest around age 25 and after, just like for humans on Armageddon.

_{^{* This chart is based on sources I haven't deeply investigated and pertains to men. Not excluding ladies, anyone who has had the misfortune of meeting me knows I have a lot of muscle for having XX chromosomes, and I know ciswomen who are ripped.}}

[Greve]

I guess I've had an imaginary issue then?
I've prioritized rolls and have gotten dog shit rolls. If I prioritize strength, roll up my hulking muscle man, and I get an average roll, I wouldn't have written my character to be hulking muscle man.

Unless you picked something really odd like a minimum age character with strength prioritized, or extremely old with agility, the odds of getting anything less than 'good' in your first priority are so microscopic that it's not worth thinking about. I don't believe I've ever seen anything less than very good in my 1st priority in the like sixteen years since stat prioritization was implemented, but I imagine it would be possible if you picked some really absurd class/age/prio combinations.

The posts I quoted claimed to be getting poor strength when prioritizing it, or medium strength and "crazy wisdom." I maintain that this is literally impossible. The mechanics for that to happen straight-up do not exist, unless that dude's "Hulk with poor strength" was like 70 years old. The  code does not permit for someone who prioritized strength 1st to roll mediocre strength and crazy high wisdom unless it's a max-age meme PC. It can't happen under normal circumstances.

You can roll pretty crappy overall stats, like VG/AA/P/A or something, but you cannot roll poor in your first priority without intentionally creating an absurdly configured character.

[eagle]

I'm just going to quickly add a plus one to the idea of rolling before the main description. My third character in, and somehow I still missed the face that you -can- reroll, so am now stuck with what would not have been a roll I settled for. Sure, I'm fairly new to arm but I'm not new to muds and I scoured to help files a bit more on each new character. Maybe I missed them because overall I'm tired of grindy stat based rp's, but I do feel that it should be more of an active part in the creation.

[triste]

Prepare for tons of people suddenly rolling one toothed dwarves when they know their stats are bad who have the sudden biography of "has always wondered what it's like to swim in the silt sea."

Prepare for people suddenly hitting "connection issues" or "bugs" during character generation to try and get free rerolls.

If you put stats before roleplay, the changes in behavior that follow are obvious.

[triste]

Also the obsession with physical appearance matching stats is funny AF as someone who has been friends with professional MMA fighters and professional body builders. I have to give y'all lads a rude awakening here: show muscle ≠ ability to fight or lift or what have you.

[Jarvis]

Also the obsession with physical appearance matching stats is funny AF as someone who has been friends with professional MMA fighters and professional body builders. I have to give y'all lads a rude awakening here: show muscle ≠ ability to fight or lift or what have you.

Its less about big muscles big strong man and the actual reasoning behind it and more the discrepancy in between the concept I wan't to play and am applying to play and what the rolls force me to play instead. Even if you prioritize everything fine sometimes you just get weird rolls, which I could have made work in an interesting fashion had I written my description and background after.

Yeah you can be a nearly obese man who can just bench a beetle, or a skinny elf that's emaciated and has the hand-eye coordination of a half-giant who had a stroke, but wouldn't it have been more fun if you could have that factor to take into account beforehand so you could design a concept to fit it? Instead of having to bastardize the character you rolled to fit the circumstances.

[triste]

This debate is practically as old as Armageddon itself. It boils down to two camps who cannot agree. Camp A keeps crying "I wanted to roleplay literal Hercules but the dice didn't let me waaaah" and Camp B keeps heckling, "I've played a mundane withered crone who rolled 0 strength for ten years therefore I am a better roleplayer than you."

Now, in this moment, I am Camp B. Last time I had this debate I was in Camp A. Someone named Fathi was in Camp B. She convinced me to defect to her camp. Ironically I have gotten more kudoses as my characters with shitty stats. My concepts were not ruined by "bad rolls." The struggle actually can add depth.

You never know what rewards await when you open your mind.

[Jarvis]

This debate is practically as old as Armageddon itself. It boils down to two camps who cannot agree. Camp A keeps crying "I wanted to roleplay literal Hercules but the dice didn't let me waaaah" and Camp B keeps heckling, "I've played a mundane withered crone who rolled 0 strength for ten years therefore I am a better roleplayer than you."

Now, in this moment, I am Camp B. Last time I had this debate I was in Camp A. Someone named Fathi was in Camp B. She convinced me to defect to her camp. Ironically I have gotten more kudoses as my characters with shitty stats. My concepts were not ruined by "bad rolls." The struggle actually can add depth.

You never know what rewards await when you open your mind.

That's far from my point man. The stats can come up with three averages and a poor, the point is to not have stats contradict a concept, be it a demented old hag with muscles made out of paper or three times Mr.Olympia, the problem is that you make a concept, go in completely blind, and then in the cases where it blatantly contradicts where you're going for, its disheartening.

Its not about having the best stats, but if I'm rolling up a hunter who is so piss poor that he dies to a scorpion or a thief who turned out to have poor agility but for some reason is so buff that he has biceps on his eyebrows, its a bit confounding. With the new guilds, I can tell that the stat bonuses have changed, and I find myself playing the exact same ones because I don't want to go through the process of trying to figure out how to prioritize correctly for guild A or B.

[triste]

Alright alright some visibility into the system might help (spoiler alert it will help nothing because this is a roleplay intensive mud not a hack and slash).

For instance I worry we may lose players who don't know how things work and might do something like constantly roll teenage city elves and constantly die because they keep rolling 50hp. So it might help newbies.

So the compromised technical solution is showing people the range of stats they might get. Example:

You've chosen to play a Half Giant raider who is 20 years old with a stat priority of ____, your expected stats are:
Hitpoints: 100 - 250hp
strength: above average to absolutely incredible
. . .


But of course, knowing all of you, if we grant ANY visibility into stats, the desire to "win" and "be the best" (gag) combined with this EXTRA information you DON'T need will fuck up your behavior. Even knowing the range of stats, if you then rolled up a 100hp above average strength half giant you might suicide. Because now you know how much HP they COULD have and you'll feel shorted. Because what you are all telling me is you care more about stats than the character concept itself.

And so this is why things are the way they are today.

Fun fact, when I made my guild picker I got a lot of criticism from people who think it emphasizes the worst part of Armageddon when roleplay should be emphasized. They're kind of right. Fun fact, I spent about 40 minutes trying to build stat modeling into my guild picker so that you can guess your stats given an age, stat order, etc, but stopped remembering the criticism from before and realizing WHY staff obfuscate this information.

Everyone whines "I want my stats to match my concept." But when the ONLY examples I hear from you all is I want to "Look and be as strong as Super Man," and "I want to look like Flash Gordon and be just as fast," well, I see a love of power gaming. The fact that the wisdom stat hasn't made it into this discussion at all is apropos and I guess I'll leave this topic alone for a while.

^{_{next mdesc is going to describe intelligent soulful eyes for two sentences plz give me max wisdom and psionics}}

[triste]

Last post for real.

* The Flash not Flash Gordon, autism fail.

Someone smarter than me can come up with a solution that doesn't shift incentives. One I mentioned two years ago that I saw hinted at here.
- In the name of fairness all characters get stat points that are equal. ALL. Let's bullshit a number like 60 CGP.
- Your initial roll is still RANDOM. A bad roll would burn 25 CGP for example while a great roll burns 35 CGP for example.
- Every year you age you get some formula's worth of CGP say (60CGP - (roll CGP for example 30 CGP)) / 10 years for up to ten years.

In this system everyone wins and the only new incentive is to live longer. You still have interesting randomness and an incentive to live.

I came up with and discussed this idea two years ago anyone is free to come up with better. Think about incentives.

[triste]

Last post, keeping it brief because I already discussed this more than a year ago. If your initial roll is incongruous with your mdesc that can easily be covered with a small recent addendum to their background. Less strong initially than described? Maybe they broke a limb recently but will fully recover in a year (when you get CGP to dump on strength). Less wise than expected? Maybe they recently developed a drinking problem which can also resolve conveniently by the time you get your CGP. Your character overcoming an initial challenge might make them stronger in the long term, eerily like real life. This system doesn't put stats and skill grinding first, only roleplay and longevity first.

[cali]

My main issue with stats is you have to write your description beforehand. You wrote an average throwaway Amos but surprise he is a Greek God at least according to stats.

[Greve]

I still don't understand why that, of all things, is what people are so concerned about. It doesn't make sense to me.

Three of the four stats can reasonably be called "physically invisible." You can't look at somebody and tell how wise or agile they are at a glance. Assuming you didn't describe your character with "the witless eyes of a blatant simpleton" or "the hunched, arthritic posture of an invalid," it really doesn't matter what your description is when it comes to any stat besides strength.

And if you prioritize strength and didn't make an extremely young or old character, you're virtually guaranteed a good enough strength roll to justify anything short of an Arnold Swarzenegger description. If you pick any age between like 22 and 40, you're nearly guaranteed at least 'very good' strength and probably more than that, and there's really no description one could write where that would clash with the stat. Moreover, it's not something anybody except you will give the remotest of fucks about. Nobody submits a player complaint because that guy described his character as burly but didn't hit hard in the sparring circle. It's an imaginary issue.

Considering how many layers of imbalance and ill-conceived 1990s-era game design make up the onion that is Armageddon's stat system, I'm just continuously baffled to hear this cited as the most popular problem with it. It is very close to impossible to get a 1st prioritized roll that does not justify whatever description any reasonable person might come up with. As long as you're not creating intentionally bizarre troll characters, like a 70-year-old Conan the Barbarian, you can describe your character any way you want and almost certainly get stats that justify whatever you wrote. Nobody's gonna notice or care in the slightest if your agile young man only has very good agility, or if your muscle-bound brute didn't quite reach absolutely incredible strength.

There's a whole bunch of issues with the idea of writing descriptions after seeing one's stats. For one thing, how would it even work? Should you submit a character without a description, wait for approval, see your stats, then submit a description, wait for approval on that, and then finally enter the game? Or are people seriously suggesting that we should just be able to roll stats over and over again, and then submit the application afterwards? Because both are equally silly.

And more importantly, if the stat system didn't allow for a level of randomness that makes players feel screwed over or handed a godlike character for free, there wouldn't be this debate in the first place. Games like Shadows of Isildur and Atonement had a relatively static pool of total stats (give or take a few points) that rolled to determine the distribution, and stats were not discussed regularly in those games, nor did people feel the need to suicide characters because the dice fucked them in the ear.

[Krath]

My main issue with stats is you have to write your description beforehand. You wrote an average throwaway Amos but surprise he is a Greek God at least according to stats.

You can be muscular and weak. And not muscular and strong.  Plus you can prioritize strength.

The problem, based on post in this thread, seems to be everyone is writing up JACKED MDESC BODYBUILDER PCs and upset when they do get ai.

[triste]

Holy crap it's been so long since someone's backed me up. Though indirectly, always.


_{^{I guess our company does hire smart people.}}

[wizturbo]

Stats matter.  People care about them.  They aren't bad roleplayers for caring about them or any other coded aspect of the game.  It isn't outlandish for people to want a way to affect their stats outside of using magick, largely because it's realistically what you'd expect to happen.   There wouldn't be threads on this subject for the last twenty years if these things were not true. 

No need to make this all about the extreme high end of the stat range either.  No, not every character should be able to get the highest stats... I don't think that's the point of the thread.  It is to let players have some agency over how their character changes over time, be it through in-game character actions or player decisions. 

Those who prefer a random number generator to determine everything, great, how does this thread impact you in anyway?  No one is suggesting the random number generator has to go away?  Are you really suggesting it harms your play experience to consider that stats shift to some small degree over time, so much so that you derail the thread discussing the topic to try and invalidate the entire source of the demand for such a change?

[wizturbo]

I still don't understand why that, of all things, is what people are so concerned about. It doesn't make sense to me.

People like their character concepts to be reflected in the code in some manner.  For some people, it may mean they want to roleplay literal greek gods...  and no, I don't think they should be able to do that.
The dice are there to limit the number of characters that win that genetic lottery to a healthy amount, so every character running around isn't hercules.  This is a good thing!  For most people however, they just want the code to semi-reflect the concept they have in mind.

Let's say I want to make an uneducated, rugged outdoorsman whose good at archery and hunting and likes to earn extra coin logging for a living.  I prioritize agility > strength > endurance > wisdom.  I end up with Exceptional agility, and below average in everything else.  Yes, this happens.  In fact, statistically speaking, it's more common than players who have great stats.

The ramifications of these stats are clear:  My rugged archer cannot use a good bow or crossbow.  They cannot even lift a log, and get exhausted from logging very quickly.  If I play this character for 5 in-game years, they will still not be able to do anything of these things...even if they use archery daily and go logging every week.   The concept doesn't really work... sure you can alter your concept, roll with the punches and adapt.  Some people find that kind of thing fun, in fact I personally love that sort of thing but I can easily recognize how others would not!

[Birdbrain]

I guess I've had an imaginary issue then?
I've prioritized rolls and have gotten dog shit rolls. If I prioritize strength, roll up my hulking muscle man, and I get an average roll, I wouldn't have written my character to be hulking muscle man.

Unless you picked something really odd like a minimum age character with strength prioritized, or extremely old with agility, the odds of getting anything less than 'good' in your first priority are so microscopic that it's not worth thinking about. I don't believe I've ever seen anything less than very good in my 1st priority in the like sixteen years since stat prioritization was implemented, but I imagine it would be possible if you picked some really absurd class/age/prio combinations.

The posts I quoted claimed to be getting poor strength when prioritizing it, or medium strength and "crazy wisdom." I maintain that this is literally impossible. The mechanics for that to happen straight-up do not exist, unless that dude's "Hulk with poor strength" was like 70 years old. The  code does not permit for someone who prioritized strength 1st to roll mediocre strength and crazy high wisdom unless it's a max-age meme PC. It can't happen under normal circumstances.

You can roll pretty crappy overall stats, like VG/AA/P/A or something, but you cannot roll poor in your first priority without intentionally creating an absurdly configured character.

I've played maybe half a dozen characters so far and can tell you that your assertions here are anecdotal and not indicative of people's personal experiences.
I think 1/3rd of the characters I've rolled, my best stat was a good. Ponder on that for a minute. Priority #1 is a good. Rest is average or below average. The ONE reroll didn't help.
Guess my character's just shit. 10/10 will roll again.

Edit: I just want to make clear as well, I love the game, I just think totally random, fixed stats are probably one of the few weak points the game has that really sticks out to me.

[lostinspace]

I think 1/3rd of the characters I've rolled, my best stat was a good. Ponder on that for a minute. Priority #1 is a good. Rest is average or below average. The ONE reroll didn't help.
Guess my character's just shit. 10/10 will roll again.

Good isn't even 'good', it's average. I think that likely leads to some misunderstanding at times as well.

The scale currently:
Absolutely Insane
Exceptional
Extremely Good
Very Good
Good
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Poor

The scale how it should be:
Abolutely Insane
Exceptional
Very Good
Good
Average
Bad
Very Bad
Terrible
Completely Horrendous

[Alesan]

The scale currently:
Absolutely Insane
Exceptional
Extremely Good
Very Good
Good
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Poor

This scale makes perfect sense when taking the v/npc population into consideration. I assume that's intended.

[mansa]

It certainly feels like this discussion comes up again and again:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,30474.0.html - April 14, 2008

In my experience with other games, as my characters "grow and get better", I have the opportunity to affect their skills and stats development and to focus on particular growth in a certain style.

I may want to bump my charisma or luck in Fallout games (to experience a diplomatic gameplay), and I may want to bump my endurance and strength in other games (to carry more stuff than before, because I'm hording all objects in the game).   At level 4 and at level 8, I'm able to pick which stats I want to bump when playing D&D 5e.   It's part of the culture of roleplaying games.

In ArmageddonMUD, there is a chance when your character grows older, that their stats will updated and changed, and (in my opinion) the most popular game experience for stat changes are when your character gets older and those stats gets reduced.  It doesn't seem that when your character gets older, their stats increase.  These "stat changes" happen when your characters have a birthday, and you don't have to be logged in at the time to get the stat adjustments.

If I roll up a character concept, and I'm unhappy with my original stats and unhappy with my reroll, there really isn't anything else that I can do with the character concept, since the staff do not take roleplay logs of my character working out every day in order to bump their strength score as policy.  In reality, I'm still unhappy with the roll I got for my character I want to play.

I still think a generic "every character gets one bump after the first 6 weeks of play, on your character's birthday" would make characters of 'average' stats feel better about the story they put into their characters.   We all want to play heroes and villians, right?

[Veselka]

I would even be fine with the ability to reduce an Awesome Stat 1 -3 points, to increase another stat 1-3 points.

But yeah, I really think if a PC survives 5 days played, they should get a stat boost as a pat on the butt.

[Birdbrain]

Mansa, I like some of your analogies but I think maybe one of the holdups with implementing a stat progression system as your character ages is that we have relatively few stats comparative to most RPG's (six for most D20 systems, IIRC, and 7 for fallout inspired games?) Whereas here we have 4, and really 3 if we're talking about directly combat-related stats (which arguably is the most important aspect for a good percentage of the population) I could see that as a possible point of contention regarding any prospective changes being made, as you get significantly more 'bang for your buck' here as you would with D20.

Still, compared to the suggestions I've put forth, I think your suggestion of having milestone /played rewards is a very good idea. It's a good middleground between having something people have to grind for in addition to skills, as well as a carrot put forth for players to simply not reroll a 'poorly' rolled character.

[triste]

Nice idea in that it rewards longevity like my idea.

But as Birdbrain says doesn't really work because limited stats, and also as I mentioned before, the idea of opportunity cost and fairness.

My idea still has the added benefit of making all of this more fair. People will still complain with Mansa/Veselka's idea when they get a shitty initial roll. What's the point of a longevity stat boost if you roll all poor stats and Joe Blow rolled three Absolutely Incredible stats and now has four absolutely incredible stats.

The psychology of opportunity cost is ugly but it is also the crux of the problem here and my solution fixes that problem unlike the recent proposals.

[Greve]

I've played maybe half a dozen characters so far and can tell you that your assertions here are anecdotal and not indicative of people's personal experiences.
I think 1/3rd of the characters I've rolled, my best stat was a good. Ponder on that for a minute. Priority #1 is a good. Rest is average or below average. The ONE reroll didn't help.
Guess my character's just shit. 10/10 will roll again.

Edit: I just want to make clear as well, I love the game, I just think totally random, fixed stats are probably one of the few weak points the game has that really sticks out to me.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I said: "You're essentially guaranteed at least 'good' in your first priority."

You said: "You're wrong! Some of my characters had 'good' in their first priority."

I was responding to people claiminig to have rolled poor strength on a character with (presumably, given what they wrote) strength prioritized. Or average strength and "crazy" wisdom. This isn't something that happens, simply put.

There's a hell of a lot wrong with the stat system. I was simply baffled that so many thought that the main issue is that you don't get to see your stats before writing your description. Of all the things that have been suggested, that's the one that makes the least sense, and yet it's the one that seemingly got the most agreement, so I had to point out that no, nobody rolls poor strength on a "Hulk" character unless they prioritized strength last to go with their muscle-bound description.

If I roll up a character concept, and I'm unhappy with my original stats and unhappy with my reroll, there really isn't anything else that I can do with the character concept, since the staff do not take roleplay logs of my character working out every day in order to bump their strength score as policy.  In reality, I'm still unhappy with the roll I got for my character I want to play.

I still think a generic "every character gets one bump after the first 6 weeks of play, on your character's birthday" would make characters of 'average' stats feel better about the story they put into their characters.   We all want to play heroes and villians, right?

The root of the problem is that stats are so wildly random that one can legitimately and rightfully be unhappy with them. It really sucks when you have your heart set on playing, say, a gritty mercenary who lives by the sword and one day takes up raiding, and then your stats come out good, average, poor, above average. Especially when you know that if you had only been luckier, you might have had exceptional, extremely good, above average, extremely good. I don't understand why it should be that way. I don't see any benefits whatsoever.

And it's not that anyone needs great stats to enjoy a character. It's not that a character can't do anything cool without great stats. It's just fundamentally bad game design, especially in a game with permadeath and globally free-for-all PvP encouraged by the game's setting, to saddle some players with a big advantage or disadvantage that was not earned or deserved in some fashion. It's why no games have done it this way since the 90s.

I don't think any of these fiddly little suggestions would change anything. The ability to move a point from one stat to another doesn't change the fact that two otherwise identical characters can come in with one having two, three or even four categories higher in every stat than the other. It's still gonna blow to see G/AA/P/A, even if you get a +1 to one of them after five days of play or whatever. And that change would help Mr. EX/EG/G/EG even more because a +1 to any stat at those levels gives you more than it would at lower levels.

Rolling stats from a set pool solves basically every problem. That's how it has worked on a slew of other RPIs, and it worked great. You wouldn't get all-high or all-mediocre rolls. If you get a high score in one, you'll get a correspondingly low score in another. If you got no particularly high ones, you'd get no really low ones, either.  It didn't lead to boring, samey characters. It didn't prevent anyone from playing a cripple or a half-wit or a muscle-bound hero. All it did was ensure that nobody was screwed over unfairly, or handed a bunch of extra power for free through sheer blind luck.

Most importantly, it meant that players had no real reason to be upset about any of their characters' stats, and as a result, it was just not a topic of discussion in those games. Everyone was satisfied. There was no need for a bunch of arcane rules about shifting points from one stat to another during the course of play. Because as mansa points out:

It certainly feels like this discussion comes up again and again

And that's because it's something that has bothered players throughout this game's history.

[Birdbrain]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I probably shouldn't have quoted, it was more a rebuttal to people saying "But it works for me when I get godrolls 2/3rds of the time!"

The root of the problem is that stats are so wildly random that one can legitimately and rightfully be unhappy with them. It really sucks when you have your heart set on playing, say, a gritty mercenary who lives by the sword and one day takes up raiding, and then your stats come out good, average, poor, above average. Especially when you know that if you had only been luckier, you might have had exceptional, extremely good, above average, extremely good. I don't understand why it should be that way. I don't see any benefits whatsoever.

And it's not that anyone needs great stats to enjoy a character. It's not that a character can't do anything cool without great stats. It's just fundamentally bad game design, especially in a game with permadeath and globally free-for-all PvP encouraged by the game's setting, to saddle some players with a big advantage or disadvantage that was not earned or deserved in some fashion. It's why no games have done it this way since the 90s.

I don't think any of these fiddly little suggestions would change anything. The ability to move a point from one stat to another doesn't change the fact that two otherwise identical characters can come in with one having two, three or even four categories higher in every stat than the other. It's still gonna blow to see G/AA/P/A, even if you get a +1 to one of them after five days of play or whatever. And that change would help Mr. EX/EG/G/EG even more because a +1 to any stat at those levels gives you more than it would at lower levels.

Rolling stats from a set pool solves basically every problem. That's how it has worked on a slew of other RPIs, and it worked great. You wouldn't get all-high or all-mediocre rolls. If you get a high score in one, you'll get a correspondingly low score in another. If you got no particularly high ones, you'd get no really low ones, either.  It didn't lead to boring, samey characters. It didn't prevent anyone from playing a cripple or a half-wit or a muscle-bound hero. All it did was ensure that nobody was screwed over unfairly, or handed a bunch of extra power for free through sheer blind luck.

This was more or less my suggestion, or one of them, rather. Either use a pool of values with a fixed sum, or use a weighted average.
As you stated, my personal issue is with the variance. Stat's don't make or break roleplaying skill or ability in a game where a GM isn't giving us CHA checks to roll against.
What it does allow, however, is someone curb-stomping someone else who's put in the same amount of work and time into skilling and training their character, because arbitrary number being bigger here and there means they're statistically much more likely to win a battle. Not because of RP. Not because they didn't put the time in. Because they won a literal lottery in cgen.

I'd also point out that there's likely a nice added benefit of using a set pool, in that the players who are keen on min/maxing to get epic killstreaks are going to waste significantly less of staff's time dumping in app after app.
That could only be a positive thing for the game at large.