Stat rolls and the experience of having good/bad stats

[mansa]

I never understood the reasoning behind that karma off, karma is not a finite resource, it's supposed to be staff trust in your play and decisions in the game world.  I think people were looking at it incorrectly back then.

The reason for the karma off was that the players vocally told the staff to stop approving magicker, sorcerer, mul, and psionicists characters because it didn't represent the coded power levels and the roleplay reactions to having everybody in your surrounding neighbourhood be a magicker in the game world, and since the staff wasn't going to stop approving magickers the players asked to have their karma removed in revolt.

You can read it here: https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,28005.0.html

[Miradus]

I'm honestly not really sure from this thread what people consider good and bad stats....

Put plainly, good stats are what allow me to achieve my plan for the character. A sneaky thief? I want high agility. I don't care about strength that much. A stronk brawler? I wanna be strong. I don't care about agility hugely much because I will be wearing heavy armor anyway.

And so forth and so on.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's your character. Your vision. Your plan.

[Brisket]

That's not the extent of what makes a good character though.  The world is richer by having both skilled and unskilled thieves.  By having warriors who wear heavy armor and warriors who wear leather.  By having people who wield a dagger, and people who wield a club.

Just because a few people would prefer to Win every time doesn't mean that's what's best for the game.

[Miradus]

That's not the extent of what makes a good character though.  The world is richer by having both skilled and unskilled thieves.  By having warriors who wear heavy armor and warriors who wear leather.  By having people who wield a dagger, and people who wield a club.

Just because a few people would prefer to Win every time doesn't mean that's what's best for the game.

Win every time? Do you even play Armageddon? you can have AI across the board and some mul is still going to konk you flat with a club, or you'll lose link and fall off your beetle or a storm sends you plunging into the sinkhole or a templar doesn't like your pants and it's to the arena with you.

The good character is by how it's played, not by its stats. Can you be fun with bad stats? Sure. But I can be more fun if I have great stats to survive the mischief I cause. That's the argument.

[Kavrick]

That's not the extent of what makes a good character though.  The world is richer by having both skilled and unskilled thieves.  By having warriors who wear heavy armor and warriors who wear leather.  By having people who wield a dagger, and people who wield a club.

Just because a few people would prefer to Win every time doesn't mean that's what's best for the game.

Win every time? Do you even play Armageddon? you can have AI across the board and some mul is still going to konk you flat with a club, or you'll lose link and fall off your beetle or a storm sends you plunging into the sinkhole or a templar doesn't like your pants and it's to the arena with you.

The good character is by how it's played, not by its stats. Can you be fun with bad stats? Sure. But I can be more fun if I have great stats to survive the mischief I cause. That's the argument.

I think I do agree with this. If you roll good stats, you can still rp your character as having flaws and being bad traits rp wise, but if you roll bad stats you kinda have it thrust upon you to be bad at things.

[Brokkr]

When I asked them about it, they told me they did it in hopes it would be a temporary thing, going from 7 to 2 or whatever they did.

Come to find out they regretted it as by the time the new levels kicked in, they still had not got back their previous choices or levels.

It was player choice to reduce their karma.  In respecting such choices, it was never refunded en masse.  When individual players have reached out to us to request their karma be returned that they voluntarily gave up, we have refunded it.  I have only seen a few cases of this, and none in the last several years that I can remember, as most of that happened before I was on Staff.

If anyone wants their voluntarily reduced karma back, have them put in a request.  We tracked reductions on folks accounts so it is quite clear to us who did this and there shouldn't be an issue in most cases in getting it back.

[Pariah]

When I asked them about it, they told me they did it in hopes it would be a temporary thing, going from 7 to 2 or whatever they did.

Come to find out they regretted it as by the time the new levels kicked in, they still had not got back their previous choices or levels.

It was player choice to reduce their karma.  In respecting such choices, it was never refunded en masse.  When individual players have reached out to us to request their karma be returned that they voluntarily gave up, we have refunded it.  I have only seen a few cases of this, and none in the last several years that I can remember, as most of that happened before I was on Staff.

If anyone wants their voluntarily reduced karma back, have them put in a request.  We tracked reductions on folks accounts so it is quite clear to us who did this and there shouldn't be an issue in most cases in getting it back.

Awesome, I'll let them know, might get back a two more old players.

[Brisket]

That's not the extent of what makes a good character though.  The world is richer by having both skilled and unskilled thieves.  By having warriors who wear heavy armor and warriors who wear leather.  By having people who wield a dagger, and people who wield a club.

Just because a few people would prefer to Win every time doesn't mean that's what's best for the game.

Win every time? Do you even play Armageddon? you can have AI across the board and some mul is still going to konk you flat with a club, or you'll lose link and fall off your beetle or a storm sends you plunging into the sinkhole or a templar doesn't like your pants and it's to the arena with you.

The good character is by how it's played, not by its stats. Can you be fun with bad stats? Sure. But I can be more fun if I have great stats to survive the mischief I cause. That's the argument.

I think the issue is that you're making a subjective claim (its more fun to have good status) and saying it as if its objective.  The point of the game isn't your mobkill score or your pk score, its to tell a story within the world as it exists.  Stats don't matter for that, they just influence (somewhat) how the story goes.

[Riev]

That's not the extent of what makes a good character though.  The world is richer by having both skilled and unskilled thieves.  By having warriors who wear heavy armor and warriors who wear leather.  By having people who wield a dagger, and people who wield a club.

Just because a few people would prefer to Win every time doesn't mean that's what's best for the game.

Win every time? Do you even play Armageddon? you can have AI across the board and some mul is still going to konk you flat with a club, or you'll lose link and fall off your beetle or a storm sends you plunging into the sinkhole or a templar doesn't like your pants and it's to the arena with you.

The good character is by how it's played, not by its stats. Can you be fun with bad stats? Sure. But I can be more fun if I have great stats to survive the mischief I cause. That's the argument.

I think the issue is that you're making a subjective claim (its more fun to have good status) and saying it as if its objective.  The point of the game isn't your mobkill score or your pk score, its to tell a story within the world as it exists.  Stats don't matter for that, they just influence (somewhat) how the story goes.

I'm with you Brisket, but counterpoint:

You are trying to tell a story about an escaped gladiator mul. Class Fighter. This is what they have been trained to do. This is what they're good at. You prioritize strength because you want to be big stronk gladiator mul.

Your roll, and reroll, don't put you above "good" strength, and your agility is "below average".

You can tell a story about this. Absolutely. But it is a struggle when your concept is now not matching. Telling people "stats don't matter because we're playing an RPI" is dangerously close to "we don't need a flee skill or combat because we should be roleplaying it out".

[Brisket]

That's not the extent of what makes a good character though.  The world is richer by having both skilled and unskilled thieves.  By having warriors who wear heavy armor and warriors who wear leather.  By having people who wield a dagger, and people who wield a club.

Just because a few people would prefer to Win every time doesn't mean that's what's best for the game.

Win every time? Do you even play Armageddon? you can have AI across the board and some mul is still going to konk you flat with a club, or you'll lose link and fall off your beetle or a storm sends you plunging into the sinkhole or a templar doesn't like your pants and it's to the arena with you.

The good character is by how it's played, not by its stats. Can you be fun with bad stats? Sure. But I can be more fun if I have great stats to survive the mischief I cause. That's the argument.

I think the issue is that you're making a subjective claim (its more fun to have good status) and saying it as if its objective.  The point of the game isn't your mobkill score or your pk score, its to tell a story within the world as it exists.  Stats don't matter for that, they just influence (somewhat) how the story goes.

I'm with you Brisket, but counterpoint:

You are trying to tell a story about an escaped gladiator mul. Class Fighter. This is what they have been trained to do. This is what they're good at. You prioritize strength because you want to be big stronk gladiator mul.

Your roll, and reroll, don't put you above "good" strength, and your agility is "below average".

You can tell a story about this. Absolutely. But it is a struggle when your concept is now not matching. Telling people "stats don't matter because we're playing an RPI" is dangerously close to "we don't need a flee skill or combat because we should be roleplaying it out".

Absolutely - in that instance, if its *that* important I'd probably use a Spec App to request that this character be given a stat boost to be in line with the concept.  Communicate with staff and make it a fun story.  They might even throw you some neat hooks or an extra item or something to help make it more real.

Stats *can* matter.  I'm only arguing against the people who seem to be claiming that  unless you have (what they consider to be) good str, agi, and end you simply cannot play the character.  Because that's a silly way of viewing a game that is, primarily, about stories.

[Lutagar]

That's not the extent of what makes a good character though.  The world is richer by having both skilled and unskilled thieves.  By having warriors who wear heavy armor and warriors who wear leather.  By having people who wield a dagger, and people who wield a club.

Just because a few people would prefer to Win every time doesn't mean that's what's best for the game.

Win every time? Do you even play Armageddon? you can have AI across the board and some mul is still going to konk you flat with a club, or you'll lose link and fall off your beetle or a storm sends you plunging into the sinkhole or a templar doesn't like your pants and it's to the arena with you.

The good character is by how it's played, not by its stats. Can you be fun with bad stats? Sure. But I can be more fun if I have great stats to survive the mischief I cause. That's the argument.

I think the issue is that you're making a subjective claim (its more fun to have good status) and saying it as if its objective.  The point of the game isn't your mobkill score or your pk score, its to tell a story within the world as it exists.  Stats don't matter for that, they just influence (somewhat) how the story goes.

I'm with you Brisket, but counterpoint:

You are trying to tell a story about an escaped gladiator mul. Class Fighter. This is what they have been trained to do. This is what they're good at. You prioritize strength because you want to be big stronk gladiator mul.

Your roll, and reroll, don't put you above "good" strength, and your agility is "below average".

You can tell a story about this. Absolutely. But it is a struggle when your concept is now not matching. Telling people "stats don't matter because we're playing an RPI" is dangerously close to "we don't need a flee skill or combat because we should be roleplaying it out".

Absolutely - in that instance, if its *that* important I'd probably use a Spec App to request that this character be given a stat boost to be in line with the concept.  Communicate with staff and make it a fun story.  They might even throw you some neat hooks or an extra item or something to help make it more real.

Stats *can* matter.  I'm only arguing against the people who seem to be claiming that  unless you have (what they consider to be) good str, agi, and end you simply cannot play the character.  Because that's a silly way of viewing a game that is, primarily, about stories.

Have substandard stats ever enrichened anyone's story, though?

When people make these characters it's usually with an objective or a goal in mind. To become the best hunter, assassin, soldier, or whatever. In the best case scenario, instead their story becomes about they brood over their wish to git gud and then die the first time they attempt to do the thing they wanted to do. In the much more likely scenario, they get burned out and stop playing, or just suicide because they refuse to play with such garbage stats, and why would they?

[Brokkr]

True.  But your examples are also like...intro course goals for RP.  We have people who start with a lot richer, less stat oriented goals.

If you are just really interested in code performance, stats are probably more important to you than someone playing the social game primarily.

[Lutagar]

True.  But your examples are also like...intro course goals for RP.  We have people who start with a lot richer, less stat oriented goals.

If you are just really interested in code performance, stats are probably more important to you than someone playing the social game primarily.

I'd argue social players would be losing out, too. Social players tend toward being passive and reactive where as the sorts of players who care about stats tend to be proactive. If you don't have players being proactive and doing things, there's nothing for these social players to socialize over. No raiders terrorizing people, no hunters leading grand hunts into dangerous lands, etc etc. But to turn it on the head, who really benefits from coded stat discrepancies other than twinks who'll just shrug and suicide instead of playing out their poorly statted character? What does the game gain from having poorly statted characters exist?

[Veselka]

I only worry about stats with combat oriented characters, like if I am playing a AoD Sergeant or something.

I never worry about them for my social / craft minded PCs. I fully intend for them to squish at first sign of dagger.

[Brisket]

True.  But your examples are also like...intro course goals for RP.  We have people who start with a lot richer, less stat oriented goals.

If you are just really interested in code performance, stats are probably more important to you than someone playing the social game primarily.

[Kryos]

Let me spend a karma point or two on a single stat to keep in line with my vision for my character. That way I don't get a crappy agility assassin or brutish axeman who can't carry a hatchet.

Thinking on this.  If you spend a spec app for nothing but stat tailoring and got the 'elite array' of 1 Exceptional, 1 Extremely good, 1 Very good, and 1 Good is that 1) fun 2) worth it for the spender 3) within tolerances for power?

In the more recent versions of Arm, I have found that you get 1 good stat almost always, at least.  So if you Str/agi/wis/end first, it'll be in the upper band unless you do some real jank stuff to impact that.  I think this ameliorates ye old quad Poor, which I have had in the old days to a thing of those times.  Have you found this different in the past, say 3 years?

This convo comes up about hmm, once a year?

To be honest although Arm was set up like a tabletop it's come a long way since then.  Arm is a video game, MMO type of situation.

Can you imagine if you played WoW and randomly the warlock you picked just got WAY less HP than another warlock just because?

There is a part of me that loves the thrill of stats.  But maybe there should be the option of stats, reroll and then default stats where you can opt for a neutral "good" at everything or at least average at everything.

You can debate it all you want (I'm not much of a code player) but it is, and always has been, demotivating and frustrating to have characters based on a chunk of random happenstance and see that poor rear it's ugly head.

I would be horrified if Arm started to normalize things like an MMO.  "Balance" ends up being pretty freaking bland and not very fun, less emergent behavior generation, etc.  Little tweaking to the system?  Sure.

[FantasyWriter]

I would be horrified if Arm started to normalize things like an MMO.  "Balance" ends up being pretty freaking bland and not very fun, less emergent behavior generation, etc.  Little tweaking to the system?  Sure.

I agree.  Part of the FOIC that I love is that in almost any encounter, you never really know the capabilities of the other party in a conflict. I think leveling is more of a net negative than an neutral.  Classes/races/individual PCs should have varying strengths and weaknesses.  IMO, Armageddon should never be "fair" or "balanced". There should be a set of engineerable circumstances where I can win, and a set of circumstances "you" can engineer to where you can win.  The rest of the time, it's a dice role.

[Miradus]

Absolutely what FW just said.

Engaging with an opponent who turned out much more badass than you thought they'd be is so much fun. And then going out and "getting gud" to come have that rematch is the stuff of legends. It's where great stories are made.

So much better than the people who will absolutely never engage in conflict unless they can guarantee they will win in any situation.

[Lutagar]

Absolutely what FW just said.

Engaging with an opponent who turned out much more badass than you thought they'd be is so much fun. And then going out and "getting gud" to come have that rematch is the stuff of legends. It's where great stories are made.

So much better than the people who will absolutely never engage in conflict unless they can guarantee they will win in any situation.

I'm not really sure what stat discrepancy has to do with this though? if anything, the larger the stat discrepancy, the more of a chance somebody dies in that encounter instead, denying any possibility for there to be more RP to come from it.

[Pariah]

Absolutely what FW just said.

Engaging with an opponent who turned out much more badass than you thought they'd be is so much fun. And then going out and "getting gud" to come have that rematch is the stuff of legends. It's where great stories are made.

So much better than the people who will absolutely never engage in conflict unless they can guarantee they will win in any situation.

I've never let someone who attacked me live, it's a die or kill situation.

[Miradus]

I've never let someone who attacked me live, it's a die or kill situation.

Sometimes it's not always that you let them live, but they escape from the situation anyway.

But if you've never let a wimpy would-be adversary live to come back after you again at a later time, I encourage you to try it. When they are a good roleplayer, I always try to allow for that. Especially if I can maim them in some way to get them to come back for revenge.

Probably 90% of the time when I go after someone in PK, I don't really care if they live or die. It's the fight that is important. Not the outcome.

[Brisket]

I've never let someone who attacked me live, it's a die or kill situation.

Sometimes it's not always that you let them live, but they escape from the situation anyway.

But if you've never let a wimpy would-be adversary live to come back after you again at a later time, I encourage you to try it. When they are a good roleplayer, I always try to allow for that. Especially if I can maim them in some way to get them to come back for revenge.

Probably 90% of the time when I go after someone in PK, I don't really care if they live or die. It's the fight that is important. Not the outcome.

This.  Remember that we're here to craft stories, not 'win'.  It's somewhat unreasonable that *every* PC you play will *always* be revenge obsessed (no hate if that's your vibe, it just feels more like an OOC decision than an IC one).  Let stories play out, let people get away, let their revenge plots come to fruition, and let yourself lose from time to time.  The game is a lot more fun when you do.

[Lotion]

a fresh toon with a particularly amazing statroll changes how you play the game. a lot of riskier things are somewhat off the table because wasting such an amazing statroll to such a stupid splat feels so bad (akin to splatting a specapp)

[Pariah]

a fresh toon with a particularly amazing statroll changes how you play the game. a lot of riskier things are somewhat off the table because wasting such an amazing statroll to such a stupid splat feels so bad (akin to splatting a specapp)

I don't agree with much Lotion says, but this is true.

[WarriorPoet]

The above is absolutely true but I also encourage you to just piss away a high value role on one bullshit scene. It is liberating.