Reconciling character concept and stats

[Tamarin]

I agree with Angela. You can't have it both ways. Either stats matter (and therefore the discrepancy between stats and character concept is significant) or they don't (and there would be no harm in allowing infinite rerolls).

That never occured to me.  I suppose it is hypocritical to say stats don't matter, and then not allow more than one reroll.

[Bestatte]

I disagree with everyone who insists that stats don't matter. They aren't the end-all be-all to characters, but they DO matter.

A warrior human with "below average" strength is gonna be a piss-poor warrior.

A bow-slinger with very low agility is gonna be a lousy bow-slinger.

A desert-elf with "poor" endurance won't last long at all, no matter how well he RPs his ability to survive in his own territory.

Yes, they CAN be roleplayed. And yes, they CAN manage, in some cases, if they're willing to rewrite their character's goals.

But if you create your character background and "general" goal in advance - not to be the best at something, but to be "useful" at something to the point where someone might make the effort in helping you improve (as in - a job as a guard), then having -really- bad stats will definitely make things more difficult than having "average" or better.

Would I want a guard who could barely lift his own weapon, and ran out of steam after jogging 3 rooms, to protect my ass if I was a noble? Hell no. I might not necessarily need some uber kick-ass warrior type, but I'd expect that my employee will be able to walk around in the gear I give him and not be exhausted before we even get out of the barracks from the weight.

[Stroker]

I must concur that stats do indeed matter, but only in the short run. If your character survives long enough and gains proficiency in whatever skill, then the value of the stats begins to diminish. In the long run, stats yield to skill.

[Tamarin]

A warrior human with "below average" strength is gonna be a piss-poor warrior.

Negatory.  I've had warriors with below average and worse strength land unspeakables (on live, moving targets).  Beyond that, I won't go too far into detail.  I'd like to point out that, just as in real life, people can train themselves to perform tasks that would appear beyond their physical means.  I have found that the same applies in game.  Make of that what you will.

[Angela Christine]

However, being the below-average guy can be fun too, and helps keep average average.

Suppose you had a merchant/hunter.  Do to an unusual situation, this merchant gets hired into the military wing of some organization.  Obviously she is going to be the _Worst_Recruit_Ever_ no matter what her stats are.  She simply does not have the potential to be a good hand to hand fighter, no matter how much she trains, because she is going off the invisible Offence and Defence skills (which are said to improve VERY slowly) without the benefit of any weapon skills whatsoever.  Once you accept that you are going to suck like no recruit has ever sucked before, it can be a fun roll.  Sure, there is a good chance you will wash out of the program before graduation, and you'll certainly never make Sergeant even if you stay with the organization for years, but there is still fun to be had for the player while you watch your poor, lost-cause character struggle.  

Once you recognise that you are not  your character, you can have fun torturing the pathetic little bugger until he dies.


AC

Heh, again I agree with Angela. This isn't about avoiding piss-poor characters. For many, that might be just what the doctor ordered.

The point is that the character should be defined by the player. There should be consistency between the player's character concept and the actual stats the character has. When an inconsistency exists, it creates frustration for the player and confusion for everyone else.

[wizturbo]

Another solution:

See your stats before you write your long-desc.

Or simply email immortals to change your ldesc after you see your stats.

I don't see that as a solution because a) your character concept is more than your ldesc, and more importantly b) your character concept should drive your stats rather than the other way around.

[Tamarin]

I don't see that as a solution because a) your character concept is more than your ldesc, and more importantly b) your character concept should drive your stats rather than the other way around.

I disagree 100% with this statement.  Your stats should have nothing to do with your character concept whatsoever.  To me, stats are an OOC concept, so if you write that your character is buff, he is buff, regardless of his coded strength value.

Stats are NOT an OOC concept. They are a reflection of your character's attributes in the game. As several of us have pointed out, they have a tangible effect on your character's abilities, which is noted both by the character and by those with whom he interacts. It is ridiculous to have a character concept at diametric odds with your character's stats. Ultimately the two need to be reconciled.

[Tamarin]

I disagree, because as I see it, your skills amply make up for your stats.  As you get better in your activities, it will appear as if your stats are improving.  The more you train, the harder you will hit.  The more you steal, the more nimble your fingers will become and the more you will succeed.  This doesn't mean that your stats are actually going up.  Since stats are static, it is logical that your skills are what make the difference in the long run.

And if everyone had monster stats, the game would be fucking boring as hell.  There are very few players who will intentionally take a stat hit to their character, because very few players want to have a noticeably below-average person.  Everyone wants a killer/thief/master craftstman, etc.  The game can -not- go this way.  It's fine the way it is.

It's not a black and white question...skills complement stats rather than replacing them. For any point on the skill continuum, stats have a significant impact. A poor strength warrior is going to do far less damage per hit compared with a warrior that has very good strength, holding skill level constant.

Maybe you want a warrior that has lower strength though, in preference for being faster, or tougher, or smarter. The point is that YOU should be able to make that call according to the character you want to play.

Please go back and read what is being suggested here. It is NOT about giving everyone monster stats. As I've said several times, people get the IDENTICAL stat rolls they've always had. The only difference is that you can assign those four stat rolls to stats according to your character concept.

[Bestatte]

There's also the issue with strength. A warrior character whose goal it is to become a member of a clanned militia or noble house will need to wear the clan's uniform.

If that warrior has poor strength, it is -possible- that he will be incapable of wearing the entire uniform without becoming so encumbered that simply walking around town exhausts him after several rooms of movement.

I don't know that this actually has ever happened, but I do know that I've had characters with different stats, all human, all around the same age (between 20 and 30), and one could wear full plate armor while the other struggled if she wore anything other than sandcloth and a gurth-shell collar.

Given also that a combat-oriented character is more likely to use and carry a variety of weapons rather than just one or two..this could have a huge impact on their RP.

It doesn't mean that warriors should all get a boost, because that would be silly. But it also seems silly to be -stuck- with an approved character with an approved background with an approved goal to become a 'useful' member of a clan's military unit, if he can't even wear the uniform of the clan without tipping over.

[Tamarin]

I see what you're saying, but what happens if you get four poors?  Or four averages or below ave or something like that?  People are going to want an automatic uppage to a stat, just because their concept dictates it.

[Stroker]

The problem with assigning stats according to character concept is that many will create massive, agile, smart, and very sturdy characters. Then they'll assign all AI stats. Then you'll have a world of super mutant power ninjas with pumped up muscles and the learning ability of someone with a ten billion IQ. Basically, there's way too much room for abuse in this case. However, you can have a 'muscular' or 'wiry' person and still have average or below average strength. Because muscles don't always reflect actual strength potential.

Uberjazz, yes there's a possibility that you will get four stats that are all the same. In that case, the ability to assign the stats would be irrelevant. However, I have yet to see a character where that is the case. Always, there have been relative strengths and weaknesses.

All I'm suggesting is that the player should have the freedom to determine what those strengths and weaknesses are. Maybe you get two poors and two below averages. Cool...let the player decide which two stats are "only" below average.

At least this provides a way to somewhat approximate your character concept. I think it is a good suggestion, because it controls for stat inflation while giving the player some freedom in stat assignment.

[Tamarin]

Exactly, Dirr.

You could have a hugely brawny guy, so that would mean exceptional or AI strength (according to you).  But hugely brawny people have the shittiest endurance imagineable.  They could lift 500 pounds once or twice, but if they tried to lift say 200 pounds over and over again, they would fail horribly.  Someone with tight, densly packed small muscles (more than likely the norm on zalanthas), will be able to lift smaller weights over a much longer period of time.  I for one, don't want to say which deserves a huge strength stat.  There are many different kinds of strength, not just one, just as there are many difference kinds of agility and endurance.  So leave it as it is.

If you don't want to assign your stats, you are of course free not to do so. I have yet to hear a good argument against why those of us that want a better aligned character shouldn't be able to have one.

[Carnage]

If you don't want to assign your stats, you are of course free not to do so. I have yet to hear a good argument against why those of us that want a better aligned character shouldn't be able to have one.

So you can't twink out your dwarf warrior into an AI strength, exceptional agility, average endurance and average wisdom combat monster who uses clubs (because all dwarf warriors have to use clubs).

So you can't twink out your dwarf warrior into an AI strength, exceptional agility, average endurance and average wisdom combat monster who uses clubs"

As opposed to twinking out your dwarf warrior with an average strength, AI agility, exceptional endurance and average wisdom?

Do you see the point here? All the stats are significant. If you put that AI in strength you'll hit harder. If you put it in agility, you'll hit more often. If you put it in endurance, you can take a licking and keep on ticking. If you put it in wisdom, you'll master those clubs in record time.

The call is YOURS to make, depending on the character you want to create. An extremely intelligent dwarf is going to be played very differently from one that is extremely fast, strong, or tough. Why not let the player define the character he wants to be?

[da mitey warrior]

Stats don't make or break a character.  Skills dominate almost all code functions in the game, and there arn't stat-based skill caps like in other RPI muds.  Your stats might be able to vary (made up numbers) from 20 (very poor) to 40 (AI), but your skills can vary from 1% to 100%.  Skills are much more important.

Which is why if any wierd stat-changing code was brought in all the newbies would choose massive strength but smart players would all max out wisdom.

[jhunter]

Yep, all that other shit doesn't matter much when you learn so fast you are much more skilled at everything.

Again, I don't see it as an either/or scenario. Stats and skills contribute independently and significantly to the variance. For any given skill level, differences in stats -will- be noticeable. Furthermore, endurance has nothing to do with skill.

[jhunter]

Yes...provided all skill levels are equal...then there would a a difference because of stats. But in every other situation where they are not equal...it doesn't really make a difference.

Of course they make a difference...you just are unable to differentiate their impact vs. the impact of skill level unless you hold one or the other constant. It's a fallacious argument to say that a more skilled warrior is going to do more damage, therefore his stats are irrelevant. It is equally true that a stronger warrior will do more damage. Atributes and skills contribute -independently- to the variance.

Let's say you disagree with me, though. Attributes are irrelevant. In that case, why do you care if the change is made?