Armageddon General Discussion Board

It's happened to you:


Description: "You see a powerfully built man with corded muscles."

Score: "Your strength is poor."


Description: "The woman moves with the grace of a gwoshi."

Score: "Your agility is below average."


Description: "The elderly man is feeble with the ravages of age."

Score: "Your endurance is extremely good."


Unlike most muds and mmorpgs, it is impossible to create a character concept that matches your stats, since stats are completely random. How do you reconcile the difference in Armageddon?

Have you ever wished up to have your description changed? The one-time reroll could help...or make matters worse.

When you roleplay, do you follow your characer concept or your stats? If the former, how do you reconcile being an emaciated merc that somehow deals out huge damage in combat due to having strength that is high codewise? If the latter, people will be confused by the obvious differences in your description and how you play your character.

Any suggestions?

I've thought about this as well. But the proposed solution is worse then the disease.

If given the chance to adjusts their stats, even based on a fair point system, you would just end up with a population of Super Diesel Strong men uber tanks with crushing strength but an inability to move more then few feet.

Or a population of ninja like assasins who move like spider man but can barely lift a dagger.....

Only a few who actually created these chars, would play them realistically.

My 2 sid, don't wrap your concept to your stats. Come up with a statless BG, then a desc, then build your personality up as you play and let this be affected by your stats.

I wasn't actually suggesting a change in the way stats are assigned, although that's an interesting idea. One possibility would be to have the four stats randomized as usual, but give the player the option to assign those four stats according to his character concept.

So, you might start with:

Your strength is below average
Your agility is good
Your wisdom is extremely good
Your endurance is poor

Then, prior to pointing to your starting location, you could type:

"Exchange strength agility"

In order to have good strength and below average agility.

That way, you get the same distribution of stats you would expect in a random system, but you have the freedom to match those stats more appropriately to your character concept.

I would recommend being VERY obscure when it comes to describing your character just because you don't know what stats you'll get. Unfortunately, even obscurity isn't sufficient to describe nothing at all so you do have to hint at certain possible attributes. In which case, I've tried to stay near the middle and hint at slight leanings (i.e. wiry, athletic, etc.) though if they don't work out, it's not so extreme.

If you do get an extremely muscular description and you get poor strength, though there are ways to RP around it, I'd say that it'd be pretty hard just because you're caught the instant somebody else asks you to lift something. Which is why I try to veer away from making such extreme descriptions. If you get above average and your desc says you should have good, nobody'll notice. Just say it's the armor hindering you or you're fatigued.

The opposite side of this coin, if you describe your character as middle of the road but s/he has an AI strength, that SHOULD show in the character's description, as the people with that kind of strength are the people with modern day body builder type physique's.  It is difficult to justify certain things.  I would suggest wishing/emailing to the immortals asking what could be done either way.  Personally, I'd rather get stats and then write the actual character description.

I know as far as getting stats knocked down, it can be done...I recently mailed the mud about this for a character concept.

Quote from: "Xerin"Unlike most muds and mmorpgs, it is impossible to create a character concept that matches your stats, since stats are completely random. How do you reconcile the difference in Armageddon?

When I was first starting, I had this problem. Then I learned to describe traits that didn't necessarily affect my stats, or describe them in a way that doesn't give away too much information. Everyone's got muscle, describe it without saying something over the top like "bulging with power". When it comes down to it, as long as you don't use words that sorta force the opinion of something out you should be fine. Ask anyone who weightlifts, what your muscle looks like has very little to do with your actual strength and the way you walk has next to nothing to do with your dexterity.

Good thoughts so far. However, I think the problem goes beyond creating a generic character description.

For me, the real issue has to do with the discrepancy in my character concept. I've usually written a good amount of background information on my character describing his upbringing, motivations, characteristics, etc. I would like to align my character's stats with that concept, rather than having to do the reverse. Why should your character concept be driven by a random system?

As I see it, the real reason for randomization is to prevent attribute twinking and minmaxing. I like the randomization system for that reason. However, it is an unfortunate side effect that the current system can result in a vastly different character than what you are trying to create.

What do people think about my idea above? Why not allow players to assign their four stats in the Hall of Kings by selecting where that "exceptionally good" goes and where that "poor" goes? You get the same benefits of randomization while allowing players more control over who their character actually is.

Quote from: "Xerin"Good thoughts so far. However, I think the problem goes beyond creating a generic character description.

For me, the real issue has to do with the discrepancy in my character concept. I've usually written a good amount of background information on my character describing his upbringing, motivations, characteristics, etc. I would like to align my character's stats with that concept, rather than having to do the reverse. Why should your character concept be driven by a random system?

As I see it, the real reason for randomization is to prevent attribute twinking and minmaxing. I like the randomization system for that reason. However, it is an unfortunate side effect that the current system can result in a vastly different character than what you are trying to create.

What do people think about my idea above? Why not allow players to assign their four stats in the Hall of Kings by selecting where that "exceptionally good" goes and where that "poor" goes? You get the same benefits of randomization while allowing players more control over who their character actually is.

I think it will take away from the randomness of stats and alot of people would either use it to balance themselves out or tank one stat, which would take away from the game.

I think you're not understanding the suggestion. It's not possible to "tank out" because you have the SAME four numbers you would have had anyway. The only difference is that you have the ability to assign those four numbers to the stats in a way that is consistent with your character.

In the Hall of Kings, you are told that your four stats are, for example: very poor strength, good agility, very good wisdom, and average endurance.

My suggestion is that you have the ability to instead have, for example, average strength, very poor agility, good wisdom, and very good endurance. You have the identical descriptors, but you are able to assign those descriptors to the stats in a way consistent with your character concept.

I'll stick with random stats and deal the hand dealt me than deal with limiting numbers of 'starting stats'. At least with random stuff I have the chance of nailing four AI's.

With my idea, you would have the identical chance of "nailing four AI's". Again, it is identical to what we currently have except you get to determine where the labels go.

So you're saying that whatever stats you normally roll you get to just move around before you leave the hall of kings?

If that's it then I can't say I'm really opposed to it. It seems fair and I don't think of a way to truly abuse it except that it would take away some of the fun of having a warrior with average strength and agililty but absolutely incredible wisdom because most people might move it around since the character is a warrior. I like those kinds of situations and enjoy playing them.

Yes that's what I'm suggesting. And of course that would allow you to create the warrior you describe if that's your choice. The point is that the player has the freedom to match the stats to his character concept.

I don't really let my character's stats affect the way I play him.  If he's weak, and has AI strength, I still RP him being weak.  Stats really don't make that huge a difference in the long run, and since I try and play fairly long-lived characters, it doesn't affect my character.

Looking weak and feeble may just be a cover for the elite badass your old man is ;)
The woman may move as agile asa  drunken thing for all we know :)

Xerin, your proposal would not work.  If it would work, it would only work for humans, and I'm not even sure it would work for them.

This is how it works.

A human's strength might be a number between 20 and 40.  If he gets 40 then you might see absolutely incredible.
A half-giant's strength might be a number between 136 and 140.  If he gets 140 you might see absolutely incredible.

A half-giant's agility however, might be between 5 and 30.  If you get 30 then you might see absolutely incredible.

Note that a half-giant has a one in five chance of getting absolutely incredible strength.  However, he has a one in sixteen chance of getting absolutely incredible agility.  Therefore it would unbalance the half-giant if he were to switch his strength score with his agility score.  Furthermore, there isn't any good way to translate two scores with vastly different meaning.

Personally, I simply look deeper into my character for roleplay.  Most of the time it doesn't matter if he isn't as strong as my description suggests.

Yes, I realize that the attribute descriptors are relative to race. That's why I mentioned numbers earlier. You get the four actual die rolls and assign them to your four attributes, and the descriptors update accordingly. The numbers you assign represent a percentage of total for that race. Seems fairly simple to me.

Simple solution:

Assign your scores before your character rolls.

Example
----------------------------------------------
I'm going to make a human warrior.

I choose the follow order for my stats.

Strength, agility, stamina, wisdom.

That means, my highest roll goes to str, 2nd highest to agility, 3rd to stamina and lowest to wisdom.

This all is decided prior to seeing any stats at all, so you can't twink anything, its just part of the character design concept.  You could still receive all AI's, or all poors.  But in this situation, anything in between those two extremes would be distributed to the stats that best fit your character concept.

I like the random factor and dislike any way of assigning stats in any particular order. For some reason the fact that it is all random appeals to me, and I write "non-descript" descriptions. Meaning I leave things vague enough so that I can rp my muscles as big or small, or myself as clumsy or dextrous in the game.

In that case, you're free to simply go with what the initial assignments are. For those of us wanting to align our stats more closely with our character concept, the option would be there. Seems like a win-win to me. :)

I disagree with this idea. I know that it is well-intentioned, and I'm not trying to knock it, but I just don't think it meshes well with Arm.

For one, it sends out a message that it is allright to focus on your stats. From what I understand, this is discouraged. You are not really supposed to think about your stats, and from what I have noticed, your stats don't seem to affect your character too terribly much. A char with below avg. strength does not make a poor warrior (just one that takes a little longer to win  8) )...believe me, I know...

It is very easy to RP around certain stat impairments. Besides you shouldn't be basing your character design around specific stats anyway. That makes things much more numbers-based, and uncomfortably close to H'n'S...

Thirdly, why is this important? How does it *really* affect your gameplay. You shouldn't be writing up a desc or background that covers the fact that your char could carry a full-grown Mek from the time he was eleven. Detail is all well and good, but it seems more reasonable to go with generic stuff.

As for the switching around of stats. At first glance, it sounds good and non-abusable. But, think about this. You suddenly get clans full of people with AI or Above Average strength. What then happens to those people who decide *not* to switch their stats?  They get pummeled moreso during sparring than they do now.

I say keep it random, and work with the hand you are dealt.

I'm probably being rather dim but genuinely so (as opposed to being deliberately obtuse to make my point :)).  But I genuinely don't understand how stats would affect your character concept.

Stats are a totally OOC thing.  They are code and are there to support code-based stuff.  Only you, the player, knows that your "agile, nimble half-elf" has really low agility.  Other players can't see your stats.  And if somehow (in ways that escape me) they can tell that your character has low agility they are being twinks for even thinking of it.  Your character is the person that is presented through your RP.

Just a note:  adjusting stats in the hall of kings wouldn't work, because in the HoK all your stats are poor.  Your stats don't get assigned until -after- you point to a starting location.  



***

There are only two alternate stat assignment systems that I advocate above the current system.

1)  See your two potential rolls (orignial and reroll) and choose between them.  You might still get a craptastic set of stats, but at least you won't know the agony of re-rolling your lousy stats only to get even worse stats.  When that happens it makes me just want to kill myself.  Not my character, myself.  For being such a big stupid head.

2)  Infinate rerolls!  Ok, maybe not infinate, but like 50 or 100.  You can still only reroll for the first two hours, but you can do it lots of times if that is what gets you off.  These rolls are unmodified, normal rolls for your race, so the chance of getting four really good stats is till very low, but it reduces the chance of getting such poor stats that the player considers the character "unplayble."  Since stats don't matter, it doesn't matter if some idiot wants to waste an hour rolling stratigically, right?


Angela Christine

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).

In my experience, stats do matter. It is often obvious when sparring someone whether their strength or agility is good. Stronger people hit significantly harder, and faster people hit (or miss) more often. Endurance is obvious when you hit someone multiple times and they are still going strong. Wisdom is the only subtle stat, and even then it should have equal significance for your character concept and how quickly you are able to learn.

Yes, you can just ignore what score says. The point is that you should be able to create the character you want to create, instead of having the concept driven by a random system. Either you are forced to adapt your character to the numbers, or you risk presenting a character that is out of synch with what other players can clearly observe.

Not everyone is going to be drawn to a particular stat. They all have significance. I'm not asking for the ability to twink your character....the stats are still randomly determined. All I'm suggesting is that people be able to assign the four random stats in a way that is consistent with their character concept :)

Quote from: "Xerin"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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "Bestatte"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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "Xerin"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "Xerin"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).

QuoteSo 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?

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.

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.

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?

Because there is simply no need for it.
[Edited to add] And you shouldn't really be worrying about stats or skills anyway.

Yes stats make a difference, but the effect of skills is much greater.  A five day warrior with crappy stats is going to kick the butt of a 2 day warrior with great stats.  Now if you have two 5 day warriors, the one with the better stats is going to win.

Basicaly bad stats suck, but they can be overcome with time, so I think the current system is just fine.

Why not do away with attributes entirely then? There's no need for them, according to you.

Of course, I disagree with your premise. I -know- attributes play a significant role, because I've seen it over and over again.

I would also like you to consider that this isn't just about who can kick whose butt. As was already mentioned, your stats influence a variety of things beyond your level of uberness. If that 5-day warrior is so weak he can't wear the standard armor in his clan, he has a problem.

You should be able to assign your stats.

Well I agree with you to some extent since my second character was a ranger who no matter how hard he looked couldn't find a bow that was weak enough that he could pull back the string.  In some cases you stats can cause you problems and in that case I guess you can mail the mud account. but in the 15 characters I've played on there that is the only one that had a "real" problem with his stats that effected the gameplay.

I think people misunderstood my suggestion.  I'll reword it.

SUGGESTION:

In the hall of kings, you get the opportunity to -order- the stats you'll get from greatest importance to the character concept to the least importance.

This is done -blind-.  You do not know what any of your stats will be yet.

For instance, in the hall of kings I state this:

order stats strength wisdom agility endurance

As I step out of the hall of kings my stats are rolled:

poor, average, average, below average.


These will be ordered as stated before they were rolled:
average strength, average wisdom, below average agility, poor endurance.
Thats it.  You can reroll one time per usual.

This will align stats at least in order of importance for a character concept.

Wizturbo, I think that's a great suggestion :)

Or, you could create a character concept based around personality, goals and aspirations, and not strength, agility, wisdom and endurance.

So what if your warrior is too weak to pick up that nice clan armour?  Deal with it.  Play around it.

If a ranger can't wear enough armor to do anything besides tavern sit...why did he ever decide to become a ranger/hunter in the first place?  Sometimes, stats are somewhat important to character concept...at least to some small amount.

Quote from: "jstorrie"Or, you could create a character concept based around personality, goals and aspirations, and not strength, agility, wisdom and endurance.

So what if your warrior is too weak to pick up that nice clan armour?  Deal with it.  Play around it.

There are two sides of a character.

Psychological and Corporal.

You can have any stats, and still have whatever motivations or psychological factors involved in your character.  Stats do not hinder this at all.

However there is more to this game then ONLY psychological.  It is a roleplaying intensive game, set on top of a coded stats/skills framework that tries to mimic reality.  If your character's background states they spent the majority of their life doing manual labor (and your not injured, sick or otherwise incapacitated), having strength as your lowest stat seems rather unrealistic.  This doesn't mean you should have AI strength, it just means,  having strength higher then say wisdom might make sense for you.

Quote from: "wizturbo"
SUGGESTION:

In the hall of kings, you get the opportunity to -order- the stats you'll get from greatest importance to the character concept to the least importance.

This is done -blind-.  You do not know what any of your stats will be yet.

For instance, in the hall of kings I state this:

order stats strength wisdom agility endurance

As I step out of the hall of kings my stats are rolled:

poor, average, average, below average.

This is a great idea, it shouldn't nessicarily mean you get what you want, say a wis could still be higher than a str and racial mod would be a factor, but it makes sense.

I think stats should be random, we shouldn't be able to set our chars up stat wise exactly how we want, but a little bit of control wouldn't be awful.  Maybe give us a random order option too.  

Lets face it, the char concept is more important than skills, stats and all of that.  Frankly if you are playing a char for what they can do, rather than why they do it, you're on the wrong foot.  But I don't see any harm in having some affect, at least in making the char fit the desc and background a little better.  

This wouldn't mean your stats wuold be any better, or any worse, you could still get crappy roles your order might not even affect anything, would depnd on implementation, but ultimately I see no problem with this.

Quote from: "wizturbo"
For instance, in the hall of kings I state this:

order stats strength wisdom agility endurance

As I step out of the hall of kings my stats are rolled:

poor, average, average, below average.


These will be ordered as stated before they were rolled:
average strength, average wisdom, below average agility, poor endurance.
Thats it.  You can reroll one time per usual.

There's a problem in that this doesn't account for age at all - which has a big effect on starting stats.    As it is now, a 13 year old is likely to have high agility but low wisdom, for instance.   But with this (unless some age factor were thrown in),  you could just as easily see high wisdom low agility 13 year olds.

Quote from: "flurry"

There's a problem in that this doesn't account for age at all - which has a big effect on starting stats.    As it is now, a 13 year old is likely to have high agility but low wisdom, for instance.   But with this (unless some age factor were thrown in),  you could just as easily see high wisdom low agility 13 year olds.

I don't see this as a problem.  There are some 13 year olds out there that are more mature, and more intelligent then an average full grown adult.  The rest would go into the hands of the player not to make an unrealistic character.  For instance, if your playing a 13 year old choosing strength as your highest stat might not be very IC choice, under the current system you could still have AI strength even though your only 13!  This system would allow you to make that highly unlikely, by putting strength as your last or second to last stat prior to rolling.

I've NEVER had an AI as any of my stats. From my experience, the younger the character, the poorer the stats in most cases. Under the current system, a 13 year old will never get AI strength.

Wizturbo -

Just trying to clarify in case I didn't explain very well.

What I'm saying is that HELP AGING would no longer be valid (at least the part that pertains to your stats roll), and in a way that I think is unrealistic.  Young adolescents being equally likely to be extremely wise as extremely agile, or quite old people also being equally likely to be extremely wise as extremely agile.  Basically it would allow people to work around the age factor in your stats roll.

Quote from: "flurry"Wizturbo -

Just trying to clarify in case I didn't explain very well.

What I'm saying is that HELP AGING would no longer be valid (at least the part that pertains to your stats roll), and in a way that I think is unrealistic.  Young adolescents being equally likely to be extremely wise as extremely agile, or quite old people also being equally likely to be extremely wise as extremely agile.  Basically it would allow people to work around the age factor in your stats roll.

I'm not 100% sure how age is incorporated into Stats, but I think this problem could be avoided through clever coding.  If it cannot be, trusting players not to do unrealistic things is an option.  I think some 13 year old character who assigned wisdom as their highest score is less of a problem, then having "the massive, mekillot-tattooed human" who is too weak to wield a longsword because of their poor strength.  Or "the frail, hunchbacked elderly man" who knocks you out cold from one punch because of their AI strength, and nimbly avoids your bash with his exceptional agility.  This just gives players an opportunity to order things in a fashion they think makes sense for their character.

Perhaps this option could be available for people with karma, if the trust issue is a problem...

There are two issues here: getting the sort of character you were planning on, and getting an unplayble character.

I don't think there is a problem if your character doesn't turn out exactly as you expected.  I've often found that a character who turns out differently than what I had planned also turns out to be great fun to play.  Figuring out how the character can reach for his goals and how he evolves can make a much richer character in the end.


Then there is the character that is unplayable, this is a problem, but it is also very, very rare.  A half-giant mage with such low wisdom/mana that he cannot cast a single spell is basically unplayable, because he has no way to access his main skills.  If you cannot cast a spell you are not really a mage.  I've heard of this happening, and apparently a staffmember did boost his mana to the point where he could cast a spell.  Hurray.  

If you find yourself in the position where you have an archer that can not find a single bow weak enough for you anywhere (including the blackwing trading outpost) or you can not wear your uniform (despite putting every unnecessary possession in the storeroom) then you may have a borderline "unplayable" character.  I'd suggest emailing your clan imm or the mud account with your problem and what you have done to try to deal with the problem.  The staff wants you to enjoy playing the game, so they will probably be willing to work with you.  That might mean a small stat boost, or something else.  In the case of the bowless archer, they could also check your strength and check the database to find a bow that your character -could- use, and set it up so you can order that bow from Salaar.  In the case of not being able to wear your required uniform and equipment, the clan imms could either give you a small stat boost (easily justified by your training and attempts to wear the uniform) or they might find that there is a scout uniform or other alternate uniform that is lighter than that the "standard" uniform, that has simply fallen out of use lately.

No stat ordering.  Reroll or bust!


AC

Sometimes stats are annoying to me, when they don't even come close to what I think my character -would- be like. I've been pretty lucky for the most part, though I remember one magicker I played with like - 90 mana and "average" wisdom. That was a real headache and incredibly frustrating to play the skill side of the character. The RP side of the character was fine - no complaints there. But when it takes a good 15 RL minutes to regenerate enough mana to cast a single spell, heh - kinda pointless to even hope to branch anything during the character's lifetime, ya know?

What really gets me though is that when you reroll, you take a dive on the "numerical" stats. Or at least I do.

I've rerolled only a few times - most times I'm satisfied with what I have, or at least not willing to risk a loss if I have one stat I really like.

But the times that I have rerolled, I'd lose -10- hps and -10- stamina points. In addition to taking a dive on 2 of the 4 stats. That just totally hurts. If I could put something on a wish list, that would be the thing. To not have to take a loss on numerical stats if your reroll results in a loss on your regular stats. It isn't bad enough for me to really gripe about, because so far nothing in my stats have ever caused me to have an unplayable character. It's just one of those little annoying things that you kinda get over after adjusting to the character a few days in.

:)

That is why I would like to be able to "unroll" a reroll if things go bad.  Nothing makes me lose interest in a character like rerolling and getting something really nasty.  It isn't so much the low stat, but that everytime I look at the character I'm reminded of my  mistake.

The downside is that almost everyone would reroll every character everytime, fishing for more acceptable stats because they would know they could undo it if they wanted too.  

It's a conundrum.


AC

I've had almost every stat range from every age.  An AI and a POOR for a 13 year old.  An AI and a POOR for a 65 year old.

I've had warriors with average and merchants with excellent.

I wish I could pick my favourite stat and ask for that one to be set as my 'highest' in the roll.

You do get bonuses for certain stats, depending on which guild you pick.  I think that's a pretty logical conclusion for a game such as this.

would you all be complaining if you made a concept where the guy was weak and argue that your stats had AI for strength?

I like it the way it is.
Why because Noone is perfect and ARm shows that part off :)
I totally agree with AC.

Actually, yes I would. It's usually a good idea to build a weakness into your character. My point is simply that we should be able to decide what those weaknesses and strengths are, according to the character we want to play.

It won't change, likely. And in the end, it won't matter if it does. We'll still play Armageddon, bitch because it got put in or didn't...and life would go on.

But stat ordering, in the simple terms of saying which stat is the most important to your character concept, or even being able to say even them all out or not important.....this is quite simply a perfection idea.

And no. Contrary to popular beleif, not everyone is going to twink out and do this and that. This is a roleplaying game, and most of the folks, even the folks that the Immortals don't always like because of their flaming tactics or ingrained nastiness or preceived whateverthehell, tend to be serious about roleplaying. So stop tripping about twinking, and get on the stat-ordering band-wagon.

You know you want it.

I think stat ordering in the Hall of Kings is a beautiful solution. It creates a better synergy between character concept and stats, and is twink free, simple, and (hopefully!) easy to code.

Figured, I'd put my two 'sids.... I dont' pay attention to my stats... I just play... :D

I think anything that puts more ephasis on stats rather than rp ought to be -very- carefully examined and thought about before it goes into the game. Im against changing things as they are now.

It's not about emphasizing stats. It's about integrating them with your character concept to present a more consistent persona to the world.

Its one choice, made at the beginning of your character, and thats it.  No emphasis, just a simple choice that most RPG's offer players so they're character's attributes are aligned with their concept of what the character is good or bad at.

I agree with witz, I like his idea.

But bottom line, I want SOME way, any way, to align my character with my stats. I've had a warrior who had more agility than strength, which is really fine for a warrior, but I had included in his sdesc the adjective BURLY.

This is a problem! He's not burly! He's agile! Crap!

It would have been great had I been able to peg the order of stats, or even my top two stats. I want my highest roll to be strength, because he's burly! And then the mud rolls as it normally would, assigns the best roll to strength, and viola`, good to go.

Instead, I'm going to email the mud account and see what they want me to do.

Granted, it's playable to have a BURLY character who's actually more agile than strong, but it's also just plain dumb. Granted I can ignore the stat discrepancy, but wouldn't it just make more sense for it to be more aligned with my player concept?

I guess I just don't understand there the 'no control' people come from.  

I'm sorry, but my char. background focus on my char's goals and life which are affected by HARD-CODED things like Race, Age, Guild, SubGuild, and yes, even STATS.  In real life, if you were a star athlete, who could slam a football through a solid steel wall with his pinky, would you be spending time on the GDB bitching about Rp and twink potential ? I don't think so.  

So,  when I write up a BG for a character, and I make him an absolute meat-head, who's slow to pick things up, and strong as an Ox, I don't want him to come in with AI wis, and Poor strength.  If I make an urchin character who's sickly, and has survived simply by the nibleness of his body, I don't wanna see Good Endurance, and b.average agility. It's just /logic/, hard-coded-things-matter. Get it through your skull.  Otherwise there'd be no point in having anything, from Race to Endurance coded, and this would be a Talker.

Now, as an alternative suggestion for stat-ordering, how about Wiz-set stat ordering ? You know..the guy who approves you notes that. .HEY! this guy's a nimble, sickly thief.. lets pop him down with his highest (Still random) stat being Agi, and his lowest (STILL FUCKING RANDOM) stat being End.  It'd take literally 2 seconds of the wiz's time, if they'd read your BG like they were supposed to.

I agree...you can't divorce character concept from stats if you want to play an integrated character. Since there's no twinking potential, I don't see any reason not to allow players to do their own stat ordering in the Hall of Kings. If they choose not to, it will be random. Otherwise, it's a simple 5-second command.

Must be our naturally heigthened Dallas intelligence :D *is actually from Arlington but..whatever.*

Maybe he's really smart, but only when it comes to athletic type feats, and he's still really stupid when it comes to everyday stuff. That can be easily roleplayed.

Maybe he's a total musclehead, but he got into a nasty tussle with a raptor that sliced the muscles of his left arm open and so he hasn't been able to handle half as much weight as he used to ever since.

Who knows.. there's always ways around it if you're creative enough.

I like the fact that stats are unpredictable.. one character had really bad endurance, so I decided to throw in a disease with her concept that added an interesting quirk to roleplay.

Some really skinny kids are strong as hell, just wiry muscle and sinew and no fat - it's not that hard to play off somehow.

Don't describe stats at all in your background and you'll be even better off.

I don't really see a problem with a complete ordering of stats, where you decide before you get the stats what order they go into. The stats are still random of course.  But then again most people would probably be trying to always pick the optimal ordering for race/class.

Maybe they could make it such that you get to pick one stat such that its always in the upper half of your stat rolls.

Prime Stat:
"tough" = con
"smart" = wis
"strong" = str
"quick" = dex

Say you roll a poor, below ave, good, extremely good

and you had picked con to be prime stat, and you rolled poor, then it would switch that stat with good from str stat.

If the stat is already in the top half then it does nothing. Jst make it so that what you feel is the primary stat of your PC is never on the bottom half basically.

Its hard to write a description at times where you don't mention anything that might be reflected with stats.

Not every warrior has to be strong.   A warrior with high wisdom and endurance might be, realistically, very capable of beating a stronger and faster man, and the same goes for anyone else.

You are weak but smart?  Taunt the other knucklehead, make them do mistakes, use their power against them, whatever.  You're weak but very dexterous?  Fight like an acrobat, make all these fancy rolls and backflips while throwing knives and poking people with sticks.

Stats matter, but not all that much.  If your character, who has really poor dexterity, has been practicing climbing every day for the past two RL months, they will be far better than an elven burglar/acrobat with AI dex and one week of training, and the same goes for combat.

Everyone has disadvantages, just try to play around them, even (and especially) when they are something so significant in your character's lifestyle.

It's not about every warrior being strong. It's about creating the kind of character you actually want to play.

Quote from: "Dead Newbie"
Its hard to write a description at times where you don't mention anything that might be reflected with stats.

It's not just hard, it's plain silly. You end up with all these people with outrageous hair and eyes but a non-descript body.

I mean, really, walnut-eyed?

:wink:

Quote from: "Xerin"It's not about every warrior being strong. It's about creating the kind of character you actually want to play.

And yet, if any kind of stat ordering is allowed, how many warriors will select "wisdom" as their primary stat?  Random stats are about diversity.  Any form of stat ordering only destroys the dynamic.

Quote from: "DeadNewbie"Its hard to write a description at times where you don't mention anything that might be reflected with stats.

First, I just flat disagree with this statement.  Write a one-paragraph description of the next person you see, then hand it to a friend and ask them to tell you how much they think the person can bench based on your description.  Better still, hand it to five friends, and get a range of opinions.  Now ask them how good you think the person's reflexes are, what their IQ is, and how many miles they can carry a forty-pound rucksack.

Second, appearances are deceptive.  In my college days, I knew a guy, skinny as a twig, but he could punch through an inch of solid wood.  I've seen people who looked hamfisted that were extremely dexterous.  And so on.

Third, let's say we have ordered stats, and you pick strength as your primary, and write up your nice description of a hulking brute of a bodybuilder.  Then you end up, after a roll and a reroll, with a "good" strength.  The point being, even with some kind of ordered stat system, your best may not fit your idea of what you wanted for your character.

You'll find as much variety as you currently find in the character descriptions. Some people are brawny, some are lithe, some are keen-eyed, and some are thickly built. Even for a twink, there is no clear advantage to a given stat. They are all important for character development. I think there would be plenty of diversity.

At least with an ordered stat system you can get closer to your character concept than would otherwise be the case.

Quote from: "Xerin"I think there would be plenty of diversity.

I've been playing muds for well over a decade now.  Three guesses how many times I've seen a warrior that didn't have a prime stat of strength whenever there is an ordered stat system, a build-your-stat system, or anything that gives players control over how stats are distributed, whether the mud is h'n's, rp, or any combination thereof.

I can count the number of times on one hand.  You give people any kind of control, and they invariably min-max.

Just play with what you roll. Stats -do- matter to a large extent, but I see know reason why we should be given a chance to roll good strength everytime because we place a higher priority on such. Just play the game, and deal with the issue. It all usually balances out in the end, if you live a long life.

Quote from: "JollyGreenGiant"

Quote from: "Xerin"I think there would be plenty of diversity.

I've been playing muds for well over a decade now.  Three guesses how many times I've seen a warrior that didn't have a prime stat of strength whenever there is an ordered stat system, a build-your-stat system, or anything that gives players control over how stats are distributed, whether the mud is h'n's, rp, or any combination thereof.

I can count the number of times on one hand.  You give people any kind of control, and they invariably min-max.

Yep.

Strength is dumb.  Wisdom and agility, all the way.
My point is, everyone has a different idea of what makes the best character (and that's if they really want to min/max).  If you play Diablo II, as an example, there can be 8 different sorceresses in a game and each of them will have a different specialty spell.

I also have another point.  There are plenty of half-elves in the game, and I don't think that there's a single solitary advantage that someone could use while playing them.  I don't think that there're -that- many people who think they can 'ride' their way to the top.  
Our player base is a nice thing.  We can be trusted to attempt to make our characters fit themselves better, and not to simply try to make our characters the most powerful creatures in the game.

enter soapbox
>A very animated human steps up on a soapbox.


of course, the more control you give the player the more potential for abuse.

Hell, in most other muds i've played, you can't emote anything. You were restricted to certain verbs.

Not here.

Why? A good intelligent playerbase interested in roleplay. I'm tired of seeing people knock down great ideas just because "it can be abused." Well, emote can be abused, take it away. Subdue can be abused. Take it away. Templar powers can be abused, don't let players play them.

Psssha!

Give us an ordered stat system and you won't see every warrior all of a sudden looking brawny and actually being brawny. You'll see the same assortment as before, but the code will actually MATCH the description. And people will no longer be FRUSTRATED in creating the character they want.

I don't want to have to avoid making my character look strong or lithe. Hell, maybe I want to have a scrawny guy with compact but strong muscles. If i want it, I can get that with a ordered stat system. Currently, though, I just MIGHT end up with it, regardless if i want it or not.

Now I don't care how it's done, whether the immortals add it, or if I pick one stat that I want as my primary, or i can swap them, or whatever! I just want to have a acrobat with good agility!

It's absurd to pick your guild/subclass before you get your stats. How the heck would some one grow up gaining the skills of an acrobat with shitty agility? Of course, you COULD develop a backstory for it, but you wouldn't know you had to until AFTER you already got your app confirmed!

If the app is approved, let my stats match! It's approved! If the immortal says, "Hey, yea, you can have that strong but slow warrior." Then, damnit, I can have it. If I end up with a fast but weak warrior, then it's not what i frikken applied for.

Put the power in the hands of the players and the immortals. Take the power from the random numbers. Trust your fellow players, because they have proven themselves worthy.


leave
>A very animated human steps down from the soapbox.

I like the way it is now, but I think the idea of rolling your stats as the last thing you see before submitting your app isn't a bad idea.  You click on submit, it rolls stats, then asks if you want to add a note to the application.  So you can say something like "Given that my l33t warrior has a poor strength and below average agility, I'd like you replace all the burly and/ lithe words in my sdesc to scrawny and/or bullish."


It would still prevent people from creating characters till they get the 'perfect stats' but allow them to ask for modifications before the character get's inserted into the game. (so they can 'fit' their stats)

Or even make it so they submit two, one before they get stats, then a modification app, if they want one.  So the immortals can make sure he just isn't trying to min/max.

Reconciling your character concept with your rolled stats by modifying your character concept strikes me as a much better idea.

There's more than one way to be strong, agile, wise, or, uh, endury.

I consider myself pretty agile when it comes to hand-to-eye coordination, for example, but I can't do backflips and I'm a horrible dancer.

I have plenty of friends who are very clever, but make stupid life decisions.

If your warrior is burly, but has low strength, think up an explanation for it.  If you're here, you're probably pretty imaginative already, I hope.

Yeah, my problem is only that you create a character that looks like Arnold, but has the physical stats of Woody Allen.  I don't give a shit about background, I just care about the character's appearance.  No matter how screwed up the character has gotten, if they still look like Arnold, the strength has to be up there.  A raptor sliced arm...well, that only affects that one arm...not legs and torso, so he should still be able to carry a bunch of crap in his backpack, or other arm, so he should still be able to smack someone something fierce with one of his two weapons.

I don't care if my warrior has a high strength (as I would prefer two other stats higher as Gorobei said) or if it all meshes with my background, but I want the appearance and stats to match.

I like the idea that grog just revoiced (as it was basically suggested already in a different form) is a way to easily change the description after seeing your stats.

how about.. you don't make a desc with "This person looks one built from a rock with pure strength" and just generalize that sort of thing?

How about we all stop complaining and play the fucking game.

So what if your description does not match your stats you rolled. DEAL WITH IT.

Quote from: "Forest Junkie"How about we all stop complaining and play the fucking game.

So what if your description does not match your stats you rolled. DEAL WITH IT.

Quote from: "JollyGreenGiant"I've been playing muds for well over a decade now.  Three guesses how many times I've seen a warrior that didn't have a prime stat of strength whenever there is an ordered stat system, a build-your-stat system, or anything that gives players control over how stats are distributed, whether the mud is h'n's, rp, or any combination thereof.

I can count the number of times on one hand.  You give people any kind of control, and they invariably min-max.

1. The population that plays Armageddon is worlds apart from any other mud population I've seen. If you're not into roleplaying, you won't be with Arm for long. We have a higher standard here, and can't be compared to the hack-and-slash populations.

2. Stats don't work the same in Armageddon as in most other games. A strong argument could be made that your "strong warrior" should instead go for wisdom, because he is going to learn far faster and therefore increase his skills more quickly. Or for agility because he will hit far more often. Or for endurance because he will last much longer in combat. The min-maxer has no solution where Arm stats are concerned. It is a matter of preference instead.

3. In a character-driven game like Armageddon, it should be possible to create the character you want instead of having it randomly determined.

Quote from: "Xerin"1. The population that plays Armageddon is worlds apart from any other mud population I've seen. If you're not into roleplaying, you won't be with Arm for long. We have a higher standard here, and can't be compared to the hack-and-slash populations.

I'm a player with seven karma, and yet when I play D&D I always max out my stats.  I just can't help myself.  The fact is, it's fun to max out your stats.  It doesn't mean you're a bad person.  It's simply behavior that should never be encouraged or supported on Armageddon.

Quote from: "Xerin"2. Stats don't work the same in Armageddon as in most other games. A strong argument could be made that your "strong warrior" should instead go for wisdom, because he is going to learn far faster and therefore increase his skills more quickly. Or for agility because he will hit far more often. Or for endurance because he will last much longer in combat. The min-maxer has no solution where Arm stats are concerned. It is a matter of preference instead.

There I disagree completely, though I don't think it would be right to elaborate.

Quote from: "Xerin"3. In a character-driven game like Armageddon, it should be possible to create the character you want instead of having it randomly determined.

It's more RP driven than character driven.  Stats should be given the attention that they deserve.  And as it happens, they are nearly irrelevant.

Quote from: "Xerin"1. The population that plays Armageddon is worlds apart from any other mud population I've seen. If you're not into roleplaying, you won't be with Arm for long. We have a higher standard here, and can't be compared to the hack-and-slash populations.

Not to say you aren't right, but just because Armageddon has a higher standard of roleplay doesn't mean that people won't take advantage of every inch they're given.

I've seen RPIs where you can arrange the priority of your stats, and trust me, even the most stellar RPers will almost always opt to min-max. It's just a basic human urge to have the best stats possible for your character. I'd rather it not be possible at all here.

QuoteI'm a player with seven karma, and yet when I play D&D I always max out my stats.

Do you twink in Armageddon? Didn't think so. It's because Armageddon isn't D&D and you, like the large majority of everyone else that plays this game, understand and honor the difference.

QuoteThere I disagree completely, though I don't think it would be right to elaborate.

You're welcome to disagree, but the fact there is disagreement at all begs the question. I've seen what a difference agility, endurance, and wisdom can make in this game. It's far from a no-brainer that a warrior would always go with strength as the primary stat.

QuoteIt's more RP driven than character driven. Stats should be given the attention that they deserve. And as it happens, they are nearly irrelevant.

As has been pointed out again and again in this thread, stats are NOT irrelevant. If you disagree, you need to take a basic stats class. If two variables independently predict a third variable, they are BOTH significantly correlated. That skills play a role in performance in no way undermines the critical role that stats play as well.

QuoteI like the way it is now, but I think the idea of rolling your stats as the last thing you see before submitting your app isn't a bad idea. You click on submit, it rolls stats, then asks if you want to add a note to the application. So you can say something like "Given that my l33t warrior has a poor strength and below average agility, I'd like you replace all the burly and/ lithe words in my sdesc to scrawny and/or bullish."


It would still prevent people from creating characters till they get the 'perfect stats' but allow them to ask for modifications before the character get's inserted into the game. (so they can 'fit' their stats)

I agree, if something were to change about it...I'd much rather see it go in the reverse order...your pc's desc changes slightly to fit the stats...not changing the stats.

Personally, I still don't think it's that important...and I think some people are a bit too fixated on stats, IMHO.

I like things fine the way they are.

Your character concept should be determined by who you would enjoy roleplaying rather than by a random roll of the dice. Roleplaying is about creating a character and bringing that character to life. The design would reinforce that better if we could predetermine stat order.

Quote from: "Xerin"Your character concept should be determined by who you would enjoy roleplaying rather than by a random roll of the dice.

You have never played D&D have you? You're absolutely right. In fact, I know you are correct when you state that everyone would enjoy a concept built around a statistical god. But you know what, I don't find it fair to switch stats around to accomodate you. This is a game, and I can easily have fun just like the next person without that exceptional strength. Sure, it's great, but you don't -need- it. Any intelligent player with common fucking sense can survive in this game if they play conservatively.

Quote from: "Xerin"Roleplaying is about creating a character and bringing that character to life. The design would reinforce that better if we could predetermine stat order.

That's just skrate up wrong honkey. It is, to me, a basic form of twinking out. Awww, *sniff* *sniff* You didn't get that AI strength. Whaaa!!! Screw predetermining stat order. Use reroll, and if that doesn't help, then boohoo, play the game.

FJ's lesson for today: You are wrong.

I was probably playing D&D before you were born. It's not about accommodating people's styles. It is about making a change that will create more consistent characters in the game. After all, that's what Armageddon is about.

I'm tired of people throwing out the "AI strength" red herring. The recommendation is to keep stats COMPLETELY RANDOM. Therefore, the stats will not change...only the order. I have yet to see an intelligent argument to the contrary.

Quote from: "Xerin"I was probably playing D&D before you were born.

Dude...you are like, old and shit.

Quote from: "Xerin"It's not about accommodating people's styles.

Oh, it's not? Then why suggest the ability to fix the arrangement of stats?

Quote from: "Xerin"I'm tired of people throwing out the "AI strength" red herring. The recommendation is to keep stats COMPLETELY RANDOM. Therefore, the stats will not change...only the order.

What you roll is what you roll. Don't you D&D dinosaurs know anything? There is no second chance when I roll stats in D&D, much less repositioning the order of stats. Be thankful for what you have.

Quote from: "Xerin"I have yet to see an intelligent argument to the contrary.

You goober. *smites j00*

Like I said, I have yet to see an intelligent argument to the contrary ;)

QuoteXerin wrote:
It's not about accommodating people's styles.


Oh, it's not? Then why suggest the ability to fix the arrangement of stats?

There are a lot of elements that are under a players control, and they are all more important than statistics.  This is good.  But to add something else to the debate, I like that there is one minor element that is left to chance.  We can't all be hulking jocks in real life, and in game we can't all be hulking warriors.

When people say that they want to roleplay a character with a high agility, I take it to mean that they want to kick ass with a character with high agility.  Because the only RP revolving around statistics that I can recall is one time when a n00b smiled and said, and I quote: "My endurance is my best attribute."

It doesn't have anything to do with RP because meaningful RP only rarely arises from it.  So I don't see any pressing need to give people control over it.

At this point, I've made my case and people are just getting repetitive. I'll leave it at that.

Quote from: "Xerin"At this point, I've made my case and people are just getting repetitive. I'll leave it at that.

People are also blatantly ignoring your points.

This thread is about character alignment. I want my sdesc to match my stats. I don't want to twink anything out. I don't want AI strength. I don't want AI anything. I just want to be able to build a character with a certain idea in mind and not have it flipped flopped by a frikken role of the dice.

And don't give me the "Shut up and deal with it." I'm already doing that, ok? I'm dealing with it by being more adaptive with my descriptions and by posting my ideas in this thread.

Half-giants would certainly be more popular if you could pick wisdom and agility as your top stats.  Even with below average strength a half-giant can rip the arms off anyone else.  But a half-giant that has low wisdom for a half-giant, well, that is really, really low wisdom.  A half-giant that has low agility for a half-giant is especially clumsy.  Being able to minimize those handicaps but keep the naturally high strength would be cool.

Likewise it would be nice for an elf to be able to take strength as their highest stat.  Their wisdom and agility will still be higher than most humans because of their racial bonuses, and a high strength elf will be able to carry more stuff and use better weapons.  


I don't think the staff will go for it though.  If you feel that your roll and reroll are dreadfully incompatible with the physical description you chose, then it isn't that hard to have a small alteration made to your sdesc after you are in the world.  People do it all the time.


AC

I couldn't think of a good example, but AC you hit two great ones right there.

By ordering stats people would almost always set them up to compensate for racial weaknesses, which is where it would be twinky to do. With decent roles and by ordering them correctly you wouldn't have to suffer the drawbacks of the racial weaknesses as much. Which over all, would make exceptional pcs of those races more common than they should be.
Exceptional being that, their normal racial weaknesses wouldn't be as great as with the random roll on average.

Earlier someone mentioned a disease, or raptor slice that influenced their muscles/endurance/whatever.. Here's my problem with that.

ITS NOT IN THE FUCKING BACKGROUND. there fore, you're playing something /not/ in the background, and that's bad ICly.

Another way to handle this would be to set the rolls for your account as p/b.av./av./a.av./g/AI on each stat before you make the char, then alter them for race/class/time of the month. You know, so you /know/ your warrior's going to be dextrous..not strong..and You don't app./desc. Ahnald, when you're gettin' the Woody Allen.

I'm not really sure how it would be twinky, jhunter.

I don't see a switch as something that could cause much twinkage, if you compare it to the twinkage that can already occur with the way things are now. That "feeble old man" sitting at the bar - just so happens to have AI strength and very good agility - how exactly do you expect him to RP "around" his stats if you decide that you need to kick his ass, and the code forces him to turn you into a ground sirloin mek burger while he wields his thin bone sliver? In that case, it's the code that's forcing the twinkage. It's forcing you to RP contrary to what your character IS. Your character IS a brute, whether you choose to RP it that way or not. Eventually you'll get found out and maybe even accused of spicing up, or being a magicker. All because the code has decreed that you are something other than you created and got approved for.

And yeah sure, you could send up a wish or e-mail mud asking for a change - but do you really want the staff spending their time addressing every single person who feels their description should be changed, just because now we all know we -can- do this, and just because our stat -placement- doesn't correspond at all to our character's approved background and description? They already approved it. So why not let the stats reflect what was already approved? The stat placement only - not the values, only where those values go.

If it was such an unreasonable idea, and if as FJ says, you get a roll - deal with it - then why does Arm let you REROLL within the first 2 hours of playing? Why not just get rid of rerolling altogether? And for all those people who feel this is a stupid idea, based on the fact that you should "deal with it" and for no other reason - how many times have you taken advantage of the reroll command?

Maybe I'm just funny but; don't the imms already give you handicaps and advantages code-wise after reading your desc and history? Whenever I applied for the brutal tank, I had high str but low agi. Whenever I applied for the clever weakling, I had just real high wisdom, nothing else. Nearly all my characters were related to their description and history. When I saw that's not, I just thought "Man I wanted more than an average sum of points."
I guess there's of course a random factor but still the imms are using some kind of flag to have your wis or str etc. as your primary stat. Isn't that so? If it's not, sorry let me shut up, I'm just lucky.

Fine, I'll throw in a new suggestion, since this debate is getting so lively.

The "go all average" option.

If your character is designed to be basically average in most regards, give players the option to go 'all average' instead of reroll.  It just means, all their stats get set to average and thats where they stay.  That way, you can be too far away from your character design concept.  Sure, you might not be super strong, but you wouldn't be super weak either.  So the comparison wouldn't be that blatant.

Just another idea from a tired guy.

It would be nice to have some form of control over which stats are the better ones.

I don't really like the idea as it's stated here, though.    I pointed out a few pages back that it allows you to overcome age-related disadvantages unrealistically.    If age were factored in to prevent this, then I'd like this more.

Also I think it's too powerful when combined with reroll.   I'd like to see an idea like this set up so that it's not just a given that you arrange your stats in order.   If you want to order your stats, then no reroll.   Or none of your stats can be above "good" if you order your stats.   Or some other penalty to make people think twice about using it at least.    

Just as a last comment, I wonder how often mismatched concepts and stats is even an issue.  It's a good idea to keep things at least flexible enough to deal with different kinds of stats.  If it's absolutely crucial to your concept that your PC is as strong as an ox, maybe special ap is the way to go.   Maybe it doesn't have to be that way, but I'm concerned about a system where there's no disadvantage/disincentive to ordering stats.

Quote from: "Xerin"I wasn't actually suggesting a change in the way stats are assigned, although that's an interesting idea. One possibility would be to have the four stats randomized as usual, but give the player the option to assign those four stats according to his character concept.

So, you might start with:

Your strength is below average
Your agility is good
Your wisdom is extremely good
Your endurance is poor

Then, prior to pointing to your starting location, you could type:

"Exchange strength agility"

In order to have good strength and below average agility.

That way, you get the same distribution of stats you would expect in a random system, but you have the freedom to match those stats more appropriately to your character concept.

I think this idea has A LOT of merit.  Coming from a tabletop gaming background...this is similar to the way that you work your stats in D&D.  You roll first...get your numbers, then you assign them.  You put them into the slots as you see fit....STR, WIS, CHA, INT, DEX...you get the idea.  The concept is that you use the numbers to make your character WHO he or she is supposed to be, as you have conceptualized that character.

Sure sometimes  instead of looking at their characters as they have been conceptualized, there are those whom will relent to their inner "twinks" (or "munchkins" in tabletop lingo).  Those who will just max out the stats relative to their class..ie. I am a "Fighter" so I'll make my STR hella high so she'll kick ass.  So what that the description/background says, that she is "a small, comely half-elf who became a fighter after escaping the clutches of ruthless slavers.  After finding herself to be burning with an intense bitterness, she realized an unquenchable desire to become a warrior and punish all slavers.  She wants to end slavery.  She sees no other reason to live and believes that nothing else that will heal her wounds and allow her to go on."  She wouldn't be HELLA strong...but she would be HELLA driven.  Not as strong as a 7 foot man who had worked in the docks since childhood developing his strength to it's maximum potential...so that's just Wrong.  Her Charisma in D&D would be maxed to it's hilt though.  That would be correct.  (I realize this isn't Armageddon exactly, but I'm assuming that you are all intelligent enough to make the tiny leap to take this logic and apply it here.)

However, the truth is that MOST often it WILL fit your character to max out his main skill...ie.  Vash's superior intellect was noted by wizard who was wandering through his village home.  The wizard took interest in the lad and eventually made him her apprentice"  You max out your INT...this would make great sense.  IT would fit the character.  It would also explain why the character decided to become a wizard in the first place, at least in part.  After all, if you're going to BECOME a Wizard, you are probably going to have a knack for the skills involved...that would explain your choice of vocation.  Most people who have become warriors are going to be strong, most people who have become thieves are going to have a lot of dexterity, they're going to be agile.  

If your character is an anomaly, chances are that you are a serious Roleplayer wanting to be adventurous with your character.  Most likely, in that case, you're not gonna twink out.

In conclusion...if you give someone any amount of control...is there a possiblity that they may abuse it?  Yes, sure there is.  But, if it will improve RP and realism overall...I say, so be it.  I can live with that.  I want my character to be as close to the being whom I picture in my mind's eye as humanly possible.  I'd like to have a chance to at least switch two stats.  I think it sucks when a not quite so newbie "big tough guy" gets his ass kicked by a newbie "petite leggy thin girl". Especially when their backgrounds and ways of behaving also keep it from making sense.   If I have to trust the tough guy to max his STR and lower his DEX (agility in ARM), then I can live with trusting the pretty young thing to keep her STR as realistic as possible and maybe max out her agility or something that would make sense for her frame...I can live with that.  

I can live with trusting other players if it means that I can make my charcter more "real".

I want MY character to be Right.  Screw your character, screw her character, screw his charcter, do whatever you want.  I want mine to be as close to what I imagine as I can get.

I had a character whose background and description indicated that she would be frail weakling that lived by her wits and quick feet.  She had a stat at average (endurance), two stats at below average (wisdom and agility), and one at poor (strength).  Now, that was after a reroll...before that, the stats were worse, if you can believe it (two poors and two below averages).  Now, if my wisdom and agility with that character had been averages and the others poor, I would have been cool from the beginning...but at the beginning, her poors were in wisdom and agility, the averages in strength and endurance.  That character convinced me that not every character (at the very least) has stats flagged appropriate to character background/description by IMMs, just to address that point.  If the staff wants to correct that belief, I'm all ears to quote an earless friend of mine (which amused me to no end).

As far as flurry's idea to have no stat able to get above good if you want to order, that I don't like...I prefer the no reroll option if you want to order stats, as everyone should have the full range of possibilities, but if you want to have some control over how they are placed, you lose control over how many times you get to roll, that I like.

Now to the min-max debate.  In D&D, which I have played over half of my life-span, invariably, someone will (when allowed) pick stats appropriate to the class they are going to play.  Yeah, you put the 18 in your intelligence for your wizard.  So?  That's not min-maxing.  People do like the road of least resistance...and if you are naturally inclined to a certain profession, based off of your natural abilities, you are much more likely to pick that profession.  A neanderthal is dumb as hell, but physically impressive, so he would not choose to go wizard, but barbarian.  That frail weakling is probably not going to be a fighter, but a wizard or thief, depending on their other natural inclinations.  I do not see a huge problem with ordering stats for this reason, but I'm fine if things stay the way they are.

*looks Spawnloser and nods* See ? See? People seem to get this Logic Thing after all.

Quote from: "Forest Junkie"This is a game, and I can easily have fun just like the next person without that exceptional strength. Sure, it's great, but you don't -need- it. Any intelligent player with common fucking sense can survive in this game if they play conservatively.

First off, I think Forest Junkie is Super Cool...I generally agree, and I like the personality he puts into his posts.  In essense..I'm not pickin' on ya, Buddy.  :wink:   But, here's the thing...You're right...you Can have fun and you don't need to twink out or have exceptional anything to play and to RP your ass off.  However, it's not All about survival of the fittest, although it is somewhat, and it is not All about having fun, although it is somewhat, to me the meat of the game is about Getting Into Character.  That's what I'm here for.  I want to become the character and RP it out.  I want Experience the Arm world through that character that I conceptualized.  Tailoring the stats to my concept...not to my slefish desires, ease of play, and most effective hackandslashability (yes I made that up)...but to my description and background, that could help make that happen.

I don't like it if someone gives his short thin man with boyish features maxed out strength that would feasibly be better suited to a tall guy who looks like a bodybuilder.  But neither do I like to see the bodybuilder looking guy with the agility of a ballerina and the strength of a boneless chicken.  

Sure, I can make do. That's what I do as it is.  I can RP out things that fit my character even if the stats are working against the grain of my character...but I don't wanna if I don't hafta.  If that guy abuses the power...screw him.  It's all about me. I WANT THE CONTROL, I Have to have the Control! Give me the control...I love the control!  *groans*  Oh, *looks around and realizes that she is not alone* Sorry.  

Anyway. I think realism is primarily important.  It's not about favors, not about making it easy...not at all, not to me anyway.  Those things suck.  But, if coincidentally your character's life is made easier... less harsh in some way because of the stats that better fit your descrip....that shouldn't matter.  Let's not be masochists.  We don't necessarily have to suffer more to experience the joy of the game.  I just want to see my concept blossom into fruition.  Is that so wrong?

As I said...it would allow people to order them and cut down the drawbacks from racial weaknesses on average...there is where it would be unbalancing. Also, as someone else said it would be possible to use it to counteract differences from aging. Those diferences are there for a reason.
Basically giving every elf pc higher than average for their race strength, every half-giant pc higher than average agility or wisdom, every dwarf higher than average agility or wisdom.
When your just talking about humans stat ordering doesn't make much difference (unless aging is concerned) but demihumans it would make a difference.

This would raise the overall average stats of demihumans, we'd start seeing smarter, slightly faster hgs and dwarves along with their higher strength and endurance, more elves walking around in heavier armor to go along with their agility bonuses.

It would throw things out of balance where the demihumans are concerned, any way you slice it.

No matter what the case, if any changes were made I hope an option to do it the way it is is left in,(As that is the way I like most) that being said...if there were some sort of ordering option...I'd hope there would be penalties to it...I think both no reroll for that option -and- a cap as to how high of stats you can get you be imposed upon such a choice.

You have to give something to get something IMHO.

I have to chime in again, because the lack of logic is driving me nuts.

Jhunter complains that the suggestion would "allow people to order them and cut down the drawbacks from racial weaknesses on average".

1. You do realize that for those that don't emphasize the natural strengths of their race, there is a downside right? Those half-giant pcs with above average wisdom will also have below average strength. There is an inherent balance in the system being proposed here. It is not the one-sided problem you continue to claim it is.

2. It is a non sequitur that everyone will choose to "compensate for their racial weaknesses". An equally strong argument could be made that everyone will choose to "emphasize their racial strengths". Why are you assuming that the former is better than the latter?

3. As several people have eloquently stated, this is simply a suggestion allowing us as players to create and roleplay the characters we want to be in the game. It has nothing to do with minmaxing (and is in fact immune to such a criticism) and everything to do with roleplaying.

Give up the reroll. The stat ordering is good enough.

QuoteThe Hall of Kings
Here is a dreary hall full of shit. The walls are stone,
the floor is stone, there's whispering things, blah blah
blah blah blahb labh.
Some dweeb with no life waits here endlessly to mark
your body up with painful scars and other stuff.

>point allanak
Assign your stats first. The syntax is
"stats <atrib> <atrib> <atrib> <atrib>". Your highest
stat will be assigned to the first choice, and your
lowest to the last choice.The four attributes are:
strength, agility, wisdom, and endurance. Be thoughtful,
as there is no reroll and no reassignment of stats.

>stat strength wisdom endurance agility
Your strength is absolutely incredible, your agility is
absolutely incredible, your wisdom is absolutely incredible,
and your endurance is absolutely incredible.

>think WTF?
You think: "WTF?"

>sc
You are Donovan, of the Pimps of Zalanthas.
Sdesc: the slim, chocolate-skinned hunk
Objective: To marry a good South Carolina girl..
Long Description:
Code Generated Long Description.

You are 24 years, 10 months, and 23 days old,
which by your race and appearance is young.
You are 72 inches tall, and weigh 8 ten-stone.
Your strength is absolutely incredible, your agility is absolutely incredible,
your wisdom is absolutely incredible, and your endurance is is absolutely incredible.
You are neither hungry nor thirsty.
Your health is 1000(1000), you have 1000(1000) stamina, and 1000(1000) stun.

You have been playing for 0 days and 0 hours.
You are standing.
You are currently speaking sirihish.

>think WTF?
You think: "WTF?"

Heh. Sorry.

QUICK gimme yer password!.... mine! mine!!!! I want that!!!

Lol Venomz  :D

Quote from: "Anonymous"ITS NOT IN THE FUCKING BACKGROUND. there fore, you're playing something /not/ in the background, and that's bad ICly.

Excuse me while I go straightjacket my character into a single short paragraph of personality and experiences.  :roll:

I added that little tidbit within the first hour of play, as I do most of my characters' quirks and habits. I like to flesh out my characters as I play them. As long as I stay true to their concepts and background, what's wrong with that?

Xerin, your arguement to my point only holds water -if- they get some below average stats to balance it out...if not, (which, from what I've seen is about as common as really high ones) then it will certainly create unbalance as far as the average demi-human stats.

There is -no- arguement to this...it will happen...yes...you could go with your racial benefits and increase them further...but there would be nothing to stop people from going other way which would raise the over all average of the weaker stats of the demihuman pcs, therefore unbalancing things.

Take off your blinders for a moment, look at how they -can- be done...Xerin your assumption is that noone will twink out with this...that's all find and dandy in Mr. Happy Fun Bunnyland, but in reality that's simply not the case...someone always does.

Unclear on the concept:

You have: average, above average, good, and very good stats.

As everyone knows, average is the least desireable of the lot, the one people would -normally- reroll for anyway if it showed up in a "needed" or "appropriate" stat placement.

So - instead of rerolling and possibly getting stuck with even worse in that stat - you switch the average wisdom for your good agility. You now have only average agility, but you have the good wisdom.

If you're a magicker, this would definitely come in handy because a magicker with really sucky wisdom is probably gonna die or get whacked long before the stats cease to matter.

If you're a dwarf, it'll definitely come in handy because instead of spending 2 game-days trying to contact the guy you can see who is logged in in the next room, to warn him about the elf pulling shit out of his pockets, he'll at least now have a passing chance to get the guy's mind in the 3rd or 4th or 5th try without passing out first. His agility won't be very good - if he's a thief he might not want to make this switch. But at least now he has the opportunity to make his character behave, code-wise, how his character was approved, immwise.

It's a tradeoff. When you exchange one stat with the other, it's because you are willing to LOSE something in one place in order to gain somewhere else. And if you're dealing with "good good very good very good" it's not gonna matter all that much, because you're already miles above anyone else with mostly "average" or "better than average."

Quote from: "jhunter"Xerin, your arguement to my point only holds water -if- they get some below average stats to balance it out...if not, (which, from what I've seen is about as common as really high ones) then it will certainly create unbalance as far as the average demi-human stats.

There is -no- arguement to this...it will happen...yes...you could go with your racial benefits and increase them further...but there would be nothing to stop people from going other way which would raise the over all average of the weaker stats of the demihuman pcs, therefore unbalancing things.

Take off your blinders for a moment, look at how they -can- be done...Xerin your assumption is that noone will twink out with this...that's all find and dandy in Mr. Happy Fun Bunnyland, but in reality that's simply not the case...someone always does.

There is simply too many people to quote here, but, lets get started.

First, I am against stat ordering of any sort, I only even thing the reroll option is alright because it may help cut down stat suicides.

There have been people that have written good arguements on why stat ordering is bad, mainly because you can upset what balance we have and currently, the balance IS the randomness.

Quote1. You do realize that for those that don't emphasize the natural strengths of their race, there is a downside right? Those half-giant pcs with above average wisdom will also have below average strength. There is an inherent balance in the system being proposed here. It is not the one-sided problem you continue to claim it is.

Heh, look man, a half-giant with POOR strength is still stronger then AI for any other race, he would not notice it at all, and every single player would put either wis first or agi...if they have played a HG before, probly AGI.
And the balance would be upset...course, it would give more half-giants a fighting chance, but at the same time people would complain again about too many powerful half-giants or somesuch. I get a kick out of people talking about logic blah blah, fact is, there is a current balance between pc's and between pc's and npc's, stat ordering would cause that to change, meaning that the staff would have to work thier asses off buffing npcs back up to a level of challenge, WHICH would put pretty much everybody back to exactly as they are now...well, except people who did get all round poor stat rolls would be in even worse shape and the rate of stat suicide would likly go up.

The balance as it stands IS that you have to play around the racial stats, funny thing is, stat ordering would only really help non-human's...chuckle.

Also, somebody, bestatte I think said something about low stats, though stats -do- matter, they are not the end all, a magicker with below ave or poor wis is NOT helpless, Oh, far from it, as anybody who has played a dwarf or HG magicker knows, but it does change the manner in which the char has to be played.

As far as the ones that look old and weak and have great stats...I'm sure the staff would have less of a problem lowering stats then raising.

Jhunter, again you're completely missing the point. Maybe Bestatte is more clear for you. I've said it as many ways as I can.

X-D, to your point: yes a half-giant with poor strength is stronger than most characters in the game. Obviously then, an AI strength for a half-giant would be phenomenal. I don't agree there is an asymptotic effect where stats are concerned: that extra strength for the half-giant absolutely pays off. And I think many would prefer the route of capitalizing on strengths rather than buttressing weaknesses. That certainly has been my approach in most roleplaying games I've played. More importantly, the point is that YOU should be able to decide what character concept you find most appealing.

I'm not missing shit.

X-D just said basically what I'm trying to say.

A half-giant sure isn't going to miss the trade off in a little strength for the increase in it's weaknesses when compared to a non-hg pc...the same would go for an elf trading off for higher strength at having his agility a bit lower for his race.

A human it woudn't make any difference since they are the middle ground.

I completely understand what you guys are saying is intended to do, that however is not my point..you can have the best inentions on the face of the planet but it's not going to stop someone else from throwing things out of balance by doing such.

It's the equivalent of the level caps in 2nd edition D&D for demihumans...when those are removed...why play a human when you can get some stat modifiers and make up the negatives by placing your stats carefully? Every time in my experience that this happened...humans disappeared because there are plenty of people that love to start with a stat advantage as to no statistical advantage. Yes, some people would just focus on the strengths...then you have the problem of every demihuman pc being exceptional in that regard...

...again..I think Xerin and Bestatte are not reading what I'm saying and are entirely missing -MY- point.

Again, I don't think I'm missing shit...I believe you are so focused on the positives of this idea your are blatantly ignoring the fact that, as X-D said...the randomness is the balancing factor when it comes to the demihumans.

So what a lot of ppl are saying is that they don't want background and description to have any bearing on what stats you get. They say just go with it Rp with it.

Well you know that the class and subguild you pick are usually determined by your background at least. So if it can pick your skills which are very important, then why not the ORDER of your attributes.

Shit, let's just have the guild and subguild return random skills and spells. Then people can say just RP it. I don't care if you have burglar skills and you wanted to be a warrior.

The biggest problem I've seen addressed (and I dont feel like reading 9 pages of this stuff to see if its addressed) is that code isnt designed to support this.  Its not a matter of just rearranging stats, because not all stats are on a set point or percentage basis.

If a HG with 10% or 70% strength has 30 actual "stat points" of difference while with 10% or 70% AGI its only 10 points, take the 10% for AGI because overall your losing alot more strength than you are agility as far as coded effect in the game.

This just would lead to min/maxing for people who know the game well and would leave noobs clueless.  I hate that you cant pick your favored stat, but beyond picking maybe your highest stat I dont think ordering should be implemented.

I believe it's already calculated on a relative basis. That is, a half-giant is just as likely to get an AI strength as to get an AI wisdom, agility, or endurance.

Yep, and more likely to get that AI wis if you can order them.

Jhunter, if you want to keep repeating the same point at least address what I have to say about it. Tell me why there would be an asymptotic effect. A half-giant with AI strength is a hell of a lot stronger than a half-giant with poor strength, and the effects of that are obvious in the game.

em nods to jhunter.

Also

QuoteX-D, to your point: yes a half-giant with poor strength is stronger than most characters in the game. Obviously then, an AI strength for a half-giant would be phenomenal. I don't agree there is an asymptotic effect where stats are concerned: that extra strength for the half-giant absolutely pays off. And I think many would prefer the route of capitalizing on strengths rather than buttressing weaknesses. That certainly has been my approach in most roleplaying games I've played. More importantly, the point is that YOU should be able to decide what character concept you find most appealing.

There is a huge difference in min and max strength of a HG, but, it is basicly not noticable to them or others for that matter, except by how much extra stuff they can carry arround. Combat wise, frightening damage is frightening damage...actually, I'd go for lower strength myself, if I got to choose, break fewer expensive weapons that way. As to the bolded part of the quote...Heh, no, half-giant with poor strength is stronger then ALL pc races.

Also, people talk about backrounds...I think they need to rethink backround writing a bit maybe leave them a bit more open.

And playing the pc you invision, well, I say, MAKE them that pc through your play, and if there was stat ordering, you can bet your ass every assassin would have an uber ninja backround, every warrior would have a hulk backround, etc.

The person throwing out the random skills part, come now, I really hope you were just being sarcastic or something.

I'm also not missing anything, but I -DO- understand how game balance works and why it has to be there and the total random nature of stats for a race is part of that balance. And why we have guilds with set skills and why there are subguilds to help randomize that some without completly destroying the balance.


Plus, it would leave the players that know more with a much greater advantage over newbies, destroying yet another form of balance.

Stat ordering will never happen because some races obviously have different stat ranges for each attribute.  So you can't just roll four times and assign them in order.  For example, these numbers are made up ... A half-giant's strength ranges from 20 to 50, his agility from 5 to 15, wisdom from 7 to 14, and endurance from 18 to 26.   Where the hell are you going to roll and assign based on those ranges?  Never going to happen.  I imagine no one's considering that it's a lot harder than just "roll and assign based on priority" because you have no idea what's going on in the code (nor do I.)  For the same reason, you can't just switch a good str for a vg agi on a half giant either, because then your 30 str and 12 agi becomes 12 str and 30 agi, which makes no sense whatsoever for a HG.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with the way it works now.  Either don't desc your character with bulging muscles, or just explain it a different way in the game.  Be imaginative.  Be inventive.  Don't be locked into your desc.  Live long enough and your desc at 20 won't make sense at 40 anyway.

I believe there's an easy fix for that concern. A half-giant has the same distribution for each stat, when you look at the labels. That is, he is as likely to get a poor strength as to get a poor wisdom, agility, or endurance. It's a simple matter of translating between the four stats. Whatever the numerical conversion is, you make it so the poor that was originally in strength is now a poor in agility (assuming that is how the player ordered it).

Oh, to this.

QuoteJhunter, if you want to keep repeating the same point at least address what I have to say about it. Tell me why there would be an asymptotic effect. A half-giant with AI strength is a hell of a lot stronger than a half-giant with poor strength, and the effects of that are obvious in the game.

No, they really are not, at least not for that stat...my last half-giant had poor strength, and in the heaviest gear in the game plus carrying a huge amount of other items his enc was at no problem, and I doubt the half-giants he sparred against noticed any less damage as they took frightenings with a sparring club and thier armor got destroyed, no, for that race, every player probly wishes for one thing, More agi:).

On an elf, most would gladly trade agi or wis for strength.
I'll not go through and explain the rest of the races, but the point is...well, play what you are given, having a char with great stats, well, I've had em, and really, it's too damm easy sometimes, at least I get bored quicker.

Matter of fact, we already have some stat ordering, even for non-karma players, and that is the races you can choose from. If you want a burly kinda dumb slow warrior, take a dwarf, if you want him quick and smart, take an elf, middle of the road, take a human, then between human and elf is half-elf. Stats can also be somewhat manipulated by the starting age of your char. To my thinking, one already has plenty of control of the stats of his/her char and I see no need for more.

Buzz made my point beautifully.  Ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: "Xerin"X-D, to your point: yes a half-giant with poor strength is stronger than most characters in the game. Obviously then, an AI strength for a half-giant would be phenomenal. I don't agree there is an asymptotic effect where stats are concerned: that extra strength for the half-giant absolutely pays off.

Uh, not really. I've played the half-giant warrior with the fabulous agility and the poor strength - and the strength being poor is a complete non-issue. Being able to demolish your foe in two hits instead of three is a rather lesser advantage than getting all those hits in in a short space of time and avoiding taking too much damage doing so.

Anyway, a couple of points. Firstly, I think a lot of people are missing the point of a character concept. Character concepts address your character's personality, and what he has been doing for a living. The former is unaffected by stats, save perhaps wisdom, which I see few people taking into account save in the instances of strong racial differences. The latter is handled by your guild, which I believe has some input into stat generation anyway and affects the "smart folk go into business, strong ones go into war" debate. Stats are meaningless in the character concept framework.

Secondly, the people who've posted saying it'll screw with the age-related and race-related modifiers are entirely right. To a large extent you can get the stats you want by selecting age and race carefully. Beyond that - well, I'd rather have the exceptions handed out randomly than letting everyone play that exceptionally agile half-giant.

Quirk

There are already several ways to affect your stats to suit your character concept:

1) Race.  The racial modifiers are obvious from the racial descriptions.

2) Age.  Again, the descriptions are pretty clear.  Young people tend to get the best agility, middling aged people get the best strength and endurance, and old people get the best wisdom.

3) Size.  In general small people get better agility while large people get better strength and endurance (which may explain why you'll occasionally see a character described as slender and dainty, but when you assess -v them they are a massive hulk).

If you want good agility, and you don't want any social penalties from elven blood, then you make a young, small character.  It isn't an iron-clad gaurntee, but characters that are young and small usually have above average agility.  Obviously your background and description should support your youth and tinyness.  If you live long enough to get old your agility will go down, but that's life.

If you want to be strong, then don't be an under-nourished, petite 15 year old, or an elf.

No muss no fuss.


I find it a little deceptive that this topic is in roleplaying discussion rather than code discussion, since this discussion isn't about how to roleplay a chracter with unexpected stats, but rather a proposed code change to prevent unexpected stats.  Any attempt to help reconcile the descrepency through roleplay, such as ideas of ways to explain low strength despite hulking muscle, gets shot down.  This isn't about roleplay, it is about code.

There is no point arguing this forever here though.  Armageddon isn't a democracy, even if you convinced ALL the players that your idea had merit, that still wouldn't mean diddly.  If you still like the idea, take the feedback you've gotten here to refine your idea, and then post to Ask the Staff, or better yet write up a proposal and send it to mud@armageddon.org to get it in the hands of the people who actually make the decisions.  I doubt many staff have read the last 9 pages of bickering.


AC

When I started the thread, I had no intention of getting into a code discussion. But as we moved forward with the topic, that was the direction that made the most sense to me. To those who say just to ignore the discrepancy, or to let the game define your character, I will respectfully disagree and leave it at that.

Choosing where your rolls go...which stat is best and which is worst...that's not going to mess the balance of the game any more than dumb luck can.   You can get the EXACT same stats with a roll...the only difference is that the ones that you can allocate will be appropriate to your character as you see fit.   Crappy luck, Superb luck...those things screw with the balance of the game more than someone's individual customization Ever could.

I thought this was a dead thread...but no, then you get no crappy luck, instead you get mildly bad luck...oh wait, not even that since it is not truly random anymore.

And in the not too distant future, all races other then human would have to be karma, why, because the player side would choose far fewer humans, Me, I don't like playing human onlybecause well, I am one...sorta.

But some people don't like the drawbacks of other races, so they play humans, stat ordering allows you to minimize the drawbacks.

Besides, I like the random nature, it gives this mud an even more unique feel, as many of you have said, most (if not all) other muds have a way to order your stats, Arm does not...good.

If we had the option to allocate our rolls to the appropriate stats for our character concept...Dumb luck would be the ONLY way I would ever have an exceptionally agile half giant for my character...unless I had written up something freak that I can't even take the time to conjur an example of...Hella unlikely.  I can't relate to the player who is on This Mud and is not more serious about their RP than that...this isn't fucking Aardwolf.  D&D does it that way, and my D&D characters are much more realistic...that's a fact.  I RP my characters on Arm realisticly...but I can't do jack about their capacities....what they are too good at and not good enough at.  The racial limitations will provide boundaries for your stats that keep everything IC and appropriate to that extent.  So, you don't have to worry about someone having the ability to do anything too whack.  Shit luck is just as likely to create the stuff that everyone is worried about people choosing to do...it's already happening and in existance in game as we speak.  I think that given the choice, things like that would be less likely...at least for quality roleplayers.  And if you're not a quality roleplayer, I honestly could give a shit what you do with your character or your life.  It's just a matter of time before your ass is back to playing your favorite PS2 game instead of Arm anyway.  It's worked for YEARS SUCCESSFULLY in D&D, it IS realistic.  I know because it's already been done.  No one is asking for the right to choose the roll numbers and then choose where to allocate the numbers of your choice.  If you have 3 poor stats and one good one....well, your only choice is to choose where you want the good one to go.  That leaves more opportunity for realism than the current "dumb luck" system.  I don't see why everyone has to be SO DAMN concerned with what someone else may or may not do.  There are boundaries, it's not a license for free reign.  And the fact is...if you get a shit roll...YOU STILL HAVE TO SUCK IT UP! You Still have to deal with it.  You're just arranging the stats to fit your character concept. Your luck is still shit..your roll still sucks.  Now you just get to make your half giant strong instead of agile.  That's a Good thing.  People who play Arm are better Roleplayers than some folks tend to give them credit for.  The average RPer HERE, is a good RPer....because that's the lure.  That's what draws us all.

I'm Pro-Choice when it comes to Character Stats.

QuotePeople who play Arm are better Roleplayers than some folks tend to give them credit for

If that were the case, we would not be talking about this now would we?
You WOULD NOT CARE, Why, because with your SUPER RP sk1llz you would RP around any stats handed to you with ease and enjoy it.

I've had a lot of chars over the years and I've had some with extremly good stats and some with poor stats, I've had 1 that I considered unplayable even after the reroll...actually, the reroll was worse, and I did suicide that char, and on that one, stat ordering would have still gotten him suicided, everybody else, I've played, some of them, with poor stats even did quite well, became powerful pc's and heads of organizations. Some of the very High stat chars lived for a day or so.

My point, I do not care in the least what kind of stats your char has, I'm in no way trying to keep anybody down, stats are important, but they have nothing to do with your skill as a ROLEPLAYER except those that can't reconcile through RP.

And lastly, we have currently a flexible well balanced working system that has been in place now for what, 11 years+, to screw with that is to upset a balance for minimal possible gains, consider me ANTI-stat ordering...Violantly if need be,

Quote from: "X-D"

QuotePeople who play Arm are better Roleplayers than some folks tend to give them credit for

If that were the case, we would not be talking about this now would we?
You WOULD NOT CARE, Why, because with your SUPER RP sk1llz you would RP around any stats handed to you with ease and enjoy it.

That was my point, Einstein.  I DO NOT CARE, and we should not be talking about that.   For those of you who are talking about what they "might do with the POOOOWER! *shudders and whimpers*, don't Worry about it.  People don't need to be coddled here.  Stop wasting space blathering about it...they are doing just fine.  
And with my "SUPER RP sk1llz"...I do RP around my incorrect stats...that is how I deal with imperfection.  I adapt.  Is this optimal?...no.  But hey, thanks for noticin' mah Sk1llz anyway.  *strikes a pose*

Most people here have had characters with good stats and bad stats...speaking for myself, I have Roleplayed them well regardless, and I think most people here could say the same thing.  I see A lot of great RP in game.  I enjoy it regardless, and judging by the fact that they are here, I'd guess that most other people reading the GDB also enjoy the game regardless.  Saying that the game could be improved is Not sacrilegious.   It's factual that there's always room for improvement.   And factual that you can live and thrive without improvement.  
Exhale, little man, it'll be all right.  

Quote from: "X-D"My point, I do not care in the least what kind of stats your char has, I'm in no way trying to keep anybody down, stats are important, but they have nothing to do with your skill as a ROLEPLAYER except those that can't reconcile through RP.

I don't know when I said that your stats have to do with your skills as a roleplayer.  Maybe that's because...I Didn't!?  *scoffs*  It's about realism.  Realism has to do with the quality of the RP experience. The topic of the allocation of stats....this is only a Very small part of the realism of the game, one small thing that could be improved.  It's not the end all.  No one is saying that without the change RP is impossible.  I'm not seeing that melodrama coming from the pro-choice side.  

But ya...I think it could mean more accuracy.  If you give a shit about the realism of the times that the stores are available for shopping, I don't see why you would not think that this is an issue that is at least worth discussion.  It's about the strengths and weaknesses of your character...you don't have the choice to choose just How strong or weak your rolls are (which is, I think, realistic and an attribute of the method as it stands which should remain).  But, it would be nice to put the numbers into place all neat and customized like; tailored to your Character, not what will be most beneficial to you code-wise.  What the big deal, Man??  I don't get the hubbub.

Quote from: "X-D"And lastly, we have currently a flexible well balanced working system that has been in place now for what, 11 years+, to screw with that is to upset a balance for minimal possible gains, consider me ANTI-stat ordering...Violently if need be,

Gee, and how long has the more flexible and better balanced working system been in place in Dungeons and Dragons, which is debatably the Origin of the RPG "movement" such as it is.  That game long preceded Tolkein.  It's been AROUND.  And how many More people play that game?  But that is not my point, the existance of a system and the duration of it's use..isn't a point period.  I am Not saying that since it's been this way in D&D...so we should do it here toooooo.  Waah.  
I think that "It's been that way." as a stance on any issue is mindless.  WHOA! What a Lame point..."I mean, it's been less than perfect for 11 years and we all still love it...so, why ever change it? I'm all violent feeling now."
Urm, ok.  Let me try to break it down.  We should make it better, because...it would be good.  And...better?  
And what is "The Balance"? When did this turn into a SW Mud?

QuoteX-D wrote:
My point, I do not care in the least what kind of stats your char has, I'm in no way trying to keep anybody down, stats are important, but they have nothing to do with your skill as a ROLEPLAYER except those that can't reconcile through RP.  


I don't know when I said that your stats have to do with your skills as a roleplayer

Hhhmmm, lets see, I had not quoted candi, nor had I named you....good chance that means my post at that point was a more general sense of the word "you".

QuoteX-D wrote:
And lastly, we have currently a flexible well balanced working system that has been in place now for what, 11 years+, to screw with that is to upset a balance for minimal possible gains, consider me ANTI-stat ordering...Violently if need be,

Gee, and how long has the more flexible and better balanced working system been in place in Dungeons and Dragons, which is debatably the Origin of the RPG "movement" such as it is. That game long preceded Tolkein

Firstly, Myself, I much prefer first ed rules...much more restrictive too, Second, maybe check your facts before making a statement, Tolkein My dear is far older the D&D, you may wish to check copyrights and publish dates. Since The Hobbit and the lord of the rings was published befor the creators of D&D were even BORN.

QuoteWhen Tolkien began writing The Hobbit in the 1930s, he was unaware that he was essentially defining a genre. Tolkien was not the first author to write what would eventually be labeled as "fantasy", but his synthesis of elements - mythology, stories of larger-than-life heroism, the supernatural, and fairy tales - was unique. Nothing on the scale or scope of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings had previously been seen - not even the legends of King Arthur, Merlin, and Camelot were as well developed or executed.

The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord of the Rings, was first published in 1937. The first two volumes of The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, were released in 1954. The final book, The Return of the King, reached British bookstores in 1955.

And again, if you did not care....I still must wonder why you (candi, so things remain clear) are bothering to post so strongly in favor of the idea?'
And the "tailored to your Character, not what will be most beneficial to you code-wise. " Is the big hubbub, it is exactly what (IMO) is not needed, it removes a realistic randomness.

QuoteUrm, ok. Let me try to break it down. We should make it better, because...it would be good. And...better?
And what is "The Balance"? When did this turn into a SW Mud?

That my dear is purely a matter of opinion, basicly the same as mine, except I think it has been working fine and the change would be for the worse. As to balance, you want a good picture of a mud that is NOT well balanced, go take a look at achea (however it is spelled) Again, or any other mud that works harder to cater to the masses then to keep a balanced game. YES, speaking as current and past staff on other muds, balance, it is an elusive thing that many muds strive for but never come close to, others will have it for a while then lose it, Armageddon  has managed to maintane this balance over the years even through many changes, though this item has stood the longest...possibly there is a reason for that?

It's my understanding that before it was copywrited and published the game D&D existed in a more arcaic form for quite some time.

Quote from: "Candi"If we had the option to allocate our rolls to the appropriate stats for our character concept...Dumb luck would be the ONLY way I would ever have an exceptionally agile half giant for my character.

Yes. This is a good thing, for it prevents the majority of half-giants made being unnaturally agile. This is an issue far more relevant in the Arm system than the D&D system, as people have been discussing, because the racial differences are vastly greater and the disadvantages and advantages correspondingly overwhelming.

Quote from: "Candi"It's my understanding that before it was copywrited and published the game D&D existed in a more arcaic form for quite some time.

D&D was first published in 1974. It was developed from a system called Chainmail that was created in the late 60s by Gygax and Peren. The Lord of the Rings was first published between 1954 and 1955. Such was the initial slavish devotion of D&D to Tolkien that it even had hobbits and ents until the Tolkien estate threatened to sue, whereupon they were changed to halflings and treants.

Quirk

QuoteIt was Wells, however, who first opened up the games for the amateur. In 1915, he published a set of amateur wargaming rules in a book entitled Little Wars, now seen as the "wargamers' bible". Wells was also the first to suggest that miniature figures be collected to represent respective forces, to add flavour, and a sense of involvement, to the game. Though the book was popular, wargames did not really take off until, in 1953, Charles Roberts released the first commercially available "board" war game. Though it was a slow starter, Roberts eventually went on to form the Avalon-Hill Game Company, now one of the world's biggest game companies.

Spark to a Flame
In fact, in the 60's and 70's, wargaming enjoyed a peak of popularity that it has yet to recapture. It seems all those young people who weren't doing LSD and listening to Bob Dylan were playing a hell of a lot of wargames. Soon, it was no longer a game, it was an industry. A huge, well-established and well-defined fanclub, with its own congregations, publications and jargon was evolving, just as it was for science-fiction fans at about the same time. By the late sixties, there was a strong and stable sub-culture for wargamers, a supportive environment that was beginning to foster much creativity and experimentation among its members. It was just this sort of exploration that was to be the fuel for the role-playing fire. But a spark was still required. And what a spark it was: The Lord of the Rings.

The first edition of D&D, like so many games that followed, featured hobbits. However, Tolkien's lawyers soon threatened copyright action, leading to the birth of the "halfling". Released in full across the United States in 1966, it was to forever change the literary world, and likewise the worlds of millions of middle class American teenage males. And since ninety percent of wargamers were middle class teenage males, it took little imagination to see what was going to happen next. No longer did players want to recreate the battle of Gettysburg, but the battle of Helm's Deep. The Napoleonic Wars were discarded in favour of the War of the Ring, goblins and orcs replaced foot soldiers and calvalry. People wanted to know just how much damage a Balrog could do, and what the range was on a lightning bolt spell.

It seemed only a matter time before the first game specifically set in Tolkien's world was published. There was, however, a slight impediment to this, which was the fact that there were very few good wargames that dealt with the medieval era well enough to allow such things as magic and dragons to be introduced. Into the path of destiny stepped two men: Ernest (Gary) Gygax and David Arneson.

A Legendary Partnership
TSR was named after another local gaming club: The Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association. In a small town in Wisconsin called Lake Geneva, Gygax, Jeff Perren and friends had created a wargame that gave an accurate model of most aspects of medieval warfare. It was called Chainmail, and had been published by Gygax's own fledgling company, Tactical Studies Rules. It was a later, more widely distributed version that became the first wargame to include rules for giants, trolls, dragons and magic spells. This game is seen to be the immediate predecessor of Dungeons and Dragons, and indeed, there are many similarities in the rules and style.

This was what led me to make that statement.  Although, really, the only point of my response is to defend myself concerning a detail of conversation that was moreorless off topic and even stated as not being valuable to the point of the discussion.   What does this have to do with allocation of prerolled stats?

Quote from: "Candi"This was what led me to make that statement.  Although, really, the only point of my response is to defend myself concerning a detail of conversation that was moreorless off topic and even stated as not being valuable to the point of the discussion.   What does this have to do with allocation of prerolled stats?

Agreed, entirely off-topic. It should probably be noted before we pass on though that fantasy wargaming, as opposed to historic military wargaming, postdates Tolkien, and that playing characters rather than controlling military forces arrived with D&D First Edition, not earlier. Chainmail I believe added the concept of heroic leaders to wargaming, which later spun off into the D&D party of heroes.

Quirk

QuoteQuirk wrote:

QuoteCandi wrote:
If we had the option to allocate our rolls to the appropriate stats for our character concept...Dumb luck would be the ONLY way I would ever have an exceptionally agile half giant for my character.

Yes. This is a good thing, for it prevents the majority of half-giants made being unnaturally agile. This is an issue far more relevant in the Arm system than the D&D system, as people have been discussing, because the racial differences are vastly greater and the disadvantages and advantages correspondingly overwhelming.

To Quirk, Ok, this one requires a little bit of explanation.
"Dumb luck" is the current system.  Allocating stats is what you are saying that we shouldn't do...right?  So what do you mean?  What prevents the majority of half giants from being made agile?   In my statement, I am saying that the intervention of a decent RPer would help to prevent that from happening and that luck is less dependable...I'm not sure what you are saying is a good thing.  And what is the issue that is more relevant in Arm than D&D?  You didn't exactly say.  The racial differences in Arm are different and the disadvantages are more poignant in effect....ok, but what is it that you are getting at with this statement?  There is more of a difference between a dwarf and human in Arm than in D&D?  Is that what you are saying in essence?  And, if so, ...what does that have to do with not being able to allocate your own stats from an arbitrary roll of 4 unassigned stat levels.  I'm not being catty, I really would like to hear you reiterate.

About the D&D "spoke too soon in the heat of the moment"...
As far as the origins of D&D, your point is taken that in respect to the stats being arranged, that did not become part of RPG until Chainmail at the earliest.  I'm trying to care enough to be somewhat gracious.  It was honestly a petty slip up on my part.  Since I don't research and spellcheck my statements, I fell victim to the worst possible mistake on the GDB...making it obvious that I am capable of error...just like you.  Damn it, I'm just too lazy to go to the trouble of surfing for references, sorry about that.  You're right, I'm wrong, now, seriously, back to the issue.

To all,  They key here is LEVEL...in Arm you roll levels...which is Hella cool.  A dwarf with average wisdom will have less wisdom than an elf with average wisdom.  This is because of the racial accountability inherent in the gamecode.  We're not assigning numbers really, even though I think I have even used that word myself during the course of this discussion while going back and forth comparing the way character sheets in D&D are drawn up and the way characters are rolled in Arm.  Here, we're assigning levels though, not dice nubmers, that is Really a major difference, and it honestly makes great sense and  enables a unique amount of accuracy in respect to racial specifications.  It's a fantastic difference that helps to safeguard the kind of abuses that have been discussed.  Really, it would be impossible to go outside the boundaries of your race, because a half giant who is above average in agility, is still not going to be as agile as a human whose agility is average for his own race.  Even if someone wants to be a twink (and granted, I have more faith in my fellow gamer than many other folks here do), he is limited...he can't turn "munchkin" on us.  
http://meandhim.tripod.com/munch.htm

I don't think that such a minimal level of control over your own character's stats would be worse than the totally random computer generated roll. The current all luck no logic roll is completely incapable of accounting for Any type of variable based on concept, description, background, etc.  It just spits out average, above average, below average, etc....the race aspect is taken care of completely and automatically since "average" for one race might translate to let's say a 12 strength for a human in D&D and average might translate into say a 16 for a half giant...both average, same "roll"...the code should adapt it to make sure races are not able to become skewed.  So the affects of moving your above average stat yourself within the boundaries of your already enforced racial limitations, to me is non-issue.  The code and the common sense of the RPers themselves should be enough encourage confidence.  If you're above average for your race, you're still within the boundaries of your "genetics".  And the current system does not prevent what it is that so many of you are afraid will happen...so perhaps you should come up with a third concept.  I'll be eager to listen.  Honest.  I just want something better, if it is possible...not my own way.  I personally think that being able to allocate would make it less likely that your character was skewed...it doesn't piss me off when my characters turn out skewed, which is most of the time to one degree or another, but it would be nice if they weren't.  It is really statistically unlikely that a character will be "accurate" and yes, unnecessary as well...but oooh, wouldn't it be nice to have your strong guy BE strong, or your comicly clumsy half giant be HELLA clumsy, even for a HG, or your very pensive deep thinker, have decent WIS?  If I had the option to have any control over that, skewed might then become somewhat more avoidable for my characters, at least the degree would be in my control to an extent.  Skewed characters is something that should be feared now, not something that we Should fear in case there is a change put into affect that allows for allocation.  That is already happening.  Perhaps, it has long ago been accepted because it seems to have "always been that way".

I feel like all I'm doing is defending myself by restating myself in a new way so my words have less chance of being twisted when taken out of context by the dreaded "quote" button.  The Reasoning of the position that you are taking is what I am interested in hearing about.   It is inane to defend petty things or semantics for ages and ignore the meat of the debate for the sake of being insulting.  "I'm clever, so I'm smarter, so I win..Nyah nyah."  Man, I'm 27...I can't get down with that level of "discussion".   What I want is for someone to point out to me why the "dumb luck" system is better and how the "dumb luck" system solves their worries and prevents all the things they don't want to happen from happening.   That or come up with a third option...I'd like to hear about possibilities, not complaints.  I only feel so ardent about getting my opinion across on this topic because I think there's a potential for an improved game.

Quote from: "Candi"To Quirk, Ok, this one requires a little bit of explanation.
"Dumb luck" is the current system.  Allocating stats is what you are saying that we shouldn't do...right?  So what do you mean?  What prevents the majority of half giants from being made agile?

Dumb luck is the current system. Dumb luck is good. It keeps half-giants somewhat balanced, because the average level of agility is really very low, which compensates for their insane strength. Let people tweak that upwards and that balance is disturbed. This goes similarly, though on a somewhat lesser level, for elves and dwarves, who have their own disadvantages and advantages. It becomes a min-maxing issue, because there are always going to be some stats that prove more helpful in any given chosen profession than the others are, and people will rate them higher.

Moreover, as the ranges differ, exceptionals are likely to prove more difficult to attain in some stats than others. Let's imagine that an exceptional agility for a half-giant warrior occurs one time in twenty, while an exceptional endurance occurs one time in eight. The net result is that we go from having one half-giant warrior with exceptional endurance in twenty cases to rather better than one in eight - an exceptional in any stat can be drafted in to serve as agility.

Quote from: "Candi"In my statement, I am saying that the intervention of a decent RPer would help to prevent that from happening and that luck is less dependable...

Stats have so little to do with the character concept that most good RPers would have no problems with arranging theirs to make their character more effective at their job, just as they currently pick their guild to fit their character's aptitudes. The merchant pretending to be a mercenary is a rarity.

Quote from: "Candi"There is more of a difference between a dwarf and human in Arm than in D&D?  Is that what you are saying in essence?  And, if so, ...what does that have to do with not being able to allocate your own stats from an arbitrary roll of 4 unassigned stat levels.

When the difference between races is one point here or there, ordering your stats from best to worst doesn't make a huge difference. However, on Arm the differences are very much greater. To borrow the D&D (2nd edition) stat advantages/disadvantages by way of illustration, imagine that a race has strength values ranging from 3-10 and dexterity values ranging from 21-25. Now, the exceptional dexterity crops up more commonly than the exceptional strength, and the advantages over poor dexterity are minor - a small AC shift and missile adjustment shift - while low strength is crippling, in the worst case reducing the weight carried to as little as 5 lbs as well as impacting combat harshly. The difference made to the character in combat by having worst case dexterity is vastly less than that made by having worst case strength.

Quirk

Half-giants and elves get the greatest racial modifiers, so they are potentially the most affected by the ability to order your stats.


If average strength for a human was 12, average strength for a half-giant would be in the area of 20.  They are absurdly strong.  They are also very, very un-agile.  It wouldn't just be twinks choosing agility as their HG's primary stat, no one in their right mind would make agility a HG's lowest stat.  Seriously.  Many HGs can not even make a simple campfire easily, because to make a campfire you have to have 5 items in your inventory, and most half-giants don't have sufficient agility to manipulate 5 items at once.  This may be part of the reason why you don't see many merchant or crafter HGs.  Most people want to be able to hold/manipulate 5 items in their inventory, so OF COURSE they will choose agility as their primary stat.  The half-giant will still be stronger and clumsier than other races, but the clumsiness won't be such a disability.

Likewise elves are very weak.  Considering their height they are incredibly light, some people hypothisize that they must have hollow bones like birds to be so light and move so quickly.  It warns you right in the racial description that elves are weak.  But when you get into the world and you can't find a weak enough bow (or at least not a weak enough longbow) or you become heavily encumbered carrying your waterskin and a single hide, being weak starts to suck.  So of course many players would choose strength as their primary elf stat.  They will still be weaker and more agile than most other races, but their weakness won't be such a disability.

What prevents this under the random system?  Nothing prevents a segment of half-giants from having high agility for a half-giant, or prevents a few elves from being strong for an elf.  But the randomness does prevent -most- PC giants from being agile and most PC elves from being strong.  There are still exceptional individuals, but they are the exception.


If the staff decides to change the character creation system to give players greater control then that is great, unlikely, but great.  Focusing on stats the way this discussion has done is probably more likely to get stats made entirely invisible than it is to get stats made more controlable, because the staff doesn't like people focusing on mechanics this way.  If stats were invisible you wouldn't know if you sucked because you had low stats, or simply because your character is a newbie and sucks at everything.  Personally I like seeing my stats, I'd like to see the numbers behind the lables too, and since I don't want to lose that I don't like to see threads focused on mechanics, particularily in the roleplay forum.  This whole thread makes me itchy and nervous.

If you must poke the bear, write up a proposal and send it to the mud account. Nothing to do with the code can be settled or changed here.


AC

I think there's another classic logical error happening here. People are setting up a straw man with half-giants and blatantly ignoring the vast majority of characters in the game. Not only that, but they are focusing on the very specific instance of a player choosing agility over strength in stat ordering when playing a half-giant, and when the random roll results in dramatically different numbers. It's a total straw man (straw half-giant?) I play several hours a day and do you know how many PC half-giants I've seen in the past few months? Zero. Of course they exist, as do PC muls (and I have seen one of those), but they are the tiny minority of players in the game. To use them as an example of a general flaw with stat ordering is ridiculous.

Maybe you're right that nobody can tell the difference between a half-giant with poor strength and a half giant with AI strength. That is not to say that real differences don't exist. Regardless, the point isn't even worth arguing, because it fails to represent the large majority of players that would be affected by stat ordering. Furthermore, the very few players that actually have a half-giant or a mul have already shown themselves capable of roleplaying as opposed to twinking by earning karma.

I challenge you to give me a single example of a race (human or otherwise) that is common in the game and could be twinked in the way you've been harping about half-giants. An elf with AI agility is clearly faster than one with poor agility. A dwarf with AI strength does hella more damage than a dwarf with poor strength.

I again point out that people are just as likely to emphasize their strengths as to accommodate weaknesses. Diversity will continue to exist, bolstered by the reality that the four stat rolls are still completely random.

To those that claim you should just "roleplay around your stats", you're entirely missing the point. As was mentioned earlier, why not have random race, gender, age, and profession in the game as well? After all, by the same inane logic you could just "roleplay around" those things. The reality is that -all- of those things (stats, race, gender, age, and profession) have a significant effect on how your character interacts with the world, regardless of how well you roleplay. To IGNORE those effects is to be a shitty roleplayer.

What we are suggesting here as that instead they should all be INTEGRATED into a cohesive character concept.

Quote from: "Xerin"I play several hours a day and do you know how many PC half-giants I've seen in the past few months? Zero.

They would almost certainly be more popular if you could mitigate the crippling lack of agility that is their main flaw.  

Elves and half-giants are at the extreme ends of the spectrum, so they make the clearest examples.  A 30 year old, 70" tall, 8-tenstone human (in other words a very average member of a very average race) will have stats all over the place, and stat ordering won't make much difference to balance.  It will make a difference to un-average chracters like those from races with extreme modifiers, very old and very young characters, and very small or very large characters.  But none of that matters.




If you believe you have a good idea, take it to the staff.  


I've done this before.  I got a nice note back saying that my idea was interesting and they were going to post it to the staff discussion board and discuss it.  Yay!  That is the productive way to get a change that will require imm intervention.  GDB bickering is not.


AC

Angela, any penalties that currently apply to half-giants would still apply with the stat ordering proposal. Half-giants with AI agility are possible now, and are still clumsy as hell compared with most other races. Even if there were a bump due to implementation of this feature, I think it's a fair statement that the large majority of characters in the game would not be affected by this straw man argument.

I've already emailed the mud, and just now posted something on the "Ask the Staff" board. I wanted to let the conversation run its course so that we could raise and discuss the potential pros and cons of the idea first. Thanks to Angela and everyone else for your input :)

I like the idea of binding subguild choices to stat levels like race is bound. Not nearly as strongly, though. Acrobats SHOULD be agile, they should never have below average agility. But, at the same time, agility doesn't always need to be their highest stat.

There was also a mention earlier in this thread of having the IMM who affirms your app set any necessary stat ordering they see fit, behind the scenes.

I think that would be lovely. That way you don't get any extremes buffering their weaknesses, but you don't get any clumsy acrobats unless you WANT a clumsy acrobat.

And as far as getting this idea to the staff, i dare say they'd appreciate 12 different suggestions about this topic but all in a slightly different way. I wouldn't know how to approach them. I've found my noobish emails to the mud account are ignored.  :oops:

I haven't read this whole thread.... its far too big and scary for me to participate in now.  So, I'm just going to throw in my I-don't-like-this-idea and be gone.  This idea smells like powergaming whether that was the author's original intent or not.  My reasons have probably been covered in more detail already, though.

This thread is also a bit overwhelming, but I'll throw in my views on this, since they're fairly strong.

Also, anyone who replies with 'Ignore stats and play your character' will be summarily ignored, I've beend oing this for years,  but I don't see why I should have to.  If the stats don't accurately reflect a reasonable character concept, there's no reason for them to be in the game at all.

Now, first off - there's the roleplaying aspect to arm, and there is the coded aspect.  It is accepted wisdom that the code exists -only- to support the roleplay.  Adds excitement and a certain hard edge to our imaginations, and it's why I feel it is superior to a MUSH.  If you play character who is a skilled fighter, or at least has the potential - the code will support this character concept by giving you all the bonuses of a warrior class.  That sort of thing.

And so, I feel the code is in derelection of duty when your stats cannot come CLOSE to accurately representing your character.  It's not like a chronic problem, as I can roleplay around it.  Yet still, like everyone else, I have had my clever chars with low wisdoms, dumb chars with high wisdoms, strong chars with low strengths, weak chars with high strengths, and EVERY CHAR with a high endurance.

However, a simple ordering of stats - to me, might not be the solution.  Some stats are too good compared to others.  I mean, endurance vs. wisdom?  No contest.  Of course, a good roleplayer will pick what's most appropriate to his character, but if you pick a char with a high endurance over a high wisdom, you -will- be all round weaker with regards to code.  At the simplest level, you can take combat.  A high wisdom char and a high endurance char grow up alongside each otehr in the Byn.  Garaunteed the high wisdom char will be -MUCH- better than the high endurance char.  Since we're nerds, we prize brains above all else, but being tough as an ox should have more bearing on a fight IMHO... if only to balance out the stats.

And YES being good in combat and having high skills is not the be all and end all.  Anybody who knows me can attest to the fact I -really- don't powergame or care about it too much, but it IS an aspect of the game and so it DOES warrant attention.  If I want to play a high endurance character I'm being punished codewise, while a high wisdom character will reward me codewise.  Of course, that would be if the stats were ordered as they stand ANYWAYS.  So kids, the moral of this incoherent rant:

Stats should be ordered because code exists to support roleplay.
The stats, as they stand, shouldn't be ordered because of balance issues.

Therefore, solve the balance issues and then order the stats?  I dunno.  Suggestions welcome.

Of course, that's if the stats are ordered as all, as I'm just one shmoe with my (probably incorrect) opinion ;)

-Der Comrade

If you're playing a half giant, you have a lot of karma...if you have that much karma, you Should be a good roleplayer, if you are a good roleplayer, you won't base your stats on what is good for your character "code-wise", you'll base your stats on what fits your characters personality, description, and background.

werd to the half-giant brutha.

Quote from: "Half a giant"If you're playing a half giant, you have a lot of karma...if you have that much karma, you Should be a good roleplayer, if you are a good roleplayer, you won't base your stats on what is good for your character "code-wise", you'll base your stats on what fits your characters personality, description, and background.

I have never made a character concept that relies on stats. Stats have no impact on personality, small impact on description and none on background. I would be quite happy to rearrange my character's stats, if I were allowed, to make him more effective at his profession, just as I pick his guild to make him effective at what I see at the time of his creation as his path in life. It would be quite flagrantly min-maxing, but I have no reason not do so - it's no twinkier than wanting a character who grows to become an old Bynner and picking Warrior as the skillset best likely to help him with that, and a good deal less than those who pick heights and weights which are at odds with their description.

I have played and have the karma for half-giants, and some over that to spare. This is not a question of RP ability. There is no solid RP reason to decide that your surly half-giant lad born of militia parents and possessed of a deep and abiding love of glass beads is more strong than agile, or vice versa; and where RP is no longer the picture, most will angle for coded effectiveness.

Quirk

Why don't we let the IMM who approves your app decide if there should be a stat ordering or not for your specific character's background and description?

This would diffuse some of the powergaming aspect of ordering stats. Of course, if one wants a big strong warrior for pure code reasons, they could still get it. But at least they'd have to make themselves LOOK like a big strong warrior with a background to match.

So, it doesn't really reduce the powergaming aspect as much as it forces the powergamer to look and act more believable for his character.

Which is, i think, the heart of the discussion. Alignment of coded stats with desired character concept.

My only concerns with that are:

1. The imms can better use their time elsewhere

2. Applications would be delayed more than we see today

3. Not all aspects of your character concept are going to be visible in a description

4. Even with a careful reading, the imm would still be guessing at what you really want for your character

To me, the best solution is simply to allow players the ability to order their own stats.

Quote from: "Xerin"My only concerns with that are:

1. The imms can better use their time elsewhere

2. Applications would be delayed more than we see today

3. Not all aspects of your character concept are going to be visible in a description

4. Even with a careful reading, the imm would still be guessing at what you really want for your character

To me, the best solution is simply to allow players the ability to order their own stats.

I think that this thread is mature enough that we can begin to disagree on minor points, even if I agree with you for the most part, Xerin.

1. It shouldn't take too long, for reasons below.

2. See above.

3. If it isn't obvious, you don't get stat ordering! That's part of the whole point. The problem is big burly men with below average strength, thin skinny magickers who've spent their whole life studying ancient tomes who have AI strength, and acrobats with below average strength, but a lithe body, not "Oh, I wanted a smart magicker but now I have a kinda dumb one."

4. See above.

I sense the most trouble with this idea comes from players who think other players will abuse this new found power to gain coded advantages in a OOC manner. Now, while I'm trusting of the player base at large, I have absolutely no way to prove how they would react with this power.  So I suggest that this stat ordering could be limited to a certain (lower) karma level. This keeps newbs and perma-newbs from abusing the power, but allows everyone who has proven themselves to align their character concepts in a better manner than before.

Summary:
1. Let the Imms do the stat ordering if your app'd character obviously needs it.
-or-
2. Allow player-controlled stat ordering at a low karma level.

What I need to do is start slapping 90% of you motherfuckers who are posting here. First of all, assuming that you obviously know what will happen when such and such goes in is stupid - the stupidity involved here surpasses even that of my own obviously and blatantly errant and egotistical comments.

Second of all, I don't think stat ordering will make super PCs...if you take a character concept based on strength and get an average roll, you will still likely only end up with good strength, and that is from a human standpoint. If you end up with that incredible roll in strength because you ordered your stats, then ... wait, that would fit that desc of being a corded and muscular human, wouldn't it?

Let's look at a half-giant...how many of you have had some badass half-giants? Not many, because wisdom sucks, and that's even at AI. But Lord almighty, when you do hit....well, maybe not every one will pick wisdom as their best stat, huh? Maybe some will pick agi, or endurance, or even...maybe....strength?

Let's be realistic and stop flaming so much. Let it go, for goodness sake. Who gives a do-do? It's a good idea, but in the end, we'll all still play Armageddon, whether it goes in or not. And if you stop playing because you can't order your stats, then you never belonged here in the first place.

In light of something Venomz said...I'd like to note that we all play Armageddon now...

Well not NOW, it's still down.  :P
But really, there's a point here - If you don't want it, don't use it, and it can help with backing up your roleplay with code, which while not necessary, sure helps.

Stats have a significant impact on the game. This is not a talker. It's the most code-focused MUD I have ever seen, and I find it hypocritical that all the people who rely on their skills for nearly everything insist that stats are "OOC" or simply don't matter.

Stats should have a huge impact on a character's personality. The scrawny pickpocket/urchin should have poor strength. The brawny warrior should have high strength/endurance. That's the reason they're in the profession they're in.  The urchin should be used to being shoved around. The warrior should be used to shoving people around. Ect, ect. I don't see how it's that hard to understand. Stats -are- your character. Your character will have different life experiences based on his stats. A strapping young man will find becoming a soldier is easier. A scrawny urchin will probably be turned away as a wimp.

I've played on RP MU*s that were far less code-focused, but they understood the realistic value of stats better. The difference between the thug and the beggar is mostly in stats, realistically. That's why in the 'rinth you see "muscular, healthy young men" wielding clubs versus the "filthy, bony children".

I suppose the reason that people believe stats don't matter is because the game makes them matter far less than they should realistically. Guilds(which destroy diversity) allow scrawny, pint-sized kids to be l33t warriors, and muscled, agile guys to be wimps in combat. Might as well throw realism out of the equation.

Not every big muscular guy is good at fighting...not every weak looking little guy is bad at fighting. Fact.

In fact it is my experience that alot of bigger guys can't really fight...because they never had any reason to learn how...people don't generally fuck with them out of fear.

I think the random stats allow for people to look tough...when they really aren't people to look weak, then they really aren't. Just like real life looks can be decieving.

With the stat ordering, every burly guy is going to be strong...every weak looking guy is going to be weak...-that's- way more unrealistic to me.

Noone has really addressed the fact that for nonhumanoids it would be unbalancing...seems like noone can't think of a decent arguement against that point.
I would like to see something other than, well they should be trusted not to do such things. That's also very unrealistic to believe that noone would abuse it.

Go back and read what I had to say about that. I'm not gonna repeat it :)

Quote from: "jhunter"With the stat ordering, every burly guy is going to be strong...every weak looking guy is going to be weak...-that's- way more unrealistic to me.

Uh..... that doesn't make any sense. Burly people are strong. They don't necessarily have the SKILLS to fight, but they are strong. A weak looking person might have really compact muscles and be somewhat strong, but that's not the norm nor the stereotype.

Quote from: "jhunter"Noone has really addressed the fact that for nonhumanoids it would be unbalancing...seems like noone can't think of a decent arguement against that point.

Here's one: Karma. The races that would be able to most abuse this are karma races, and they can already be abused, but the players have proven themselves worthy to act appropriately. Also, I think venomz mentioned something to the tune of

QuoteLet's look at a half-giant...how many of you have had some badass half-giants? Not many, because wisdom sucks, and that's even at AI. But Lord almighty, when you do hit....well, maybe not every one will pick wisdom as their best stat, huh? Maybe some will pick agi, or endurance, or even...maybe....strength?

After reading the majority of this thread, I withdraw my ideas.  I don't want to see stats ordered.

I'm sure there are plenty of players who could handle the added control over their character creation, but I think the vast majority couldn't and would abuse it.  I'd rather suffer the pains of having mismatched stats then let twinks power-game.

As the rest of the world, the good must suffer for the mistakes of the few bad apples.

QuoteUh..... that doesn't make any sense. Burly people are strong.

Not always true, it's the same as someone having really compact muscle.

You can look big and have most of that bulk be fat.

Sorry Xerin, but I found your arguement to that point as being very flimsy.

Elves are not a karma race...dwarves are not a karma race...with stat ordering 90% of those pcs would soon be exceptional as far as their racial weaknesses are concerned.

Please explain to me how your argument applies to a dwarf, human, half-elf, or even an elf. Actually, never mind...I've already made my points and submitted the idea to the imms. Hopefully they'll consider it :)

Quote from: "2L2jhunter"Sorry Xerin, but I found your arguement to that point as being very flimsy.

Elves are not a karma race...dwarves are not a karma race...with stat ordering 90% of those pcs would soon be exceptional as far as their racial weaknesses are concerned.

I'm tired of this thread. It shoulda died, like, 12 pages ago. But anyways, hunter has my take on it.

Still in with Jhunter and fjunkie, Also, I liked Quirk's post.

QuoteI have never made a character concept that relies on stats. Stats have no impact on personality, small impact on description and none on background. I would be quite happy to rearrange my character's stats, if I were allowed, to make him more effective at his profession, just as I pick his guild to make him effective at what I see at the time of his creation as his path in life. It would be quite flagrantly min-maxing, but I have no reason not do so - it's no twinkier than wanting a character who grows to become an old Bynner and picking Warrior as the skillset best likely to help him with that, and a good deal less than those who pick heights and weights which are at odds with their description.

Just in case anybody did not read it, not the whole thing, but I was getting ready to write almost exactly the same thing then I read his.

Not saying I want stat ordering...cause, I don't, Though, if for some very odd reason it were to go in, that there would be a point, either in char creation, or the hall of kings where you could decide if you wanted to use stat ordering or the old random with a single reroll, and if you choose stat ordering you should not have the reroll option.

Since that was my first post, I'll quickly mention a second.  Keep in mind the reason I support player control over stats has nothing to do with basing your character off of your stats.  That's ludicrous.  But the stats should be based on the character.  It's a discrepancy between roleplay and code that, in my opinion, has been enough of an issue to warrant this huge thread.  Pretentiously rant about how little you care about stats, but the code exists, it SERIOUSLY affects the game, and stats are a huge part of that.... and I think that they need an update.

-Comrade

QuoteNot saying I want stat ordering...cause, I don't, Though, if for some very odd reason it were to go in, that there would be a point, either in char creation, or the hall of kings where you could decide if you wanted to use stat ordering or the old random with a single reroll, and if you choose stat ordering you should not have the reroll option.

I agree completely.

Cant this thread just die already? Everyone's running in circles *sigh*

Quote from: "Akaramu"Cant this thread just die already? Everyone's running in circles *sigh*

We were waiting for you.

yea, i'm SO over this thread.


shoo.

It's like the "Small World" ride at Disneyland. It just goes on, and on, and on...

Now that I understand what people are after I have to say that this is such a ludicrous idea.

I coded for Harshlands for a good bit. Their stat system was based on a pool of points that were distributed among your stats in an order you chose, with a little associated randomness. Everyone got the same number of stat points. It was a very nice system if you like things to be fair.

Real life is not fair. Armageddon is not fair either. Some people luck out both in physical speed, strength and toughness and in the brains department; others end up mediocre at everything. The way the stat system is currently reflects this - what you get is the random throw of the dice with a few modifiers such as age, race, body shape and guild tilting it to follow general trends. You get to live with what life gives you, for better or worse. If you aren't possessed by the urge to exorcise any real-life inadequacies of musculature by creating fearsomely brawny characters, there's no problem. Let's not pretend that agility or wisdom or endurance impact the description; they don't, unless of course you have some mountain of blubber who's unable to shift his or her weight around fast enough to be agile - and even the fat can be deceptively agile, as I've learned from judo.

Really, so what if you make a character and his strength or agility or whatever isn't how you imagined it? You knew it was the luck of the draw. Are you griping that your tall muscular man is weaker than the teenager beside him? That you should automatically have a great strength value because you're tall and muscular? The logical next step after choosing the order of your stats, going by the arguments people have been pulling out here, is to let people choose just how good their stats are - no more scrawny people who're actually stronger than your tall muscular man can be allowed, so the obvious solution is to let you make your tall muscular man extra strong and penalise those who're not described as tall and muscular.

Then we'll soon live in a happy world where everyone is tall and muscular, because having any other description will impact you negatively, and finally people's chosen weights and heights will match their descriptions.

Quirk

I'm astounded that this thread has gone for this long.

I'm going to start hiring Quirk to write my posts for me.

In response to Quirk's post:

Not everyone would be tall and muscular, just enough people that it would suck.  There are people who actually focus on more then twinking their character's abilities, those people would still remain the same.  

But, I can tell from reading this thread, that there are -alot- of people who would use this as an opportunity to twink.  So I'm completely against stat ordering now.

There are very few people who would use stat ordering to twink-out.

There are guilds and sub-guild combos that are rather advantagous. Suprisingly, not everyone uses those guilds. Apparently, not everyone is a twink.

It's the argument that everyone (or most, if you wish to get touchy about it) would use stat ordering to twink out that miffs me. I am sure that I could say that every single one of you is a twink, if I wanted to be a nit-pick.

Learn that not everyone shares the same view on twinking that you do, and that not everything is twinking. There are things that I do not feel comfortable doing that most of you do feel ok about. THere are things that I do that maybe you wouldn't.

I am positive that we will see the same diversity with stat ordering that we see currently. And by simply adding an option to forego the stat ordering, everyone can be happy with their stats. If stats don't matter, then fine. If they do, then you've a solution.

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"Learn that not everyone shares the same view on twinking that you do, and that not everything is twinking. There are things that I do not feel comfortable doing that most of you do feel ok about. THere are things that I do that maybe you wouldn't.

I wouldn't see ordering stats advantageously as twinky at all, but quite natural, given the option, and given how little they impact the actual RP of the character's personality.

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"I am positive that we will see the same diversity with stat ordering that we see currently.

This I would very much disagree with. Think about it - currently, stats are generated more or less randomly with minor modifiers. If people had the option to choose the order of their stats, you would not see anything like a random distribution. The number of people picking endurance first would compare very poorly to those picking strength, agility or wisdom - and those last three would likely be picked highly dependent on race and guild. Almost no magicker or merchant would pick anything but wisdom first, for the same reason that people don't pick the Merchant guild and join the Byn. It would be a rare member of a thiefly class who didn't put agility top. The distribution and diversity would change radically.

Quirk

I was thinking over the characters I've had, that I actually remember the stat info about.

Out of 13 characters, 3 of which I did rerolls for, I think maybe only 3 or 4 I would've liked to reorder the stat allocations.

My 1-day (real time) elf - I was so excited that she had a kajillion stamina points and "average" strength that I didn't really care that she wasn't "all that and then some." She didn't have to be - she could run from one end of the known world to the other without breaking a sweat, and that was just fine by me :)

My first character I don't remember what her stats were, and at the time I created her I didn't pay much attention to them. I didn't even think about rerolling her in the first 2 hours of play, and given her experiences in the game, her stats had absolutely no effect at all on my RP of her. If I knew then what I know now about stat placement and rerolling, I still wouldn't have reallocated her stats because it wouldn't have changed a damned thing. She was and will always be one of my absolute favorite characters to play.

Another PC was all "good" - so there was no point in reallocating.

Another had only average wisdom and under 100 mana points, and for a magicker that's pretty rough. Given her background - that she had a natural "affinity" to Ruk (which was my explanation to how she became a magicker) - reallocating would've been a perfect solution. She didn't need endurance or strength and I would've gladly taken a dive on either of those for a single "rank" boost in wisdom.

Another I intended to be a burly bull of a woman, broad shoulders, very tall, big-boned brute-type lass. Her stats worked out for her, but if they hadn't I probably wouldn't have enjoyed playing her very much. You can't "work up to" being what your background says you already are. I'll add, that she didn't have AI anything, and the best stat she had was "very good." The worst was "average." They weren't placed exactly how I'd have liked, but it seemed to work out well enough. As a warrior, I felt that a high endurance would be the most appropriate thing for her, because she would obviously get bumped around a lot but she would recover quicker, having been made of tougher stuff than the average merchant type :)

When I look at stats now, those are the things I examine when deciding if a reroll is in order. Not what is the "optimum" min-max stat placement. But rather, what seems to make the most sense -for that specific character- to have.

So if my warrior has piss poor strength and AI wisdom, I'll definitely reroll. But if she has average or better strength, I probably would leave well enough alone. I honestly don't feel I'm alone in this methodology of "judging" my character's stats. Right now, with my current character, I'd be deliriously happy with a few extra points on my HP and MV, without any stat-changes at all - even though my stats aren't anything worth writing home about.

So really I don't see this as all that big a deal, but I definitely think it could benefit people who have characters with backgrounds that are contrary to what shows up on their statlist when they enter the game for the first time.