Reconciling character concept and stats

[X-D]

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.

[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...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.

[X-D]

People 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,

[Candi]

People 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.  

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.

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?

[X-D]

X-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".

X-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.

When 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.

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?

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?

[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.

[Quirk]

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.

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

[Candi]

It 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?

[Quirk]

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

[Candi]

Quirk wrote:

Candi 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.

[Quirk]

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.

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.

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

[Angela Christine]

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.

[Angela Christine]

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

[Agent_137]

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:

[Marauder Moe]

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.

[Comrade Canadia]

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

[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.

[Sir Diealot]

werd to the half-giant brutha.

[Quirk]

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

[Agent_137]

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.

[Agent_137]

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.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

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.