From: fks1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scaramouche)
Subject: Re: net.rpg: Character Stats
Reply-To: fks1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:35:22 GMT

In article <41366@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>In article <KETIL.92Nov19173439@sandel.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:50:38 GMT, fks1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scaramouche) said:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov18.221344.3370@alf.uib.no> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>>
>>	Sc> it.  i.e.  say Joe takes fencing.  If he takes it at a low
>>	Sc> level he has a low Agility (or whatever), but if he takes
>>	Sc> it high he has a high agility.  This doesn't make too much
>>	Sc> sense.  Why can't Joe have a high AGI but be a poor
>>	Sc> fencer?
>
>	Question #1:  Why is Joe's fencing skill off agility?
>	Question #2:  (alternatively) Why is Joe's fencing skill of
>dex?
>	Question #3:  Would it be off of a >gasp< average of the
>two?  (To me, fencing seems to be a combination of the two...)  Then
>why not combine the two stats?  It's been done for a long time now
>under many RPGs and they haven't fallen apart at the seams yet :).

     Answer to 1-3: I was just using AGI as an example, jeez...

>	Question #4:  WHY would Joe be a poor fencer?  In real life,
>I've know many people who are high in Stat X but claim that they
>Suck At Skill N.  When I've asked why, they always demand that
>they've tried, but can't do anything.  On the other hand, some, when
>forced to do just the thing they claim to be horrible at, and when
>given appropriate incentive, turn out quite the opposite.  The more
>I see this happen (with me as well as others), the more I question
>that someone is necessarily "Bad" at something when their stat is
>"good."
>	In many cases things have turned out to be psychological,
>not "physical."  In that case, that's the character's problem and
>would probably be better off in a character writeup or as some minor
>"disadvantage."  ("Doesn't think he can draw.")

      Answer #4 : I'm not sure i understand this question.  I merely
wanted to point out a possible flaw in the skills->attribute system
where it wouldn't be possible to make a naturally dextrous (or any
attibute) character without taking either many related skills or a few
skills at a high level.  I think attrib should be genetic and 
independent of skills.  Or at least should only be modified by skills.
How about this, then?  You somehow get your base attribute (whether you
buy it through PA or roll it up. Then once you've picked your skills
they can positively modify it if you have enough points.  i.e. if total
AGI skill levels is from 10-20 you get 1 additional point,21-30 you get 
2 etc...

>	Question #5:  Why not include aspecting and allow the player
>to define an alternate AGIL: Fencing which is lower than normal
>AGIL?

      Answer #5:  Ack.  This would get really cumbersome i think...
I believe that it would be easier to separate stats and attribs than
say i have a HIGH normal AGI, but have aspected it so that i have a poor
AGI when Fencing, playing Ultimate, and picking my nose...

>	Question #6:  Why not just say that Joe sucks and leave it
>at that?  Never put points into it (he sucks, feels that way about
>it, and would never waste his time trying to get better...[see what
>I mean about psychological?  Grin...]).  Very simple.

     Answer #6:  Well, i was just using an example, so that if i just
said Joe sucked at Fencing and neglected to take too many AGI skills
it would turn out that Joe was a clumsy clumsy person.

>	Question #7:  How often does this come up in play and how
>large of a problem is it?  From my own experience, the answer is
>almost never and hardly...

     Answer #7:  How often does a character take a high attrib and then
not too many skills?  Well i've seen it happen fairly often...

     [ stuff deleted for brevity ]

>	Yet a high stat tends to mean that a person is capable of
>learning something more quickly than someone with a low stat.  Peopl
>with high stats tend to pick up things much, much faster.  In game
>terms, this is shown by Joe's "automatic" high skill as opposed to
>the alternate Joe's "automatic" low skill.  The Joe with a high stat
>is capable of picking certain things up very quickly.  (If real life

Yes! this is my point.  The two ways i see the relation between skill
and attribute have already been posted elsewhere.  the skill+attrib
method and the attrib. determines max and/or cost of skill.


>
>>In effect, you'd sum up his experiences, and form stats from them.
>
>	Bad practice.  If Joe spent a lot of time fencing it doesn't
>mean that that experience easily translates into other things.  That
>"agility" is not necessarily the same as bicycling "agility" is not
>the same as broadsword "agility" and so on.  I'd generally let stats
>affect skills and not vice versa (my own preference.  There was a
>game mentioned a few months back that allowed skills to affect
>stats, but I have problems with it.  Skills are normally very
>specific and very specialized and don't necessarily translate into
>general gains aross the board for that one stat...).

YES!

>	But it's your game, right?  Go ahead...
>
>>--
>> = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
>> = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
>
>	No!  Save the Earth!
>	     Kill the humans!
>

       No! Save Me!
           Kill all my professors!
-- 
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<<<
"It is human nature, I suppose to be futile and ridiculous"
"If the windmill should prove to formidable, I may see what can be done
           with the wind."            -Scaramouche (fks1@midway.uchicago.edu)