Fuzzy Values

[Kallias]

Given this logic, we should post the quest reward items and their values on the forums? I think not.

It's much more like, having a table top - allowing 3 of the 5 players to create their characters while using the player handbook, and forcing the other 2 to just guess at what the values entail. Knowing how to do quests you've already done is a necessary evil of this medium - a large portion of the players having no idea what their attributes mean mechanically, is not a necessary evil...it's a choice by staff, for reasons that don't hold water.

There is zero rp change with this. It is a player aid, not a character.

[Glim]

I guess I have caught on to the whole wiki/free knowledge to all/open-source bandwagon a bit too much for current policy. I feel that if players don't want to know then they don't have to read it, but if they do wish to know then it should be freely available.

Using adjectives to assist roleplay should be their proper usage. But using them to conceal a character's details from their player is not.

[Elke]

Just to add my two pennies in, after watching all this erupt...

I'd like to see the stats, -partly- because it would be easier to know what requirements were needed for feats etc, but -mostly- because I actually feel that stats lend flavour. I mean, with an ordinary tabletop game of D&D (3.5ed say), you can quite happily read the stats off your sheet and I find that seeing the numbers actually gives me a sense of how strong or not etc my character is. (I'm sure there's a quiz somewhere that lets you work out what your stats would be numerically if you were a D&D character - not that I can remember where.)

Even the best low roll-play, high roleplay systems there is usually a number of some kind on the character sheet (specifically I'm thinking of Unknown Armies here where you have to give a unique descriptor to your stat.) And hiding the numbers from the players won't, at least I think, actually enhance rp. Sure, it will help disguise the system from the twinkers. But that won't actually encourage them to rp better. Whereas, and I'm happy to say this, I honestly think your average player, who is specifically here for the rp, wouldn't ever actually use the -specific- adjective in their conversation any more than they'd say the stat. "I am [insert stat adjective here]!" is almost as bad as "I have Strength [insert numerical stat]!"

I would much rather see, and usually do see, someone rp not being able to lift the corpse, or smote neat backflips and gymnastics, or use long words in their conversations. Yes, if twinkers get hold of the system they'll min-max and create characters that are, for want of a better word, unfair, especially in combat. But...

...first of all, I personally don't mind if someone is playing a character that is all-round better than mine, as long as they rp them well,

...and second of all, the twinkers are going to figure out the system anyway and so the hiding of the real numbers is actually just going to penalise the players that are trying to build a character concept, not just a twinked out character.

Maybe there could be a kismet boundary you have to have reached to be able to see the numbers. Or something. And honestly, I appreciate that it isn't very important and there are far more, far better things that could be done with the time. (It's not like I personally ever worked out what the stats meant, but then I never really needed to deal with feat requirements much.) But if there ever is time I do think this would be a very nice idea.

[Lathlain]

Thank you Elke for a well thought out, structured and reasonable post amidst a sea of raging passions.

[Kirkus]

I was going to weigh in yesterday, but decided against it at the time... I like what Gwain suggested, a Descriptor(number) system. But personally I think we should post not the actual score but the level of the descriptor... Let me clarify. I believe in the past, and someone correct me if I am mistaken, it was stated that each different word, durable - hardened - unstoppable... each one has three levels. So my suggestion would be instead of the raw score put the level so... Durable(1) Durable(2) Durable(3) Hardened(1) Hardened(2) etc...
This keeps the exact number out of our hands, which we don't need. If your sitting there saying... 'Alright this sword gives me a strength of 108 where that axe only gives me 106, hmm I will take the sword.' That to me is the true definition of a twink. My point again, we don't need the exact number, but a clarification is needed to distinguish between the different levels of a skill or stat or what ever...

[Sithiel]

I second Kirkus here. I think It would be very good to see some sort of numbers. I rember as a newbie that when creating character I had no idea what the stats were. I actually thought at first that you don't lose con when reincaranating, because it did not show up on my stats. I thought that it was some ancient relic in the helpfile. And this the one reason why I would like to see so numerical values. To prevent total newbies doing huge mistakes. It also puts your first characters in real disavantage when you really haven't figured out what stats exactly do and can't see any numbers. My first character was lame even when fighting against most mobs. This is espesially true in the case when the newbie has never played tabletop.

[Julthain]

My first character was lame even when fighting against most mobs. This is espesially true in the case when the newbie has never played tabletop.

It's true even if they have played PnP. I remember my first character was the same... I'd lose at least one limb from every encounter, from small things like bats and such.

Also, not all adjective have three ranks. Even so, if you were to give the appropriate number of ranks to each adjective, anyone who hasn't figured out the system would still be clueless as to what it means numerically.

I am a twink! Bwaha, I laff @ ur attempts to pwnt my twinkage. Die b4 tha mighty.

Seriously though, it seems that everyone is trying to call this person or that person a twink these days just because they don't play the same way as they do, give it a rest. I am sure if the staff thought that said person was twinking, they would address them about it. I just don't find sitting in the market and treating the game like a chat room is fun, but thats just me, have at it.

[Jharthyne]

Just my "vote" on this.

I kind of like the old/existing adjective system. It was a bit frustrating at first when I first started out (that way 10 yrs ago!) but once you get used to it, it really isn't much of a hassle. What I especially like is that this was the game's (and admins') way of telling you that FK is focused on RP, not min-max/hack-and-slash, and trying to get certain stats/skills is not as important as the interactions with other players.

But I can also see the frustration that other players may have, not knowing the exact value of their stats.

So my "vote" on this is for both adjectives and values to be displayed together, eg. titanic (18) or something similar, as suggested by others before me.

[Mask]

You can easily determine whether or not an item grants spell slots by equipping/removing it. The world has yet to come to an end. Additionally, I would like to point out that clever players can compare hitroll, damroll, defense ratings, etc. under the current system, and with a rather high degree of accuracy, I might add, while other players are left to guesswork.

I'm likely being a little naive in exactly how the system is realistically played in that case - I readily acknowledge that I'm an old fashioned idealist though

In essence, I've thought no more about the specific stats behind my characters than I've ever thought about my own stats in real life. Something that makes me feel stronger might be cool, but the numerical specifics don't interest me in the slightest. That said, it's poor form of me to expect other people to see it the same way.

The proposition is ultimately one that I'd support (probably in the form Gwain's suggested, with numbers and adjectives), provided people have considered all of the implications it might hold.

Have we considered all of the implications it might hold? What if we kept score as it currently is, and added 'score numbers' for numerical output? Perhaps then, after we're comfortable with it, we could switch it to 'score' showing numbers, and 'score text' for showing text.

The main argument, for me, about not showing numbers was an attempt to de-emphasise their importance somewhat, and encouraging people to concentrate on role-playing over roll-playing. However, at the same time, we have undergone countless initiatives to increase the importance of numbers by adding feats etc, so I'm not sure that that argument holds much water anymore. Certainly the 'score' command could be alot more informative and concise if we switched to numbers, possibly allowing us to merge defence (I don't even know how to spell that anymore), resistance and score into a single score sheet.

[Lathlain]

Certainly now that stats are used to calculate the maximum level of spell you can memorise, and for learning feats such as teacher/scholar (for instance), the logic behind displaying the numbers seems a lot clearer to me than it once did.

I like the idea of tidying up the score sheet a little, too. Turning it into a definitive character sheet, with defence values etc to boot, would probably make life easier for newer players as well.

[Nysan]

Turning it into a definitive character sheet, with defence values etc to boot, would probably make life easier for newer players as well.

Not to mention older players who still have trouble describing the difference between a 'high average' and a 'low average' stat score.