Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Many of the values we see when playing the game are reduced to 'fuzzy values'.

Examples of this include:

• Statistics
• Defense
• Resistances and reductions
• Saving throws
• Experience
• Hitroll
• Damroll
• Hitpoints
• Stamina
• Skill and spell levels
• Spell durations
• Deity favor level

And maybe more that I could not come up with off the top of my head.

I propose that these values be displayed as the numbers behind them.

It is my belief that this takes away from the game. It increases the
knowledge gap between old and new players, and just generally makes
the game less enjoyable to play.

For those who don't know, there was a time when you could view the
amount of experience required for your next level as a percentage, for
example.

If you read this, please, speak up with your opinion.

Being an ancient player, I recall the experience expressed in percentages. I dug the experience system and its numeric displays, though it felt out of place in a setting where RP is key and takes precedence over the grind of mobspampwning. It also felt out of place in a system where statistics, skill levels, and equipment were all based on a vocabular (word?)system; a system where descriptions were the basis of how your character is perceived, be it how strong, wise, intelligent, or similarly garbed.

I personally prefer the system in place at present for the aforementioned reasons.

The knowledge gap mentioned between old and new players is, in my personal opinion, quite a widespread pipe dream. As what some would consider an older player, I feel the majority of this is spurred by the idea of a clique of "in-the-know" players, which I also feel is a common misconception and a whole can of worms in itself notwithstanding this topic.

I have no idea what the numeric value of "titanic" strength is, and feel that in a setting such as FK and the world it has created, is a fair expression of how strong a character is as opposed to a numeric value in interest of RP.

I am not opposed to allowing characters to see the numeric value of the mentioned categories listed above, so long as they also have the option to either toggle or choose which system is displayed to their character.

Aldren.

The problem with words is that they have no precision at all. All of the words for stats, defense, saving throws, etc have a range of numbers associated with them. This becomes a real problem when you're trying to code stat checks for things like feats. How do people know if they have the 16 dexterity they need for Feat X? Are they just supposed to guess? Should they ask around OOC until they can find someone who knows how to figure out the actual number behind the word? I don't think any of this is really acceptable. The fact is that in many cases we expect people to have a specific stats but we don't tell them what their stats actually are.

From a more philosophical point of view, it doesn't really matter whether we have words or stats. You're going to RP your character the same way. I've never really heard anyone describe themselves based on the words they have in their stat sheet. You don't walk around saying to everyone IC, "I have titanic strength, but that guy over there is herculean." Imagining that situation occurring in real life is kind of absurd.

To think of it another way, we already have a numeric system in place, it's just a very imprecise numeric system. That is to say, everyone already knows that herculean strength is higher than titanic strength, and titanic is higher than powerful, etc. If you look at those words outside of the game they don't assemble themselves into some kind of automatic hierarchy of strength. Who's to say that herculean strength is higher than titanic? In Greek mythology the titans were a group of gods that predated the Olympians, while Hercules was merely half-god, so why is herculean higher than titanic? At this point you're probably wondering what my point is. My point is that these words are already devoid of meaning. They're essentially nothing more than an imprecise numerical system that hides a precise numerical system. They serve no IC purpose but they DO prevent people from knowing what their actual stats are (which is knowledge that has a very real benefit).

I'd advocate for a system that shows numbers and text at the same time. I prefer text myself, but I don't have an issue seeing the numbers as long as I can visualize with text how I should rp my strength.

Gwain wrote:I'd advocate for a system that shows numbers and text at the same time. I prefer text myself, but I don't have an issue seeing the numbers as long as I can visualize with text how I should rp my strength.

I think someone suggested a config option for this in the past, and I think it's an excellent idea.

I'll throw in my two cents as an 'old player'. I've always been for having the option to view numbers as well as descriptors. This isn't the first time this has come up by any means, but I'll restate what my position has been in the past.

Basically, one of the major aspects of ANY RPG is character customization. People love taking things and making them exactly how they want them. Now, I won't claim you can't do that here because you most definitely can. However, without being able to see exact numbers, customization becomes more like trying to target shoot with a shotgun, rather than a rifle; you can hit the target with a shotgun, but there's no way to know if you got a bulls eye. So, while we do have that character customization option, it just feels kind of murky.

The benefits of numbers are that you can finely tune your character to be exactly how you want it with no guess work. That fine customization is what creates a sense of attachment to your characters early on because you've thought through how you want to build that character and you intimately know the workings of that character. Furthermore, it does add in a means to check stats against one another. I don't mean talking over IM gloating about having one more point in WIS over your friend. What I mean is small IC checks. I think the example I used in the past was arm wrestling in a tavern. At the moment, I believe two characters can have the same STR descriptor while still being two points different from one another. How do you decide who wins? One character is stronger than the other and should win that arm wrestle, but how do you know which one?

Now the drawbacks of numbers are that it does put an emphasis on coded abilities, and I don't know what to think of this yet. On one hand, like I said above, it's fun to sit and tweak how your character works and make them exactly how you want them. After all, code plays a HUGE roll in determining how RPs pan out. On the other hand, if this is left unchecked, then the character's coded strengths and abilities become the primary focus of some players and RP simply becomes a hassle or something to dodge on their way to 'uber pwning super mage'.

Now, I do still like descriptors too, especially for the sake of players new to the DnD system. For example, if you don't know, having a 13 STR doesn't mean much. Is it a lot? Not enough? Who knows? Sure, you could ask and someone will likely explain it to you, but if you've got a series of descriptors then you already know about how you should be RPing that stat (note, I'm using stats as examples a lot. all of this applies to other aspects as well). To me, knowing I have a strong STR tells me I can probably flex and show off and carry a heavy pack. Herculean, on the other hand, tells me I should be able to throw a cow through the moon (exaggeration, I know, but the imagery amuses me).

What am I trying to say? I, like most others here, would prefer the option of both. I have a suspicion that allowing visible numbers may encourage twinking, but that occurs and is policed anyway. To me, the definite benefit of fun outweighs the possibility of an increase in code-only minded players.

I will add that visible numbers will allow people to know precisely what most magical items do, simply by wearing them and comparing their stats afterwards - whereas at the moment it's highly possible that you wouldn't even notice due to the stat descriptors not changing. It would also allow everyone to know precisely how powerful a certain sword or piece of armour is by looking at their hit and defense ratings etc.

I can see numerous benefits and negatives to either arguement, but coupled with Takket's concerns I'd ultimately go with saying that numbers are bad news.

My solution to some of the concerns (while keeping numbers out of the picture) would be to improve the wording in most cases. Perhaps replace the stat scales with the 'poor, below average, average, above average, good, great' scale we currently see in our hit and defense ratings, for instance? It would clarify some of the current confusion without being too specific.

The main arguement that I can see against this would be the matter of isolating stat requirements for feats - in which case I'd have to suggest specifically adjusting them (and their help files) to say 'you need an above average strength to use this' for example.

RE: Letting people see stats will make them focus on min/maxing etc.

The thing is, anyone who is really interested in doing this will already be able to do it. I have a very good idea of what the stats are for most of my characters. I have a very good idea of what my AC is (since it works the same way as standard tabletop AC). All of the information is there for people who want it, but it takes work. Ultimately what this means is that anyone with the desire to do it can already figure out the exact values for most things with some work. I don't want specific numbers for MY benefit. I (and similar other people) already know what most of the useful values are for my characters. The benefit here is for people who don't pay attention to that kind of thing.


RE: Changing words to average, above average, etc

That's really just the same problem. The difficulty with words is that they aren't specific. Let's say we make 10-12 "average", 13-15 "above average" and 16-18 "exceptional". Now let's say that we have some feats that require a 15 in some stat, some that require a 16, some that require a 17 and some that require an 18. What do we tell people their stats should be? "You need a level 3 above average to qualify for this feat"? "You need a level two exceptional to qualify for this feat"? It doesn't make sense, it's counterproductive, and it benefits only people who are able to figure out what their precise stats are. Having words that represent a range of values is an inherently poor choice when we expect people to have very exact values for some tasks/rewards. Having words that represent only one specific value would be basically the same as printing the values on the score sheet.


RE: People are just going to stop roleplaying if they can see numbers.

I honestly don't understand this line of reasoning. When people could see their %XP for leveling no one was roleplaying any less than they are now. We already trust people to roleplay their characters. Most of the people who come here for hack and slash or PK end up leaving in disappointment. We just don't have the atmosphere or player base for that kind of thing. We all play here because we want to roleplay in a RP enforced environment. I absolutely refuse to believe that people are just going to drop all of that and start mindlessly mob bashing or min/maxing just because they can see numbers.

I'm all for a system where people can see words and numbers. I don't find the words to be particularly useful, but if other people do that's wonderful. By all means, let's keep the words around as a guide for people, but let's not pretend that seeing the actual values doesn't have real value (and as far as I can tell, no real downside).

Balek wrote:RE: Changing words to average, above average, etc

That's really just the same problem. The difficulty with words is that they aren't specific. Let's say we make 10-12 "average", 13-15 "above average" and 16-18 "exceptional". Now let's say that we have some feats that require a 15 in some stat, some that require a 16, some that require a 17 and some that require an 18. What do we tell people their stats should be? "You need a level 3 above average to qualify for this feat"? "You need a level two exceptional to qualify for this feat"? It doesn't make sense, it's counterproductive, and it benefits only people who are able to figure out what their precise stats are. Having words that represent a range of values is an inherently poor choice when we expect people to have very exact values for some tasks/rewards. Having words that represent only one specific value would be basically the same as printing the values on the score sheet.

I was thinking more along the lines of having the feats etc relate directly to the first 'rank' of each field. If you need to be 'average' strength to do something, then it would be trainable if you had an average strength no matter what. Each tier of a stat would still have three ranks - they'd just be a little more logically named!

I only suggest this as a compromise, because the current words a very vague indeed. My main concern was and remains with the identification of equipment's stats and knowing what item is better than what by simply looking at the numbers when you wear it against the numbers when you wear something else - and this could be with stats, hit rolls, defense and saving throws. It would remove all uncertainty for everyone whether or not they can appraise, and would make magical identification nearly pointless.

It's highly probable that I'm being old fashioned here, but I see this point as a serious issue in a proposition that I'd otherwise fully endorse.

Lathlain wrote: My main concern was and remains with the identification of equipment's stats and knowing what item is better than what by simply looking at the numbers when you wear it against the numbers when you wear something else - and this could be with stats, hit rolls, defense and saving throws. It would remove all uncertainty for everyone whether or not they can appraise, and would make magical identification nearly pointless.

How many characters do you see all wearing the same haphazard color scheme of umber hulk chitine, titanium full helms, mithril visors etc that make them look like the circus come to town based simply off the fact the player knows what is best for utility or mechanics-wise and doesn't really care much for style? I'd say your concerns would be better resolved by a fix of the mechanics of identifying, appraising, and actual item worth (See economy discussions) than seeing numbers. I could go into how worthless Identify as a spell truly is right now but as far as priorities go for what would make the MUD better it is very low on the totem pole.

People see these numbers in PnP and they still either roleplay or do not, same goes with any MUD be it roleplay enforced or not.

I don't understand the purpose of a toggle. If you can see an adjective and understand it's value, you can see a number a understand it's relative value. The "I'm unable to understand my character if I see numbers" angle makes no sense to me.

It's black and white.

The adjective only system is in place to purposely confuse people on their roll bonuses, to deter min/maxing. Thing is, in practice it doesn't deter anyone who actually cares about keeping track of their bonuses, it only winds up creating PC's with lost attribute bonuses because their player doesn't care to keep notes - giving player's who bother to plan their PC attribute progression with upwards of 2 to 4 bonus attribute points (effectively)...or 5 to 10% advantage on any given attribute affected stat.

I could understand the fear of mechanical savvy players abusing those who could care less, but the system is so simple. Every even number above ten you get a bonus. Every bonus you get you have an increase of 5% chance of success. Leaving attributes on odd numbers is wasteful, even if used to get a feat.

If you understand that 10 is average, and you have 12, you understand you're above average. If you understand that 18 is nonhero peak for your race, and you have 18, you understand you're very gifted. If you understand that 16 is higher than 14, then you understand you're more talented than you use to be 2 points ago. The idea that our player base needs adjectives to be filled in for them, seems far fetched.

To me the adjectives are more restrictive than anything else. 18's between species can mean entirely different things. If you're playing a centaur an 18 strength certainly isn't titanic....it's average. So when you play a centaur does it still say average? I'm not positive, but I doubt it.

The adjectives don't take into account relativity, which make them inherently flawed if the adjectives are suppose to reflect on how the character views himself. The numbers are the system. You don't need anything more than the numbers.

I would prefer something like:

Str: Titanic(21)
Wis: Average(7)
Int: Average(6)

Instead of a toggle, just a bit of brackets on the end instead of going to one or the other extreme. This way everyone is happy.

I'm not sure, but isn't 6/7 below average in tabletop?

It wouldn't be for something like a frost giant.

That's the problem with the adjectives. They're set to values, not to what average actually is.

Lathlain wrote:I will add that visible numbers will allow people to know precisely what most magical items do, simply by wearing them and comparing their stats afterwards - whereas at the moment it's highly possible that you wouldn't even notice due to the stat descriptors not changing. It would also allow everyone to know precisely how powerful a certain sword or piece of armour is by looking at their hit and defense ratings etc

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.

Taerom wrote:

Lathlain wrote:I will add that visible numbers will allow people to know precisely what most magical items do, simply by wearing them and comparing their stats afterwards - whereas at the moment it's highly possible that you wouldn't even notice due to the stat descriptors not changing. It would also allow everyone to know precisely how powerful a certain sword or piece of armour is by looking at their hit and defense ratings etc

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.

The whole 'world has yet to come to an end' thing seemed a little hostile to me... I'm not sure if that's what you were intending, but idk.

as resident social darwinist, I'm inclined to point out that if you want to compare things with accuracy, get clever. survival of the fittest, all that. However, the entire point of comparing stats is to gain an OOC knowledge your characters wouldn't have about one another, without first spending what I would think to be a -lot- of time with one another, studying each other's strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and so forth. It's unRPish otherwise and [while I admit to doing it] I don't think that's what the staff of the game intends for us to do on their system. Just me though.

My examples were pure fiction, they do not reflect on actual numbers-text-counts. It was more of a visualization and less of a fact related interpretation.

Taerom wrote: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.

While seeing your numeric values is something that the player can benefit from, I fear that it can degenerate and quickly to comparations of different players' characters

Okay I am pretty much with Gwain on this one, it's been made clear that both number display and adjective display is useful to different types of players. As for it encouraging twinking I really think it's going to make little difference because those who want to twink 24/7 will do so. It's just a fact that while FK is an RP focused MUD we already have people in the game that like nothing better than to be uber powerful and hit dummies all day. Honestly I don't really mind if people want to do that, hey if thats how you get your kicks I am not going to stop you!

I am generally the same as Lathlain in the fact that while higher stats are useful, I don't actually care too much about them so I have not gone to any lengths to understand them too much. I realise that for the people who have it is probably quite frustrating, because you want it easier for you to uber twink your characters some more.

As for magical items and knowing the values again it really doesn't matter because I am sure as Isaldur pointed out, people know what items give what bonus and they probably have it written down somewhere too.

So, adjectives for RP, numbers for accuracy a bit of both sounds fine and won't do any harm to the game currently.