Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Just for the record, the game is set up for you to try and not suck. The game doesn't encourage you to put that extra 1 point to make 13 wisdom if you have no intention of raising it to 14 - they tell you the mechanics with the intention that you're going to use them in a way that makes sense.

Twink - one who uses bonuses in combination in ways they were not intended to be used (1 paladin/19 sorcerer, level anything monk with any prestige class that uses wisdom as an AC bonus that isn't anything monk like, anyone who uses a spiked chain)

Min/Max - if all your stats are at least average, you aren't min/maxing. Min/maxing is when you take a significant hit in some place you don't see as important for a moderate to minimal gain somewhere you find very important....like super specializing your PC, think of the halforc all 18 physical stats and 3 int/wis/cha

Training, certainly isn't twinking. It's training. Which is inherently the problem to begin with - some people think that other people trying to make their PC's better, is somehow taking advantage of the system.

Apologies for sidetrackign this discussion briefly, but I need to comment on the above..

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!

If you really 'didnt mind' then it would have been better not to have posted that additional comment

If we as Admins did not wish players to train their characters in this way then we would remove those dummies and all of the other similar areas. Yes, this is a roleplay MUD but some players (and I include myself among them) feel more comfortable in roleplaying the skills that they have - otherwsie we would be a MUSH.

If a player chooses to take themselves away and monotonously splat dummies or ogres or drow then that is their choice. In the same way that someone might choose to sit and chat in Waterdeep's Square or spend time working on a trade or any number of other 'non-roleplay' activities.

The beauty of our game is that it allows players that choice and wearing a disapproving frown or attaching a stigma to an activity that another player enjoys is a bit daft. (Given how the 'real world' views our hobby in general it's actually more than a bit daft, hehe)

Now.. as for this discussion. PnP, online games and MUDs are all based on numerical input and output. There are arguments for and against showing those numbers to players, but none are clear 'winners'.

At this present time the numerical content is 'fuzzy' (a nice descriptive word btw) and likely to remain so until someone comes up with a wholly devastating reason why Mask should change it.

I would just like to apologize for the above comment, Kelemvor and Kallias you both make good points and you are most likely right Kallias that what I said was down to ignorance on my part. I train my characters and I don't like them to be 'wimps' in any respect, once again my use of the word twink was out of context and the particular comment probably irrelevent. As for my view towards this topic it still stands, I would like to see numbers and adjectives used but in regards to what Kelemvor has said I will voice that and say no more.

Kelemvor wrote:At this present time the numerical content is 'fuzzy' (a nice descriptive word btw) and likely to remain so until someone comes up with a wholly devastating reason why Mask should change it.

I'm all for numbers being shown, mostly because I'm one of those people that has no clue about mechanics or how the descriptions we have really relate to the numbers. I can hazard a guess, but that's all it is, a guess.

I don't fully understand why the reason to change it over to numbers would have to be that convincing, when the reason for keeping it as it is isn't overwhelming. For me, as a player that doesn't understand the numbers behind it, there is no good reason for keeping it the way it is. The only drawback to changing to numbers seems to be that most people are worried it might encourage some people to train more and RP less. I really don't think that being able to see the numbers is going to affect how many people choose to spend half an hour training, instead of that same half an hour sitting in the market. Some people like training, some people like sitting around talking, some people, like me, like to do a bit of both. Knowing that my character's strength is 14 instead of the descriptor isn't going to affect that.

Is changing to numbers something that could be considered in the ongoing discussions around a possible stat reset? If the decision is made that there will be a reset, optional or otherwise, I would like to be able to see exactly what that reset would do to my character's score sheet.

Its also important to point out that the mud has been around with descriptors for almost 10 years and has brokered almost no problems with this. People adapt and use the system perfectly, if there is a bit of mystery to the mechanics then there's just a bit. The system is not broken, it works, it does not ruin character development, instead it fosters experimentation and ic consideration. Though I am not above suggesting alterations to the current system, a suggestion is not necessarily something that needs to be done right away, but something to be considered in the future.

Kelemvor wrote:At this present time the numerical content is 'fuzzy' (a nice descriptive word btw) and likely to remain so until someone comes up with a wholly devastating reason why Mask should change it.

Gwain wrote:Its also important to point out that the mud has been around with descriptors for almost 10 years and has brokered almost no problems with this. People adapt and use the system perfectly, if there is a bit of mystery to the mechanics then there's just a bit. The system is not broken, it works, it does not ruin character development, instead it fosters experimentation and ic consideration.

I don't know about anyone else but I've waited almost 9 years for this suggestion to be taken seriously.

For a majority of years this system was fine, but please keep in mind how much other parts have changed drastically. A suggestion like this never would have even been considered or warranted much discussion 5 or 6 years ago due a mix of administrative policy and how FK was as a whole at the time.

This is a different FK now, and I really doubt anyone can honestly expect something to change with antiquated portions overnight without discussions of pros, cons, and every angle and reason being explored like it has been so far.

It wouldn't be out of hand to think suggestions and concerns about those antiquated parts would be seriously considered and not just dismissed. I don't really see how any of us can come up with a compelling enough reason when we have nothing to scale it against. We don't know what constitutes wholly devastating so how can we expect anything we suggest to ever be considered such?

FK is slowly but surely getting upgraded bit by bit, and I am very appreciative of the work being put in for that. I am aware that there are far more pressing issues to be working on but sooner or later changes will need to be made that involve easing learning curves and making it so I don't need to spend hundreds of hours experimenting just to associate what is good, bad, and works mechanics-wise.

I've played off and on for over 8 years and I know that I don't "use the system perfectly".

The vague descriptors are a challenge with respect to some of the new things added to the game, in that:

• It requires extra sleuthing to figure out if you have the stats needed for a given spell, skill, or feat
• Sometimes the fuzzy descriptors can't adequately describe the requirement ("a little bit smarter than clever" is pretty contorted!)

Just adding two cents from the helpfile/ask viewpoint: underscoring that not everyone, or even all long-time players, have worked out the number to word correlation, and that everyone needs to worry about it at least some, as when trying to decide on feats (which will become more important with feat trees).

[I'll add I've long worried about the corollary problem: "OSAY: Dude, I have a 15 INT, can I do the killer bees quest?!?" ...but I have come to conclude that such people will do this whether or not stats are numerical, it is a problematic rules violation in either case, and it is not a reason to hide score values. If we want to stymie these folks on this front, make the killer bees quest trigger with a probability proportional to INT set at each reboot or something, that is, 10% of the time the cutoff is at INT 13, 20% of the time at INT 15, 40% of the time at INT 16, 20% of the time at INT 17, 10% of the time at INT 18. Thus, make the world less deterministic, not the character sheets.]

This topic has been brought up several times over the years. In the spirit of transparency (insert U.S. president comment here) I will state that the discussion of whether or not to switch from descriptors to numbers will not be decided here. However, comments made here will contribute to the imm discussion on the issue. Currently, the debate as to whether or not to substitute numerical indicators for descriptive ones is part of the Staff discussion on a stat/feat reset and whether or not it is better for the mud to incorporate such a change in the event of a reset.

Well lets not go for broke. If we can't get the reset to go through I'd hate for this numerical change to be thrown out with the bath water. It's a good change - that is pro new player. It doesn't affect us old dogs one bit. Not even a little.

Lathander wrote:This topic has been brought up several times over the years. In the spirit of transparency (insert U.S. president comment here) I will state that the discussion of whether or not to switch from descriptors to numbers will not be decided here. However, comments made here will contribute to the imm discussion on the issue. Currently, the debate as to whether or not to substitute numerical indicators for descriptive ones is part of the Staff discussion on a stat/feat reset and whether or not it is better for the mud to incorporate such a change in the event of a reset.

Thank you Lathander.

Anyone that hasn't weighed in yet I would encourage to do so. While we may not get any final say, our discussions here do contribute to the process as a whole and that is very important for the system.

Either way, I for one know exactly what my numerical values are- statwise, at least. and I'm sure a good number of other people do too. and if AC/saving throws/other stuff was nearly as important to me as my base stats, bet bet I'd figure those out too. But then again, I'm the kind of person who immediately figures out the game mechanics and works out the best plan to utilize them. No one should do this, it's very detrimental to character development and the RP environment. Just because you can easily be the very best priest in the game running low wis/int and max str/con, doesn't mean you should. I'm guilty, of course. But think on this- How many ridiculously strong priests/pastors/ministers/reverends/whatevers do YOU know? How many dumb ones? (No christianity jokes, here, kids.)

But I've gone off topic

I'm in a way against the numbers, instead I suggest more descriptive adjectives- For example,

Stupid
Ignorant
Clueless
Dumb
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Bright
Smart
Intelligent
Brilliant
Genius
...Omniscient (I'm actually really against this adjective)

etc, etc.
you understand me.

I for one like Gwains idea of: Adjective(#) .Code things are generally beyond me so therefore I do not really use the stats to make my characters uber powerful. The only thing I want out of the stats is for my characters to be able to do the basic things they were meant to be able to do. I put the stats into how I rp them. My wizards are not the smartest wizards out there, and my fighters aren't the strongest. Of course they generally get their butts kicked against other PC's but that is fine with me. My characters usually have high charisma, because believe it or not I generally have a hard time playing a habitually cranky, ugly person. Well with the exception of Gesine, she can be a grump. That being said, there are certain things that you just really need to know the numbers for. And I do not think that someone who works to find out the numbers for their characters so that they know where to put additional points to make their characters effective in a certain area is abusing anything. I don't know what numbers are needed for certain things, but I do not need to know the numbers to take what I do know about the game and go right now and make a cleric that would but a twist in the underbreeches of every evil character in game. I personally would like to see the numbers alongside the adjectives. I was here when it was just numbers, and I liked just the numbers, but it sort of confused me because an 'average' number seemed to be a different thing to everyone, and I really didn't know what the numbers meant. And I didn't know what the min/maxes were. I didn't know that different races might start off at different places and such. The adjectives that came in helped me a lot, and I think they may help out a lot of other people who haven't been exposed to this type of environment before. I came into this game never having even heard of tabletop, or D&D. Never having played a console game in my life. I just need a bit more help figuring some of this stuff out than a lot of you. I think I have a handle on it now, but I haven't always. If people are going to abuse this, then they are going to abuse it whether you show them the numbers or not. If they can't figure out the numbers then they have a friend that can do it for them. Many times I'll agree that certain things should be kept away from the game because of the potential for abuse, but in this case I think it is pretty pointless to take the numbers away from those they might help. Taking the numbers away isn't going to keep people from using the number knowledge at all. I personally am a ditz and need all the help I can get. Alot of you may not admit it but I've talked with you and I know there are more ditz's out there just like me who need the help. A combo of adjective/number helps, in my opinion.

I figured out the numbers behind the adjectives long ago, it just a simple process of knowing the min/max, checking your score at creation, then keeping track of how many stat points you put into them from there... but I would still like to see a combination, perhaps numbers in parentheses beside the adjective. Maybe even add a toggle in configuration.

[+STATNUM ] You choose to see your attributes displayed as numbers.
[-statnum] You choose not to see your attributes displayed as numbers.

This way, not only will PC's be able to see a word that describes the number, so they can appropriately portray it in RP, but they will also know the actual value, so they will know if they meet stat reqs for feats and guilding. Other than that it will also allow me to be lazy and not have to figure my base stats when I decide to create a new PC, we all want that.

On a sidenote, go reset!

Really, the only reason to have numbers instead of adjectives is so that new players don't start off with a disadvantage. Older players know the stats to numbers and this gives them an advantage, though not much of one because it doesn't take much to figure this stuff out.

Well, new characters can easily learn all this quickly. Ive been gone for a while and things have gotten fuzzy, but for all you new characters out there, now you can know what the adjectives mean too! Forgive any inaccuracies, it's hard to remember this stuff because I haven't cared about stats in quite a while.

Character creation stats should still start at 10 + racial bonuses (usually their FR campaign guide bonuses) and can only be raised to 16 in creation. If you keep track of your stats and then add + 1 whenever you train a stat, you should be able to easily keep track of your character's numbers.

{EDITED FOR UNACCEPTABLE CONTENT : by Kelemvor}

Adjectives are good because they give a general guideline on how to describe your player. If you were trying to determine your own strength in game, you wouldn't say "Hey, ive got a 16 in strength. You might say Im quite powerful. That is a good thing as it helps to improve the quality of RP and the adjectives are more of an assist in this than anything else.

I appreciate the noble intentions behind assisting new players, but posting the numerical values for various adjective descriptors is not acceptable.

Wait, what? So people who know pnp mechanics can know, but people who don't can not? That's not well thought out.

Wait, what? So people who know pnp mechanics can know, but people who don't can not? That's not well thought out.

It is important to remember that FK is not a pnp game, but an online mud that stresses rp and in character considerations when it comes to defining a character. Posting stat numbers or game mechanics and in-depth ooc without the permissions of the administration will more than likely result in said mechanics being removed from the forums. Even if it is common knowledge to pen and paper enthusiasts, it should not be placed in the forums belonging to the mud or proliferated in mud controlled areas without permission to do so. No one will live or die from not knowing exact numerical statistics. Roleplay is king here, stats are merely things to assist in fun and play.

Kelemvor wrote:I appreciate the noble intentions behind assisting new players, but posting the numerical values for various adjective descriptors is not acceptable.

I was only seeking to help out newer players and try and keep the information open to everyone. Thank you for seeing that. I don't see how that justifies some kind of board strike. But, eh, it's not a big deal.

Roleplay is king here, stats are merely things to assist in fun and play.

Which is precisely the reason it shouldn't matter.

If you give 10 random players an item that clearly is superior mechanically to anything they can get without reason for picking said players, and then use the argument to the playerbase "Well it shouldn't matter to you, it doesn't affect your roleplay", the players should rightfully have the feeling of being rolled.

Not understanding the game as well as someone else because the resource is denied to you when others already have it, isn't equal or fun. If Kelemvor's post was satire, I'd consider it the most influential post in this thread...even without it being satire, it still supports the pro number change, but in a different light.

Not understanding the game as well as someone else because the resource is denied to you when others already have it, isn't equal or fun.

Given this logic, we should post the quest reward items and their values on the forums? I think not. Just because some players have figured out what they believe the numeric values behind the adjectives to be doesn't mean it is fine to post them. Now, our recognition of Glim's player is such that we have no doubt of his positive intent in his post does not then mean it wasn't detrimental or against current policy.

This thread is to discuss and debate the decision to use adjectives rather than numerical values. To post a conception of those numerical values takes the debate too far. There is no point to discussing whether numbers or adjectives should be used if someone simply posts their perception of the adjective to number conversion.