Formalised Stat System

[aves]

if it helps i vote no for stat system? because i think honest that it makes things complex

[Eric]

Much appreciated for the support aves. Thanks ;D.


Scraver, we don't have a problem with honesty. If there was such a problem, then I'd consider that a valid arguement. There is no such problem however. If you want something like that though, just do what I said earlier. Strengths and weaknesses fields.

[aves]

you must take care of the newbs that arrive here. i think it will complex new peoples minds.

[Treijim]

I won't give it any more consideration for the time being. Thank you all for your input.

[tesunie]

To be honest, I've played each system. And to be more honest, I have found that systems and internet forum play tends to be a BAD thing. It can be good, but it can be bad too.

I've noticed that writing out what your doing, though it can lead to power plays and other things for the inexperienced, is easier in this format.

The only thing I would suggest for states would be maybe an optional grid to record what your character's strengths are.

For example, and it is a very rough example, you might have something like this: (For Akire)
Strength: Poor
Dexterity: Above average
Constitution: Below average
Intelligence: Above average (for his age)
Observation: Excellent
Durability: Poor


This would tell you that basically, my character is quick, agile, but as weak as can be. He can barely even lift a jug of milk! He is smart (and assaults people with questions) and very observant of his surroundings, meaning in game it would be harder to sneak up to him (though I would like to note no impossible... Oh shinny is small hint).

It would help give establishing guidelines, like if someone in an arm wrestling contest went against someone with a higher rated strength, the higher strength would win.
In a fist fight, more than likely the person with the most strength and durability would hold out better, unless they have some skills that affect it, or in Akire's case, stayed on the move and used his flexibility to take opening and RUN FOR THE HILLS!


I can see this each way, and can argue either way. For and against a state system.


Personally, I would suggest, unless your having a lot of power plays, autohits, autododges and similar problems (which I only saw with one person), you don't impliment any state system. It usually ends up blowing up in your face.

[Treijim]

As you may notice, this idea was more or less closed off mid-08, last year. The issue with listing your character's traits as you've suggested is, how is the reader to tell all of those things by a mere glance, or even before meeting them? There are OOC and IC conflicts on a subliminal level. It affects the choices you make for your characters without you realising. I have enough of a personal disagreement against having a History section in the profiles, but it has been kept to determine how much thought people put into their characters.

[tesunie]

I noticed that, but I still had to say what I have learned myself.

I like to read on history and abilities of other people's characters. I have always been able to separate player knowledge and character knowledge... don't ask how. I've been doing in since I was playing D&D....

I do understand the concern that knowing information affects a character's response, but I feel it is good to also have as much information down as you can about the character, so any moderator can see what your doing and state if it matches the profile.

Ah well. As I said, I can see each side of the coin here. I can argue for and against it. They each have pros and cons... as everything does. ;D

[Treijim]

A moderator needs to be able to know about the character, yes, but for the ideal realistic response, other members would not know anything but the superficial appearance of your character at first