Abstract/Descriptive stats        Posted by:  J. R.
10/20/99    06:10 PM

Hello,
I have been turning this idea around in my head for a few monthes now, and I'd like to hear y'all's opinion on it.

Say you and your group are gonna start a campaign. The system you are using is known to all, tho not necessarily memorized. You all know this is a traditional styled game, using numbers for stats and abilities, needing a target number for certain results, etc etc.
However, when you go to make characters, the GM tells you this: s/he and you are both going to have copies of your characters. The GM's will have all the specific numbers, but the players' will only have descriptive words. Or will have numbers, but ones that generalize the true numbers. For a hypothetical example, say for AD&D, stats will be described as 1, 2, 3, or 4 (spanning 3-18 in groups of 4); or 'below average', 'average', 'above average', and 'extremely above average.'

I've only asked one friend recently, and he liked the idea. Said it was more realistic. It really peaked his interest.

So what are your feelings on this? How would you like playing under this? How adversly do you think this would effect character creation?

J.
 
 

Untitled        Posted by:  K. G. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/20/99    06:15 PM

How would you go about creating the character, then? would your GM roll your stats for you? How would that work in a character generation like Vampire, where you have certain amounts of Dots? I think the concept sounds interesting... I'm not sure if I'd play it though. I love my stats....

RE: K.|Abstract stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Untitled by K. G.
10/21/99    07:32 PM

Okay, I tried to be very generic in phrasing my question because I didn't want to get any system-biases in the responses. But, I didn't apparently do a perfect job in this because I CAN NOT STAND WW, so consequently I had no idea how to phrase around that system. Oops. Okay, well, I won't be using a WW system, so there are no Dots, thought that would definately make my idea rather a mute point, wouldn't it? And on second thought, I see another weakness with how I phrased my question. The system I will be using does not just simply add up dice rolls to get stats, it's more complicated than that. So the players would not be able to just keep track of their rolls and figure out there stats. I realize that that method is not usual, and I was not specific on that point.
The players would still roll for their stats. I would write down on my character sheets as they are exact. Then I would tell the players how their stats turned out, using numbers or adjectives, whatever. Any special abilities the character has the players would know specifically, however if there is a stat for that ability, again, they would only know relative levels.

Thanks for the reply, K.!

Untitled        Posted by:  U. S. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/20/99    08:31 PM

>Abstract\Descriptive stats

I like the abstract stats better as well. In my game I collected traditional stats from the players but then just noted their strengths and weaknesses. I don't plan on rolling very much, just determining what would be the likely actions based on the specific characters traits. Tell me how it works.
 

 
RE: U.|Abstract Stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Untitled by U. S.
10/21/99    07:40 PM

The game I'd be doing would still be as roll/role intensive as the characters make it, though I would try to guide them to a 40/60-roll/role balance. I'd like to be able to tell you how this works; got a couple years to wait? I can't do it now, and most likely I will be too busy establishing myself in my profession the next few years to get really involved with this, as much as I want to. But, I'll try!

Thanks for the response, U. Btw, interesting palandrome; does it mean anything specific?

Untitled        Posted by:  C. B. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/21/99    12:26 AM
 
I have to say that I don't like this at all... it basically amounts to the GM creating all the characters. otherwise, everyone would know their numbers anyway so what's the point. And you can't tell anyone what their ability bonuses are because that gives away the numbers. personally, I don't see that as an effective way to run things.

$.02,
C.

RE: C.|Abstract Stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Untitled by C. B.
10/21/99    07:51 pm

I wouldn't be creating the characters. As I addressed in response to K.'s the system is not simple dice-total=stats, so just because they saw the role doesn't mean they know the end result. Remember, I said that the players are familiar with the system, but don't have it memorized. They know that a 78 is better than a 67 for their stat creation, but they don't know if it's better _enuf_. And, this system has no stat bonuses; it is a percentile-based system. They will always be rolling 2d10, but they don't know where their exact line of success/failure exists.

Thanks for the response, C.

Untitled        Posted by:  C. W. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/21/99    05:11 AM
 
I played in a game where the game master used the "below/above/and average" type of house rule. It worked rather well and we all enjoyed it.
Also any rolls that might fail and not be obvious to the character ... A roll to hit is obvious as to if it hits or not, a find traps roll isn't ... were rolled in secret by the game master. That rule may seem obvious, but I have played in games where the player made all rolls for his character.
 

RE: C.|Abstract Stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Untitled by C. W.
10/21/99    05:11 AM

Hmm, I've never been one for the 'secret gm' stuff. I do all my stuff right up front, except for campaign info and npc character sheets. That's not entirely true, a lot of my dice rolls are behind a screen, but they don't need to be. Honestly, though, I may adopt the secret rolls for pc stuff that they shouldn't obviously know the results of, like you were saying. Nice thing is, since I am working with a percentile system, I don't even have to make their roll for them (some players don't like having others make their rolls for them), I can just make a roll of my own and + or - it from their roll, and they still have the same chance for success.

Thanks for the response, C.

Untitled        Posted by:  T. S. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/21/99    08:26 AM
 
I think that the most important thing about a character is not necessarily the stats, but how you roleplay them. It is likely that your DM is wanting you to think less about stats and more about roleplay, but I really don't know. It is just a game afterall. Why not give it a try? If you don't like it, then you can find another game, etc. As far as how much it will affect character creation, that is up to the DM. I can't answer that since I don't know what particular system you are referring to and I'm not sure if I could even if I did know. Just have fun.

T.

RE: T.|Abstract Stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Untitled by T. S.
10/21/99    08:04 PM

Hello again, T.
Actually, I was talking about me running the game. The game is not being run at all, nor will it probably be in the immediate future, I just don't have the time. But, I can hope...
You are absolutely correct, IMHO: the stats aren't nearly as important as the character being played. The only times I feel the stats become important is when you either can't be the professional/class of character that the character idea required because of a lack of stats, or when the character isn't going to live long cause they suck that much.
I am trying to refrain from specifiying the system right now, to avoid any system biases, which does impede the character creation aspect of my topic, I admit. After I get some idea of how people feel (maybe a couple more responses), I'll get much more specific.

Thanks for the response, T.

Abstract/Descriptive stats        Posted by:  M. K. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/21/99    04:53 PM

It almost sounds like Amber...

If you're playing with Min/Max power gamers, who view roleplaying as a way to wheedle an advantage from the game master, I think the system is a lost cause. These types of gamers will eventually figure out how to manipulate their stats/ability scores to their best advantage. What you're trying to achieve will be lost in rather short order.

If you're gaming with players who know how to roleplay beyond the numbers on their character sheets, it might be fun. That feeling of uncertainty in one's abilities might add a interesting element to the game. Especially for contested rolls - e.g., you're an above average swordsman but just how good is the guy you have to beat to get over the bridge?

I'm a firm believer that a good GM and good roleplaying players make the game system almost secondary.
 

RE: M.|Abstract Stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats by M. K.
10/21/99    08:13 PM

Yeah, I've heard Amber is completely descriptive. The difference here being that the numbers are still there and matter, determining the outcomes, along with the dice. They just don't know the specifics. :)  I would never play with power gamers. I don't allow _roll_players to be in the same group as I, if I can help it any. All of the people playing with me would be good gamers that I've known for quite a while.  And I agree with you, the GM and players make the game. I think the only important things about the system are 1)the genre, and 2)philosophies on unreal aspects. (eg: 'No, magic wouldn't work that way, it'd be this other way.')

Thanks for the response, M.

Untitled        Posted by:  C. G. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/22/99    01:43 PM

I think it's a good idea and I'd like to try it, but I think it'd be more confusing...especially for the Gm.

RE: C.|Abstract Stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Untitled by C. G.
10/22/99    09:26 PM

Well, I'm glad you think so. And you'd be more than welcome to try it; if you felt like driving that far! :) (Only Missouri).
Yes, the gm would definately have to be ordered and on his toes. But, I am familiar with this, being a Rolemaster player. :)

Thanks for your response C.

Untitled        Posted by:  [name withheld] in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/22/99    04:17 PM

I acctually have tried this once on a convention, it was ok, but for some it´s really difficult to accept, so I guess it depends much on who you play with.
M.

RE: M.|Abstract Stats        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Untitled by [name withheld]
10/22/99    09:20 PM

That's good, now I have the opinion of a few people that have actually tried this. And it does seem to depend on the person (when approaching this from a general, non-system-specific way). Course, the specific system is just as important, really.

Thanks for the response M.

Thanx & More info        Posted by:  J. R. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/22/99    10:30 PM

Thanks a lot for all the responses I've gotten. And please, don't refrain from replying more!
For the most part, it seems people think it's an okay idea. Thankfully, many of you could see problems/hitches to be planned around for the gm. Mostly, people had problems with being players under this, including one of my potential players; for him, doing this goes to close to RL(tm) and far away from just being a game.

Now I'll be more specific. The game I was thinking about running this way was Marvel, the older version, not the card-based one. That's why players could role but still not know their stats. I would have kept individual character sheets for each of my PCs, and I would have made a quickie reference sheet that had them all, plus room to add NPCs. That way, they could tell me what they wanted to do, I figured column shifts in my head (no need to explain myself to players), and looked at the appropriate column while the player rolled the dice. I hear the roll, they get the result. And I would have given all the players sheets that had the attacks and stuff results on them, and an estimation of green-yellow-red success numbers for each the groupings of stats.
In the end, however, I have decided NOT to do this. I think it is a really neat idea, myself, and it is met with overall pleasantness, but.... First, I would have one player unhappy with it, and it's not like I am unflexible about this point. Two, it doesn't fit well with Marvel. From low to hi, Marvel's stats cover a lot more variation than in other games. Say Rifts for instance, it is based off a 3d6 stat system; from 3 to 18 PS (physical strength) you can lift 60 to 320 lbs. That almost covers Marvel's Feeble to Good, and we still have 4 more feasible ranks for starting characters. Basically, for a lot of the considerations players would be making, Marvel already has them grouped as general as you can get them.
One other problem I was wondering about before I decided I wouldn't be doing this, is how would you handle Karma? You can use karma to affect your dice rolls, but, you don't know exactly what number you need to roll...
I think this abstract stat idea is a good one, but it has to be matched with appropriate players/gm and system.

Thanks to all!

Going Backwards?        Posted by:  N. M. in response to Thanx & More info
11/16/99    11:06 PM

Hi Justin, I think the system could work, but again depends on what teh people wanted.  esp with Marvel you could work with concept that your character was mortal at one time, and devoped her/his abilities over time. Do a pvt session which each player to mold the background and shape teh stats. OH I want to be like batman, or I want to be Jubilee. ech. And as they played, pull the ratings out of your magic hat. Be fair as the story connects with the possiblity.  ie:  Ok you want a carboard exo skeleton? That's not really Amazing Protection. Oh you want Dr Strange to enchant it, and you met him how?

Maybe this works, maybe it has to be ironed out

Karma, you could give them a happy sticker? Or say you have some, and let them add it to their rolls, but give them vague levels. You are feeling down today. ( No Karma Bad karma,) or you feel great!  They then can spend it normally but not really know what they have left?

Just some thoughts
 

Descriptive stats        Posted by:  S. M. in response to Abstract/Descriptive stats
10/27/99    05:52 PM

Hmmm....

I have a couple of reactions to it -- rather mixed.

As a GM, I like the idea. I think it would be useful for incorporating more description and roleplaying into a scenario. I also like it because we have at least one player in our group who we all think 'fudges' his roles too often, and this would help. It puts a lot more pressure on the GM, though, doesn't it?

As a gamer, I think it wouldn't work in our group. We take our gaming very seriously (g) and part of the fun is working with points and stats, etc. We tend to 'power-game' a bit at times, and this would be frustrating for that.

It might be well suited for some games and not for others. It's definitely an interesting idea!
 

Back to previous thread
Forward to next thread
Back to Index