Re: About stat system..

Subject: Re: About stat system..
From: Taneli Niko Tikka (
Date: Wed Nov 24 1999 - 09:18:17 EET

On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Atte Koivula wrote:

> EXCUSE ME but you were the one who was initially responsible for these
> stats anyway, don't yell at me :)

Maybe for the most part yes =) but i always would have wanted a better
system - lets make one now!
> Uh? Sturdiness was your idea also, and you were the only person who
> defended that stat back in Majik3...

I dont remember the actual reanson why i would have done so, but i dont
think i defended the stat itself, i defended the thing because you wanted
to ignore such realistic aspects =) or something.. anyways lets make a
better one now
> 4 stats? Sounds like forced simplicity to me. Remember that the same
> stats must apply to all creatures, be it player races, monsters or
> animals. No exceptions here.

Yes, we can get it to work for monsters and all with ease. the thing is
that this system has already been tested and proven good.
> Dexterity == Manipulation
> Intelligence == Wits
> Strength == Stamina
> Appearance == Charisma

well you got them wrong but anyways =).. 
Manipulation war for mental/social manipulation, not physical.. and
appearance IS NOT the same thing as charisma. charisma is entirely
> Quickness sounds like a good stat to me. Presence?

In ars presence describes the power of personality.. like how imposing or
seemingly strong, sexy, majestic. etc a person is.
> Meep. Mathematical intelligence is totally separated from willpower,
> perception and intuition, in fact it is often quite the opposite. I
> haven't met, and do not know of, a single able philosopher or religious
> fanatic who was mathematically talented.

In this system there would be an advantage called "mathematical ability"
this pretty much overrides your argument. Psyche DOESNOT as i did say
describe skill, but inborn potency to learn an inherit stuff.
> This approach is confusing. The stats are not supposed describe things
> such as "combat capability", remember that we do not place great
> emphasis on combat and by all means, how well a creature can fight
> cannot be described as one of it's most important abilities. To specify,
> a stat is an inherited, natural ability that describes potential instead
> of a concrete application, and what is warfare if not a concrete
> application, a combination of physical and metal talent that is applied
> to a combat situation. Incoherent, highly incoherent, and completely
> inacceptable to our system.

Read the whole descs that i wrote and the text after that. Warfare in the
inborn 'knack' for combat and fast action, fast reflexes etc. that ISNT
direct skill, only a good/bad potency to learn combat skills. Warfare isnt
only knack for combat, but dexterity, reaction speed, agility, balance and
those things. the stat name might be misleading, it would be "reflexes"
> What is the difference between a lion and a tiger that weigh equally in
> that system?

What is the difference between them in real life? the difference is just
the same here.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:26 EET