Numbered Stats vs Written Descriptors

[Marcus]

So having a few conversations with folks (in threads and PMs), I am beginning to question the best way to describe a character. I know narrative is always best, especially when you get into the personality of a character and their back story. But to get an easy glance at what the character is capable of and such, the stats and skills that most people layout are easy to read and compare. That said, those numbers can be somewhat arbitrary and the rules don't really give any baseline. Even GR's awesome thread on char creation doesn't cover stats because it is not the essence of the character. But as I said, those stats can be helpful in quick glances and comparisons.

Ok, now I'm just blabbing. The questions I pose here are do you like having numbered stats and skills, or do you prefer to write out your character's abilities? Also, pros/cons of either method? If not using numbers, is there a decent way to compare characters or get the "at a glance" summary numbers provide?

A secondary question would be: will there be guidelines on this in the new TL? I suspect the answer is no, but thought I'd ask.

 

[Fen Vel]

They would be useful if there were rules and examples of what numbers mean, as it is, it is meaningless. I always assume that 5/10 is an average human, and that 10/10 is onto a god. Each step towards 10 is more and more advanced in my eyes. Then that also makes many characters vastly over powered by that way of measuring.

I like reading them rather than just looking at numbers but there is no reason you can't have both. If you are going to fight the character, to really do want to know as much detail about what they are capable of, not just a number at a glance.

 

[Green Ranger]

Honestly, in freeform, stats are kind of pointless tbh. Regardless of the format, nine times out of ten they're either irrelevant or ignored in practical use.

Honestly, if they're causing you problems, just nix them altogether imho.

 

[Dmitri]

Written out descriptions I personally believe are better. It allows you to more accurately detail and describe your character's attributes and skills. "Charisma: 6." The heck does that even mean? One person's 6 could be the equivalent of another person's 5 or 7.

 

[Green Ranger]

My 6 is better than Weiss' 6. Because Weiss just kinda sucks ok

 

[Dmitri]

My 6 is better than Weiss' 6. Because Weiss just kinda sucks ok

Tis is true. The stars say so.

 

[Korvo]

I often used both, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'd choose descriptions. I actually like the wiki-route, referencing applications of an individual's abilities to describe their aptitude through their character history (or through thread experiences).

 

[Marcus]

This is good input, people. And since I'm always looking forward, someone else better watch my 6.

I often used both, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'd choose descriptions. I actually like the wiki-route, referencing applications of an individual's abilities to describe their aptitude through their character history (or through thread experiences).

Do you have an example of the wiki-route? I'd like to explore that.

 

[Tsunami]

I sometimes feel its easy to get carried away with a description. I find myself reading it and thinking to myself... is that really how strong they are? Then I add, and add, and add till finally I'm left with something kind of far fetched, a Mary sue of sorts.

 

[Korvo]

Do you have an example of the wiki-route? I'd like to explore that.

You've never seen a Wookieepedia character page, bro? You list a person's skills or abilities via citation of their accomplishments. Here's a dummy example of say, a Force user;

Jedi Knight possessed a unique aptitude in the Force, even before his formal training in the Jedi Order. As a youth, Jedi Knight displayed the clairvoyant capacity of innately using the Force to ascertain truth or deceit in a person's words or actions, suggesting a natural talent for Force Empathy. [REFERENCE TO CHARACTER HISTORY] In part due to Jedi Knight's limited combative prowess, after his Jedi training began, under the guidance of Random Jedi Master, Jedi Knight was later able to refine his Force abilities much further. During the Desarvan Riots [REFERENCE TO THREAD MISSION] on Random Planet, Jedi Knight revealed more refined telepathic abilities when he used the Force to pacify two rioters, employing a mental Jedi Mind Trick to lull the aggressors to sleep. [REFERENCE TO THREAD POST] At a later period, Jedi Knight displayed even stronger telepathic feats during the Onderonian Crisis [REFERENCE TO THREAD MISSION], when he managed to reach out to over a dozen mind to deaden the senses of a cadre of the rebel forces, placing them in a virtually catatonic state [REFERENCE TO THREAD POST].

That's just an example of how I'd do it, but it would rely on events in your own character's history, and (more importantly imo), what your character does in the course of RPing

 

[Aberforth]

The way I see it, numbered stats should not be used to compare a character to another, but rather to compare one attribute of a character (ex : strength) to another its attributes (ex : charisma)... Most people make overpowered characters anyway...

Numbered stats, when people actually stick to it, can help to explain how a character will behave in and out of combat. Example, a character whose constitution is better than its dexterity should be expected to block an attack instead of dodging it.

 

[The Derp of Hooves]

Personally I like written stats as opposed to numbered. The written stat gives a more conclusive idea of what a character can out can't do. The numbered just feels like more of a generalization with no real concrete idea of what one can do.

 

[Wit]

The way I see it, numbered stats should not be used to compare a character to another, but rather to compare one attribute of a character (ex : strength) to another its attributes (ex : charisma)... Most people make overpowered characters anyway...

Numbered stats, when people actually stick to it, can help to explain how a character will behave in and out of combat. Example, a character whose constitution is better than its dexterity should be expected to block an attack instead of dodging it.

That's gonna cause a lot of confusion as well, because no one really uses them like that. What if your character is completely crippled and would have a dexterity of 0, every other stat could be a potential 10 because they are that much better than his dexterity. If you do want to use stats then using the common convention of comparing stats against a peak performance character of that species is the way to go. So a human 10 in strength will still be less than a Wookiee 10, but at least someone else looking at those stats will know that the 10 in strength means that your character is strong. Whereas your way of doing it would have someone mention a 10 strength even if compared to a stronger human they might be much, much less. Hope that makes sense, I'm sleepy and rambling. :P

 

[Marcus]

If we use numbers, a 10 should be a 10 (edit: had 20 here first lol) no matter the species. And thus the problem mentioned above - the ambiguity of the numbers makes them mostly useless imho. I've changed my chars over to written already.

 

[Silverface]

If we had a built in dice rolling application, then numbered stats would mean something, since they're a mechanic designed around number generation.

Otherwise, brush up your writing skills yo.

 

[Wit]

If we had a built in dice rolling application, then numbered stats would mean something, since they're a mechanic designed around number generation.

Otherwise, brush up your writing skills yo.

Aha, but I have no writing skills. So there is nothing to brush. Got you there, didn't I?

 

[Silverface]

Aha, but I have no writing skills. So there is nothing to brush. Got you there, didn't I?

This is where the beatin' stick comes out. And by beatin' stick, I mean British education systems on the subject of written English. Which basically means nothing but Shakespear for six years.

Good luck!

 

[Wit]

This is where the beatin' stick comes out. And by beatin' stick, I mean British education systems on the subject of written English. Which basically means nothing but Shakespear for six years.

Good luck!

Lol, funny thing is I actually grew up on Shakespear, Shakespear and hookers that is. :p

 

[Saul Perth]

What else is there in life?

 

[Mr.BossMan]

Lol, funny thing is I actually grew up on Shakespear, Shakespear and hookers that is. :p

Sounds like a decent upbringing.